In terms of sexuality, is lust always a sin? Can spouses lust after each other without a burden of sin?
Not sure where to place this, but since sin is a religious topic, I thought here was best. Please move it if it belongs in a more appropriate forum.
In the Catholic theological tradition, there is a recognition that concupiscence - strong sexual desire - is neither mortally nor venially sinful by itself and that '
carnal delectation' cannot be excessive or sinful within the right context (i.e. traditionally in church doctrine, marital relations being regarded as the 'unbounded arena' for the expression of sexuality, though modern secular social norms extend that to consensual relations in general).
The object of sexual desire (as well as how the person hones it) is what's important for Catholics and may render it a disposition beholden to sin, but not the fact of sexual arousal by itself. This is a perfectly natural urge. To suppress it would be to deny a fundamental part of one's human nature.
In fact, there's a positive obligation upon partners to pursue orgasm - and a traditional teaching is that it's a venial sin for a man not to remain sexually active until his wife reaches orgasm and if he fails to do so, he is obliged to help her do so by other means than coitus. (Likewise, many scholastic theologians also argued that it was a mortal sin for a woman to distract herself during sex so as to avoid orgasm.)
St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696–1787), in his
Moral Theology:
"25.—Quaeritur: II. Whether spouses are permitted to take delectation in the conjugal act, even if the other spouse were not present?
It is a common opinion (as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio, n. 933), that unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great deal of arousal) among spouses are licit...even if they are done only for pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation.
I regard Busembaum’s opinion as probable, which says it is permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from carnal relations they have had or are going to have...The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be exposed to excessive scruples
Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold this opinion, with Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1§6.), Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6, p. 5,num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others; likewise Vasquez, Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90), who think it is probable. St.Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says that for spouses, just as sexual relations are licit, so also delectation from them."
See also:
"The first American writer to prescribe orgasm was the Right Reverend Francis Patrick Kenrick, Roman Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. In the third volume of his Theologiae Moralis, published in 1843, Kenrick wrote that a married woman had the right to bring herself to orgasm “by touches” after intercourse, if she had experienced no climax during lovemaking. Kenrick also said that a husband who did not remain sexually active until his wife reached orgasm was guilty of a venial sin of omission and that it was a mortal sin for a wife to distract herself during sex to avoid having an orgasm."
(from '
Innocent Ecstasy: How Christianity Gave America an Ethic of Sexual Pleasure' by Peter Gardella, Professor of World Religions at Manhattanville College)
This was also recognised by the early church father St. John Chrysostom in his
Homily 12 on Colossians, preached during his time as bishop of Constantinople in the 390s:
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 12 on Colossians (Chrysostom) (newadvent.org)
Marriage, then, was given for childbearing also, but even more so in order to quench nature’s burning...
How do they become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest of gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and she then returns it as a child! […] But suppose there is no child; do they remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment.
“
with rich pleasure [τῆς ἡδονῆς χωνευούμενος]".
