Sentences with phrase «concupiscence in»

Most notable is his treatment of concupiscence in which he points out that the difficulty in assessing West's position is that theperceived problem is not one of definitions but of emphasis.

In practice, the idea that marriage was the remedium concupiscentiae seemed to suggest to many - ordinary people and pastors - that concupiscence in marriage could be given way to quite freely.

In doing so, he offers a way forward for the 2009 debate between David Schindler and Christopher West over the place of concupiscence in Pope John Paul IIs Theology of the Body [2], as described in our May 2010 issue.

The one is concupiscence in all its manifestations.

The entire theology of sexuality in the Church, from the Fathers of the East to Augustine and Aquinas in the West and down to our own time, has taken account ofthe consequences of concupiscence in the psyche of human beings.

Not exact matches

We suffer from what used to be called concupiscence or «disordered desire», an imbalance in all our desires, not least the experience of the erotic.

It is this which would give what theology has called «immunity from concupiscence» in the state of original holiness and justice.

But the Fall also involved the loss of those gifts which our rst parents enjoyed in paradise, which resulted in, among other things, concupiscence, su ering and death.

Even now, Holloway argues, growth in holiness and the «sedating» of sexual concupiscence can lead a couple to be able only to seek thesexual act when they are seeking it in its full meaning.

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.

Holloway follows the traditional notion of the «remedy for concupiscence», saying that it is permitted to seek sex «for the tempering of disordered natural desire», [7] «in remedium concupiscentiae», as long as this is done in such a way as not to thwart the primary end of the act.

Please don't feel sorry for me; the balance between concupiscence and holiness is carefully but eloquently held in the Western theological tradition, and as an inheritor of that tradition, I'm really rather joyful — Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me!

Specifically, the second of the four «elucidations» in the Annex addresses the relationship between grace and merit vis - à - vis Lutheran and Catholic understandings of «concupiscence»:

For Theodore, on the contrary, Adam was created mortal, death was not a punishment for sin but natural, and concupiscence already lived in Adam as in a mortal being.

I assayed many ways to help to quiet my conscience, but it would not be; for the concupiscence and lust of my flesh did always return, so that I could not rest, but was continually vexed with these thoughts: This or that sin thou hast committed: thou art infected with envy, with impatiency, and such other sins: therefore thou art entered into this holy order in vain, and all thy good works are unprofitable.

However powerful are the effects of Adam's fall in intensifying the inclination for concupiscence and sinning, the free will and the moral ability to make decisions between good and evil are not impaired.

He concluded that what we would term concupiscence was in fact a manifestation of the totally sinful condition which burdens humanity: «carnal, sold under sin.»

Such an understanding of sexual union inexorably fosters an increase in its use, especially given the reality of concupiscence.

We all realise that it is not the aspect of traditional Catholic teaching on marriage which is going to inspire and attract in our secular age, but there is no mention of the «remedy for concupiscence» angle or much on Original Sin, which I would have thought merited more than a passing nod.

The Lutheran understanding of the Christian as «at the same time righteous and sinner» is set forth, as is the Catholic view that «all that is sin «in the proper sense»» is taken away in baptism, though «an inclination (concupiscence)» toward sin remains.

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.

This is implied above all in the doctrines of original sin and concupiscence.

For this reason our deliberation must constantly glance over into the field of ethics, while in order to be able to acquire significance it must grasp the problem with aesthetic intensity and concupiscence.

Lust or carnal concupiscence is the disordered element that in our present state tends to accompany marital intercourse, threatening love with self - centered possessiveness.

It seems to me that the moral evaluation of concupiscence remained stuck in this standpoint: the indulgence of sexual concupiscence, being always seriously sinful outside marriage, has only one proper and licit place where it can be given free rein, and that is marriage.

As much as concupiscence darkens the horizon of the inward vision and deprives the heart of the clarity of desires and aspirations, so much does «life according to the Spirit» (that is, the grace of the sacrament of marriage) permit man and woman to find again the true liberty of the gift, united to the awareness of the spousal meaning of the body in its masculinity and femininity» (TB,348 - 349).

Paul Tillich's description of the forms of sin varies somewhat from Niebuhr's.19 Tillich reviews the three major descriptions of sin in the theological tradition: Sin as unbelief, as hubris, and as concupiscence.

On the basis of such a hope the concupiscence of the flesh as thesource of the tendency toward an egoistic gratification is dominated»... [Spouses] «are also in their turn called, through the sacrament, to a life according to the Spirit.

Carnal concupiscence on the other hand, also present in marriage, tends in its self - centered forcefulness to disturb the loving relationship which should exist between husband and wife, and so can easily prevent marital sexuality from being completely at the service of love.

Within this mystery of redemption, as the Pope sees it, the sacramental graces of marriage, sustaining conjugal chastity, have a special effect in achieving the redemption of the body through the overcoming of concupiscence.

The Pope posed the question: «Does the Apostle perhaps look upon marriage exclusively from the viewpoint of a remedy for concupiscence, as used to be said in traditional theological language?

This dense passage teaches in summary that through the specific grace of matrimony, spouses can purify the conjugal act of the grasping and self - centered spirit inherent in concupiscence, and so recapture the truly donative experience and pleasure of marital intercourse.

«In itself, concupiscence is not capable of promotingunion as the communion of persons.

Sexual desire is part of conjugal love; concupiscence, though present also in marriage, is not.

How then, within a truly Christian understanding of marriage as a call of love and as a vocation to sanctity, should married persons treat the presence of concupiscence - that self - absorbed element present in their intimate union?

In other words, marriage legitimises sexual concupiscence or lust.

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.

Sin as concupiscence is the turning of the self in upon itself, the cor incorvatus in se.

This, in the truest sense, is what is implied in the remedying of concupiscence.

Where the love of concupiscence dominates, the lover has not really come out of himself or overcome self - centredness, and so gives himself at most only in part: «in the love of concupiscence, the lover, in wanting the good he desires, properly speaking loves himself» (Aquinas, l - ll, q. 27, a. 3).

It is no exaggeration to say that, rather than values, they are «anti-values»; concretely, the three spirits of a godless world listed in the Bible: the concupiscence of the eyes, the concupiscence of the flesh, and the pride of life (cf 1 Jn 2:16).

If, in consequence, many married couples do not understand or recognise the dangers of concupiscence, and so do not endeavour to contain or purify it, it can dominate their relationship, undermining mutual respect and their very capacity to see marriage essentially as giving and not just as possessing, much less as simply enjoying, appropriating and exploiting.

Threats to this freedom of the gift ofself are found in the dominance of selfishness (egoism), concupiscence and undue appropriation of the other for one's own purposes.

«Understanding [Waldstein's fine summary of teaching on concupiscence] in an appropriately Catholic way depends entirely on qualifying properly the sense in which true growth in virtue - under the transforming power of grace - does overcome the tendency to sin, relative to «objective concupiscence and the consequent danger to sin».»

He has acknowledged that in his early talks he should have spoken about concupiscence more.

It is known in the theological abstract as concupiscence, the disordered desire and addictive craving which Original Sin first brought into man's being, and the gross misuse of poor Brother Ass has deepened through time, and does deepen sadly in so many of us through ingrained habit.

Schindler concluded his section on concupiscence with the observation: «Needless to say, ambiguity on the three points noted here can quickly slide one toward a dangerous imprudence in matters of sexuality.»

West chooses to reply to this point because he considers the issue of concupiscence «pivotal» and calls it, in fact, the «pearl» of John Paul ll's teaching.

But then, much earlier, the late Harold Smith, a former Oxford - trained British colonial official in Nigeria, had come up with a rather unflattering picture of Okotie - Eboh as allegedly venal, with rather low personal morality, bordering on concupiscence.