Lust In Marriage

[thessalonian]

I was reading the sad story about the woman who killed her husband who was a pastor in the Church of Christ yesterday. It finally came out what was going on at least according to her. Time will tell if her story holds up. I bring this up not to point the finger at protestantism (though they have certainly wasted no time making hay out of our scandals, I find it interesting that no catholic has brought up the 20-20 piece (oops just did) on child molestation among protestant clergy) but because it seems like for so long marriage has been license for lust. Yet John Paul II put a lot of emphasis on lust never being okay. Not even in marriage. IT IS ALWAY WRONG! I've heard many protestant pastors say on the radio that lust is okay in marriage. Some have even said that without lust there would not be children. But I think that is a false veiw of the Bible. God said "be fruitful and multiply" BEFORE the fall.

Anyway that is just to start the discussion. Evidently there were some things the guy was doing that noone would approve up, i.e. pornography. He was forcing his wife to do things she was not comfortable with either. Sounds like behind the scenes this well respected pastor had some issues that the teaching of his religion, which said lust is okay in marriage, was not helping him to deal with and overcome.

Discuss.

[Era Might]

Lust is by definition a disorder of the sexual appetite. I think by "lust" some people take it to mean sexual attraction, but it is a disorder of sexual attraction, not legitimate attraction.

[thessalonian]

By the way here is the article about the pastor's wife. Pretty sad.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/winkler.testimony/index.html?eref=rss_topstories"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/winkler....=rss_topstories[/url]

[Sojourner]

I would agree that many people view marriage as a safe place in which to lust. I am most familiar with this attitude in Protestant circles but I am sure it happens in Catholic marriages as well.

People defend it by pointing to 1 Cor. 7:9: "but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire." Taken alone, this verse does seem to advocate marriage as being a place wherein you can lust all you want -- the ring makes it OK.

Couple that with Jesus' statement that if you even look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery with her in your heart. How can you commit adultery with the person you're married to?

The key here is to go beyond the proof verses and understand the context of these statements in a fuller understanding of what marriage is and what love is, and how marriage and married love is meant to model God's love for us, and so lust within a marriage is never appropriate. It requires a re-tooling of the understanding of marriage as a whole in order to see how lust within marriage is not right.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250233' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:59 PM']By the way here is the article about the pastor's wife. Pretty sad.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/winkler.testimony/index.html?eref=rss_topstories"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/winkler....=rss_topstories[/url][/quote]
That is really sad ... and the saddest thing is that many people would see his behavior toward her with regard to sexuality as being OK because marriage makes it all OK.



The Protestant conception of marriage suffers greatly by not seeing marriage as a sacrament. Of course, Protestants aren't the only ones who deal with this type of problem in marriage, but still.

[Budge]

I read a news article about that case...

77 shotgun pellets is how many holes this guy had in him and he was shot in the back.

That makes me really wonder...and the lady should have just left, that is what women's shelters are for, yes I know that can be difficult but I am disturbed that the guy was shot in the back.

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html[/url]

This case IS a TRAGEDY...all around, but change of topic here....

Lust in marriage? Honestly what is that about? Its "wrong" to be attracted to your spouse?
Man and wife are all supposed to live like roommates and come together when its time to procreate only and the women are to lay back and "think of England" as Queen Victoria told one daughter?

Honestly I remember writing that even sex in marriage is looked down on by the Catholic Church and when I see nonsense like that, it backs me up.

You all must be young, and single to write this crazy stuff about marriage. Im happily married and think sheesh what are these people saying?

I guess Im one of those wild bad hellbound... Protestants whose actually attracted to her husband!


Quote:Heb 13:4
[b]
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
[/b]


:1Co 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.




But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Edited April 20, 2007 by Budge

[Sojourner]

so you would say that lust = attraction?

Can we not have erotic attraction without lust?

[Azriel]

Bingo Terra.

[Era Might]

"And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." --Genesis 2:25

Pope John Paul II expounds on this at length in his theology of the body. Physical attraction is disordered after the fall. Adam and Eve saw eachother perfectly as persons, not as bodies, but as a unity of body and soul. After the fall we are ashamed when we are naked because we are conscious of our disorder, we see the body apart from the person, and seek to gratify the flesh rather than appreciate the person behind the flesh. The purpose of married love is to be a gift to the other, in body and soul. You cannot separate either, which is what pornography does.

[quote]A comparative analysis of Genesis 2:25 and Genesis 3 leads necessarily to the conclusion that it is not a question here of passing from "not knowing" to "knowing." Rather, it involves a radical change of the meaning of the original nakedness of the woman before the man and of the man before the woman. It emerges from their conscience, as a fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (Gn 3:11).[/quote]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1250388' date='Apr 20 2007, 03:10 PM']"And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." --Genesis 2:25

Pope John Paul II expounds on this at length in his theology of the body. Physical attraction is disordered after the fall. Adam and Eve saw eachother perfectly as persons, not as bodies, but as a unity of body and soul. After the fall we are ashamed when we are naked because we are conscious of our disorder, we see the body apart from the person, and seek to gratify the flesh rather than appreciate the person behind the flesh. The purpose of married love is to be a gift to one another, in body and soul. You cannot separate either from the other, which is what pornography does.[/quote]

[thessalonian]

Budge,

I am married with 8 kids. Sex is not wrong and never had been in the Catholic Church. I think Era's posting of Gen 2:25 exposes the darkness of your beliefs on this matter.

I am attracked to a flower in the garden. That is not lust. Lust means that I must use that flower for only my own pleasure without consideration for the beauty of the flower. Lust in marriage makes the wife the object of fullfilling the man's pleasure. The greater pleasure in marriage is making the object of my pleasure to please my wife when we make love. This ends up giving me greater satisfcation. Something you will not likely ever experience or understand quite clearly because of your hard heart in this matter. In a lust filled marriage the two are not one but two seeking their own individual pleasure.

Budge if you would go through Christopher West's explanation of JP II's theology of the body ONCE you would know the difference between love and lust. But you won't.

Edited April 20, 2007 by thessalonian

[kateri05]

i am wildly in love with my husband of 2.5 years and think he's darn sexy : HOWEVER, that does not mean that i lust after him.

lust = sexual desire VOID OF GOD's LOVE. it means loooking upon another human being as an object for your own personal fulfillment. that is not how God looks at us, nor how we are to use our bodies to express God's love.

a great resource besides TOTB on this is The Four Loves by CS Lewis. Eros, erotic desire, is a form of love, and indeed is the 2nd highest in the hierarchy of love (under caritas).

[Sojourner]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1250403' date='Apr 20 2007, 03:25 PM']i am wildly in love with my husband of 2.5 years and think he's darn sexy : HOWEVER, that does not mean that i lust after him.

lust = sexual desire VOID OF GOD's LOVE. it means loooking upon another human being as an object for your own personal fulfillment. that is not how God looks at us, nor how we are to use our bodies to express God's love.

a great resource besides TOTB on this is The Four Loves by CS Lewis. Eros, erotic desire, is a form of love, and indeed is the 2nd highest in the hierarchy of love (under caritas).[/quote]
exactly! Spot on.

And great recommendation with C.S. Lewis and with the TOTB. Can't go wrong with either one.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1250218' date='Apr 20 2007, 02:43 PM']Yet John Paul II put a lot of emphasis on lust never being okay. Not even in marriage. IT IS ALWAY WRONG! I've heard many protestant pastors say on the radio that lust is okay in marriage. Some have even said that without lust there would not be children.[/quote]About a month ago, I had my radio station tuned to the local "Christian talk/music" station, and a pastor was hosting a call-in show. In a response to a caller (something about lusting with eyes, I think), the pastor recalled a time when he was at some topless beaches in Europe with his wife. In order to keep his lust "out of the shadows," he explained how he would check out the girls, and then discuss their looks (i.e. body parts) with his wife. Basically, lusting and gawking at girls was OK, as long as it was a measured lust.

In my mind, he was clearly giving consent of the will, more than the involuntary head-turning that most guys suffer from.

For me, I just found it a bit creepy to be listening to an old pastor talking about how he checks out topless girls...on "Christian" radio. Weird...

[thessalonian]

In Christopher West's video series he speaks about two bishops walking along the street. Along the way there is a woman of ill repute improperly dressed. The one bishop looks away but the other continues to look at her. The one who looked away says "bishop you must look away from such things". The other bishop says "I see there a daughter of God, abused by men and it saddens me." or something to that effect. That is redeemed rather than repressed sexuality. The first is not wrong but the second is what Christ's death on the cross truly was undergone to bring about. Too bad the pastor you heard will never get to that point or know the difference in this life. Hopefully it won't keep him out of the next.