"[Both Genesis and the Sermon on the Mount seem] to single out the man as the one who lusts. But both men and women are subject to lust. … [One] can participate by presenting [oneself] as an object and attempting to arouse lust."
"…[H]uman sexuality was not created only for procreation. The body, masculine and feminine, has a nuptial meaning: it is capable of expressing the selfless love by which a person becomes a gift. By becoming a gift, the human person fulfills the deepest meaning of his existence.
"The three forms of lust — of the flesh, of the eyes, and the pride of life — all limit and distort the original, nuptial meaning of the body. This distortion takes place in the heart. Outwardly, the body … is still created for communion. But … in the experience of the heart, sexuality no longer seems to aim at communion. The body … has instead become only an object of lust.
"In the state of original innocence, the body was a perfect expression of the spirit. Now, …
"[t]he heart has become a battlefield between love and lust. As lust gains ground, it destroys our ability to experience the nuptial meaning of the body. …
"The human person is the only physical creature created for communion with God. For this reason, the person should never be reduced to an object. At the same time, a person can only discover his true self by making a sincere gift of himself to another. Lust attacks this free, sincere giving. It reduces the person to an 'object for the other,' instead of being 'united with the other' in love.
"The attacks of lust aren't always obvious. Sometimes, under the cover of strong emotions, lust disguises itself as 'love' — still, it remains selfish at the core. Does this mean we should always distrust the heart? No! But we must keep watch over it."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an interesting and thought-provoking post.
Human sexuality was created for procreation. That is its essential purpose. But there is more to human procreation than merely reproduction. Man is not a single-celled amoeba, reproducing autonomously without the need to participate with any other organism. Every human being, in fact, is a living, immortal link between two other human beings. Each and every one of us, in other words, is a testament to the act of marital love.
The problem with saying that human sexuality was not created "only" for procreation is that it seems almost to suggest that there even can be a purpose for sexuality apart from procreation. In order for this to be true one would have to redefine sexuality in some sort of Freudian way, whereby other forms of love apart from marital love, such as a parent’s love for his child or a sibling’s love for his brother, can still be thought as “sexual”.
I also have a problem here with the idea that lust distorts "the heart". The heart itself is merely the seat of one’s emotions. Sin, on the other hand, takes place in the mind – unless, that is, we're talking about purely material sin, which of course carries no spiritual culpability with it. One could, after all, have “lustful” dreams, for example, without actually committing any sin. But even then the distortion would have taken place somewhere in one’s subconscious, not in the heart. The heart itself is always pure. It is in the soul, quite separately, that the Devil fights his battles.
Does this mean we should trust the heart? Surely not, for the heart must always be ruled by reason. But the heart always yearns for goodness. It is man’s reason, which was made to apprehend Truth, which must discern whether what a man’s heart is set on is truly Good or not.
Saying that sexuality was not created only for procreation does not necessarily mean that there can be purposes apart from procreation. As I understand it, John Paul is saying that there are purposes in addition to procreation, notably expression of marital love. But this does not imply that sexual activity which excludes procreation is justified.
Using "heart" in the way the Pope does here, is, of course, a figure of speech. While sin is a matter of volition, the emotions can tempt us. And I think the word "lust" is ambiguous. It can refer to feelings, which are not per se sinful, and it can refer to sinful acts of the will.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Post a Comment