Concupiscence (3)

So, what to do about "concupiscence"?

Well, I'm not sure I know any better than anyone else. I don't have a definitive answer you can take away  like I do if you asked me how to poach an egg. I have an answer more like the kind of answer I'd give if someone asked me about driving safely. That is, I have a general attitude that has worked pretty well and a few hints to go with it. But I could not in all honesty guarantee you that I won't hurt someone very badly tomorrow through my own negligence. I don't intend to but it could happen in a  way that was entirely my fault and that I ought to have foreseen.

So, if you are looking for a sin-free approach to sexual desire, I don't have it.

Vocabulary
I do have some basic reminders that are useful though. The first one is about vocabulary. There is nothing wrong with inventing or introducing new terms. All the words we use had to be invented and introduced at some point. But a new term has to earn it's keep. It has to have a use and it has to be useful enough that others pick it up.

Any time that a term—especially a moral term—gets introduced but lays around unused that is a powerful signal to us that this term serves no real purpose. "Concupiscence" is such a  word. It was introduced to the language because some people felt that existing words didn't do the work they wanted them to do. The problem isn't just that others disagreed. There would be a point in keeping the arguments running if there were people on one side saying beware of concupiscence and others disputing that or even ignoring them. No, the problem is that the word has no use. It never even got a toehold in our language.  It does no real work in moral arguments.

And simply acknowledging that strips Alice von Hildebrand's argument and leaves it naked for everyone to see. Here is some of her argument where she leans heavily on the word "concupiscence":

“In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no concupiscence.”

“After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called concupiscence.

Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with concupiscence.

The Fall had consequences that are “so serious” that it was only the Redemption and the grace of God could remedy.

The fight against concupiscence is “not an easy process,” Dr. von Hildebrand continued. “It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.”

Okay, now read the thing again only here I will replace the word "concupiscence" with "lust".

“In paradise there was perfect harmony between Adam and Eve. There was no lust.”

“After original sin, not only were we separated from God and condemned to losing eternity. On top of it, every single human faculty was affected. Our intelligence was darkened. Our will was weakened. And all of a sudden, we had the dreadful experience of something called lust .

Before the Fall, there was no inner temptation to impurity between Adam and Eve even though they were naked, she explained. After they sinned, the two started to look at one another with lust.

The Fall had consequences that are “so serious” that it was only the Redemption and the grace of God could remedy.

The fight against lust is “not an easy process,” Dr. von Hildebrand continued. “It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem.”

 The problem is that lust is too ordinary a thing. We all know what it means.

It isn't that lust isn't dangerous. We all know it is. But we also know that lust is controllable just like anger, gluttony and jealousy. We also know that these things aren't necessarily evil in themselves. We know anger is sometimes justifiable as is appetite for food. We know that gluttony is a bad thing but we also know that an appreciation for good food and good wine is not gluttony. And we know that sometimes being completely carried away with sexual desire is a good thing.

That sort of moral reasoning won't work for the good doctor. She needs a dark force called "concupiscence" that works on us all the time.

Sinfully delicious
I think "sinfully delicious" was originally a slogan used to sell chocolate to women.  Google doesn't know because, unlike "concupiscence", this expression has become very popular. All sorts of people use it nowadays. It's a reaction against  Alice von Hildebrand and her ilk. At some point, a lot of people began to suspect that what she and others like her really don't like is pleasure.

An even darker suspicion is that what is really objected to here is other people's pleasure.

I don't know about that. I'm pretty sure some people argue against a strong appreciation of sexual desire—even in marriage as Alice von Hildebrand certainly does—because they themselves have some sort of psychological problems with sex. I don't like labeling particular people this way, however, because I don't think it serves any purpose. Far better to treat Alice von Hildebrand's arguments as arguments than to attempt to psychoanalyze her.

And they are interesting as arguments. Because she cannot be saying anything like the following: "It's okay to enjoy sex with your spouse, just don't enjoy it too much." To say that would be different from saying that we have a sinful nature, which is true. To say that would be to say that we were created in a form that our basic pleasures are set up to sabotage us.

And, as I said at the start, the really interesting thing about the prophets of great sexual freedom is that they don't seem very happy.

 Leviticus
I think that we can find the beginning of an answer in the Bible. Books like Leviticus (one of my favourites BTW) separate sex from God fairly consistently. God being eternal, doesn't do sex because he does not procreate. Therefore, human devotion to God is separated from sex. You do not go to the sanctuary after sex because you are unclean.

Sex, on this view, is not sinful. It's just not holy. It has a place and it should be confined to that place.

This Leviticus view strikes me as remarkably sensible. Sex is an intimate thing. It is the thing we associate with the intimate bond of marriage. We do not bring sex to public worship of God.

That is an important thing because one of the things that people always seem to want to do with sex is make it a sacrament. You get it from guys like Christopher West who argues that every time a couple has sex they are reconsecrating their marriage and therefore have to strictly follow certain rules and observances. It should trouble Christopher West a lot that you get this same sacramental attitude towards sex guys like Henry Miller. I like Leonard Cohen but he also is one of the offenders here:

And remember when I moved in you
The holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah.

No Leonard, sex, even really, really, really good sex, is just sex.

At the same time, though, the Bible uses this image as metaphor for union with God. Hosea likens the correct form of Israel's union with God to a faithful sexual union. Saint Paul uses marriage as a metaphor to explain Christ's union with the church.

Sexual infidelity, OTOH, is the a regular and powerful metaphor for betraying our covenant with God in the Bible. 

And then there is the Song of Songs.

The Jane Austen point
There is a fairly consistent message here. The right kind of sexual relationship is a foretaste of our relationship with God. At the same time, the Bible is consistent that having sex is not a form of worship so don't go down the Christopher West road either. Have sex and be grateful for it. But don't make it into more than that. Don't make it into a sacrament.

But, as Austen insists, it is all about the right kind or relationship. Go ahead have all the concupiscence you can muster just do it in a way that  fits the relationship you want with your spouse. If you really treasure the relationship you have with this person you wouldn't sully it by doing it with anyone else either right? Sexual desire, properly understood leads to exclusivity.

Does that seem fogeyish to you? We all know that some would say "yes" but be honest here. When you're madly in love with someone do you feel good about the idea of their sharing the same intimacy they have with you with others? Is that what you really want? Don't worry about what others might say because I'm talking to you, is it what you really want?

Maybe having a deep and meaningful and loving sexual relationship with another person means nothing to you. But I bet it does mean something you. I bet it is something you crave.

Is it bad news or good news to you to learn that actually having and keeping such a relationship takes a lot of hard work?