I think it's how you appraise the desire. There's selfishness we'd call lust, but looking at a person for their personhood and motive in a selflessness manner we'd call it beauty. We look beyond what's in our eyes to see what before our eyes.
Thank you for your honesty. I was expecting something preachy and self-righteous, but this was beautiful and affirming to hear. We women are so subjected to abusive beauty standards and most of the time we feel insecure about modesty since common knowledge is that being attractive will get you a man, personality is just second. Of course, I still think physical attractiveness is still important and plays a huge role in attraction, but its not the most important thing. Purity of soul is.
An old saying is beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and again beauty is skin deep, and in God's Eyes as the Ray Stevens song goes, Everything is Beautiful, just like music and films, and other entertainments each person favours a different thing, a lot of people including Americans found Maggie Thatcher, good looking and powerful, I've always found her looking like the back of hippo and a tyrant without a uniform, so beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Not for subject something, but I think that both, see a woman like a chessburger and see her how attractive on other ways, it's always sinful, but on a different way , it's basically idolatry, when the thoughts about flesh ends, starts the idolatric idealistic dreamistic one. The only way to really love can come only after a long real relation, when sacrifice yourself and have patience with the lady it's just ordinarity for continue to stay together, all the rest is just an illusionary mindreaming creation.
i hope this is a joke. please be mindful of comments like this toward women who are infertile. a woman's beauty is not dependent on motherhood because there are women who are incapable of this, thanks.
@@marypaulaokpara1552 He's talking about the care in the ROLE taken by the women. You can adopt or even take care of kids that aren't your own and that same role is fulfilled and thus the same beauty. So yes a women's beauty IS defined by the behaviors that stem from the ROLE of motherhood.
Can we finally talk about how Theology of the Body (the encyclical) has heresy in it? Can we talk about how it equates the two purposes of marriage instead of placing the propagation of children first and far ahead of the mutual support of spouses? Theology of the Body needs to be DUMPED. The Traditional Church had PLENTY of teachings on modesty, marriage, the sacred act etc without the heresy and hyper focus on sex. God bless~
A happy marriage is the best thing for children. The primary end of marriage is to get your spouse to heaven regardless of whether you are blessed with children. If you don't make your spouse a priority then everything else is off. The family suffers. Idk about Theology of the Body and errors (I've stayed away from it, lol), but placing the children AHEAD of your spouse is erroneous. Any married person will tell you that the family suffers if you stop making your spouse a priority. Sex is *extremely* important as it is an image of God's love for us and his designs. Understanding how to engage in it correctly is massively important. Not sure how you think there is a negative "hyper focus" in the church on sex when God said to go forth and multiply. Go to pre-cana with a trad priest (I did) and he will tell you the same thing. I'm curious as to which writings you've read that have said the spouse is second place to the kids?
@@theresefrancis9283 Ask your trad priest the following: what IS marriage? He will tell you it is a vocation. And that the primary ends of marriage is NOT to get your spouse to heaven but to cooperate with God in populating heaven by having as many children as He deems to give you and forming them in the faith so that they end up in heaven. A "happy marriage" is not attained by mutual feelz good of the spouses but in preparing for and understanding marriage's primary goal i.e. to bring children into this world and help them get to heaven. Doing that requires the spouses have a level of virtue that can sustain that primary end especially a sacrificial love. The mutual support of the spouse is secondary which of course includes helping them get to heaven. Marriage is similar to the priesthood...it needs years of preparation before entering into it and is a life of sacrifice for others. Sex is not extremely important...for the saints and religious forego it for lifetimes without a thought. Many saints who were married even decided to become chaste with their spouses (King St. Edward the Confessor and St. Hedwig, Duchess of Poland come to mind). The hierarchy of a married person life is God first, then the spouse, then the children...so yes, the spouse in some way comes before the kids but the reason for that is for the benefit of the children not the spouses. Listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger on this subject. I'm also not saying the marital act isn't a part of the process but TotB seems to hyper-focus on it which is ridiculous. God bless~
@@MMC-jp1gl From my copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent Pg. 309: Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life. It then goes on to lay out that even without consummation the marital contract is still in place. The goal is to have a worthy companion through the trials of life and develop virtue. It also says the *second* end of marriage is to have children. "The second reason for marriage is the desire for family." It also lays out how being married may be more prudent than remaining single as the lusts of the flesh are many and in marriage both spouses may fulfill this natural desire in a way that helps them live out sacramental life and develop virtues. How could that be if the "primary" end, as you said, of marriage is to have children? What about infertile couples? Are infertile people not allowed to be married? St. John Chrysostom says otherwise. He said married couple's holiness can rival that of monks. So did St. Therese's parents. Her parents were living a Josephite marriage until their priest said he felt they were called to have children. So, they obeyed and did. Children are the natural end of marriage, but they are not the sole and primary goal. The primary goal, as laid out by Trent, is the mutual sanctification of the spouses. That may or may not involve children depending on what God wants from the couple (i.e. infertility). Link Fr. Ripperger contradicting what I have listed as I laid out my sources.
@@marypaulaokpara1552 If it contains heresy, which it does, NO true Catholic should love or like it. It's not about us and what we want, think or feel...it's about objective truth Who is Our Lord and what He wants to convey to us in order to love Him:+) God bless~
I think it's how you appraise the desire. There's selfishness we'd call lust, but looking at a person for their personhood and motive in a selflessness manner we'd call it beauty. We look beyond what's in our eyes to see what before our eyes.
Thank you for your honesty. I was expecting something preachy and self-righteous, but this was beautiful and affirming to hear. We women are so subjected to abusive beauty standards and most of the time we feel insecure about modesty since common knowledge is that being attractive will get you a man, personality is just second. Of course, I still think physical attractiveness is still important and plays a huge role in attraction, but its not the most important thing. Purity of soul is.
Thank you Matt for your work.
Beauty is Christian grace, whether child or grandma.
An old saying is beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and again beauty is skin deep, and in God's Eyes as the Ray Stevens song goes, Everything is Beautiful, just like music and films, and other entertainments each person favours a different thing, a lot of people including Americans found Maggie Thatcher, good looking and powerful, I've always found her looking like the back of hippo and a tyrant without a uniform, so beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Lol, the title
I know intellectually men can't help the physiological responses they have, but it's still incredibly hard to hear about and puts me off marriage.
@James Skinner I wish I could get to your level
Not for subject something, but I think that both, see a woman like a chessburger and see her how attractive on other ways, it's always sinful, but on a different way , it's basically idolatry, when the thoughts about flesh ends, starts the idolatric idealistic dreamistic one. The only way to really love can come only after a long real relation, when sacrifice yourself and have patience with the lady it's just ordinarity for continue to stay together, all the rest is just an illusionary mindreaming creation.
I've never heard anyone say a nun is beautiful 🤣🤣
Have you seen all the nuns in the world and have you seen all the people who interact with them?
So you haven't heart Matt say that ? He has indeed, several times :) ❤
Women become beautiful once they’ve become mothers.
i hope this is a joke. please be mindful of comments like this toward women who are infertile. a woman's beauty is not dependent on motherhood because there are women who are incapable of this, thanks.
@@marypaulaokpara1552 He's talking about the care in the ROLE taken by the women. You can adopt or even take care of kids that aren't your own and that same role is fulfilled and thus the same beauty.
So yes a women's beauty IS defined by the behaviors that stem from the ROLE of motherhood.
Can we finally talk about how Theology of the Body (the encyclical) has heresy in it? Can we talk about how it equates the two purposes of marriage instead of placing the propagation of children first and far ahead of the mutual support of spouses? Theology of the Body needs to be DUMPED. The Traditional Church had PLENTY of teachings on modesty, marriage, the sacred act etc without the heresy and hyper focus on sex. God bless~
A happy marriage is the best thing for children. The primary end of marriage is to get your spouse to heaven regardless of whether you are blessed with children. If you don't make your spouse a priority then everything else is off. The family suffers. Idk about Theology of the Body and errors (I've stayed away from it, lol), but placing the children AHEAD of your spouse is erroneous. Any married person will tell you that the family suffers if you stop making your spouse a priority. Sex is *extremely* important as it is an image of God's love for us and his designs. Understanding how to engage in it correctly is massively important. Not sure how you think there is a negative "hyper focus" in the church on sex when God said to go forth and multiply. Go to pre-cana with a trad priest (I did) and he will tell you the same thing. I'm curious as to which writings you've read that have said the spouse is second place to the kids?
@@theresefrancis9283 Ask your trad priest the following: what IS marriage? He will tell you it is a vocation. And that the primary ends of marriage is NOT to get your spouse to heaven but to cooperate with God in populating heaven by having as many children as He deems to give you and forming them in the faith so that they end up in heaven. A "happy marriage" is not attained by mutual feelz good of the spouses but in preparing for and understanding marriage's primary goal i.e. to bring children into this world and help them get to heaven. Doing that requires the spouses have a level of virtue that can sustain that primary end especially a sacrificial love. The mutual support of the spouse is secondary which of course includes helping them get to heaven. Marriage is similar to the priesthood...it needs years of preparation before entering into it and is a life of sacrifice for others. Sex is not extremely important...for the saints and religious forego it for lifetimes without a thought. Many saints who were married even decided to become chaste with their spouses (King St. Edward the Confessor and St. Hedwig, Duchess of Poland come to mind). The hierarchy of a married person life is God first, then the spouse, then the children...so yes, the spouse in some way comes before the kids but the reason for that is for the benefit of the children not the spouses. Listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger on this subject. I'm also not saying the marital act isn't a part of the process but TotB seems to hyper-focus on it which is ridiculous. God bless~
@@MMC-jp1gl From my copy of the Catechism of the Council of Trent Pg. 309:
Matrimony, according to the general opinion of theologians, is defined: The conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life.
It then goes on to lay out that even without consummation the marital contract is still in place. The goal is to have a worthy companion through the trials of life and develop virtue. It also says the *second* end of marriage is to have children. "The second reason for marriage is the desire for family." It also lays out how being married may be more prudent than remaining single as the lusts of the flesh are many and in marriage both spouses may fulfill this natural desire in a way that helps them live out sacramental life and develop virtues.
How could that be if the "primary" end, as you said, of marriage is to have children? What about infertile couples? Are infertile people not allowed to be married? St. John Chrysostom says otherwise. He said married couple's holiness can rival that of monks. So did St. Therese's parents. Her parents were living a Josephite marriage until their priest said he felt they were called to have children. So, they obeyed and did. Children are the natural end of marriage, but they are not the sole and primary goal. The primary goal, as laid out by Trent, is the mutual sanctification of the spouses. That may or may not involve children depending on what God wants from the couple (i.e. infertility). Link Fr. Ripperger contradicting what I have listed as I laid out my sources.
I LOOVE THEOLOGY POF THE BODYYY!
@@marypaulaokpara1552 If it contains heresy, which it does, NO true Catholic should love or like it. It's not about us and what we want, think or feel...it's about objective truth Who is Our Lord and what He wants to convey to us in order to love Him:+) God bless~