Sentences with phrase «not concupiscence»

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.

Concupiscence — the inclination to sin — isn't washed away by Baptism any more than are other physical frailties.

Concupiscence however is not simply disordered sexual urges, but addictive cravings, the fomes peccati (the tinder which can set sin o), «the whirlwind of desire».

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.

There ARE reasoned, balanced views of humanity's concupiscence that do not involve child abuse, child insult, child * whatever *.

And so far as we understand that the whole of Christ's work is a work of liberation — of our liberation from sin, death, concupiscence, fatality (and from ourselves)-- we shall see that violence is not simply an ethical option for us to take or leave.

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!

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.

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.

For our unordered soul is filled with unlimited striving (concupiscence) for the world, striving, which can dominate not only the world but, even more, the self, the same self that through reason rules the world.

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.

Clearly, to curb or repress concupiscence is not quite the same as to «remedy» it.

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.

Sexual concupiscence can not be equated simply with physical sexual attraction or even with a desire for genital union.

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

The first is that sexual concupiscence or lust is not the same as simple sexual attraction, or indeed as the desire for marital intercourse and the pleasure that accompanies it.

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

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.

[t] he very concupiscence of non-concealment is not modest: it experiences somewhat which is no mark of a virgin, - the study of pleasing, of course, ay, and (of pleasing) men.

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).

Carnal concupiscence is not the only expression of self - love; but, since it so pervasively affects the most significant bodily expression of conjugal love, its tendency to dominate must be specially resisted; otherwise love may not survive this battle.

So it is not marriage itself but marital chastity that remedies concupiscence.

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.

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.

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.

And this position is not without a certain coherence for a vision of sex separated from procreation and concupiscence - see Fr Cummings» article.