As has been noted, Holloway argues that a proper appreciation of how sex should be used needs to bear in mind the fact that our present experience of it is coloured
by concupiscence.
Not exact matches
Concupiscence — the inclination to sin — isn't washed away
by Baptism any more than are other physical frailties.
Consequently we know nothing except that man was created
by God as God's personal partner in a sacred history of salvation and perdition; that
concupiscence and death do not belong to man as God wills him to be, but to man as a sinner; that the first man was also the first to incur guilt before God and his guilt as a factor of man's existence historically brought about
by man, belongs intrinsically to the situation in which the whole subsequent history of humanity unfolds.
It was not that to marry stopped the «burning» of lust or
concupiscence, but that once married one could yield unconcernedly to this «burning», whose satisfaction is legitimised
by marrying.
There arose a new (and perhaps not sufficiently qualified) emphasis on the dignity of the physical sexual relationship in marriage - but without any attempt to examine the problems posed
by the continuing presence of carnal
concupiscence.
As is evident, the Catechism gives no support to the idea that
concupiscence is in some way «remedied» - in the sense of being eliminated or reduced to non-importance -
by the simple fact of getting married; just the contrary.
To deny the order of nature is an utter destruction, greater than the damage of coarseness and
concupiscence caused
by sin.
The bulk of West's response, which does not mention Schindler
by name, speaks to his main criticism: that West underestimates the real power of
concupiscence.