It does not correspond to the personal union or ‘communion’ to which man and woman have been reciprocally called ‘from the beginning,’ in fact, it is contrary to it, that one of the two persons should exist only as a subject of satisfaction of sexual urge and that the other should become exclusively the object for such satisfaction. Further, it does not correspond to this unity of ‘communion’–in fact, it is contrary to it–that both the man and the woman should mutually exist as objects for the satisfaction of sexual urge, and that each of them on his or her own part should be a subject of such satisfaction. Such a ‘reduction’ of the rich content of reciprocal and perennial attraction among human persons in their masculinity and femininity does not correspond to the ‘nature’ of the attraction in question. Such a ‘reduction,’ in fact, extinguishes the meaning proper to man and woman, a meaning that is person and ‘of communion,’ through which ‘the mane will… unite with his wife and the two will be one flesh’ (Gen 2:4). ‘Concupiscence‘ removes the intentional dimension of the reciprocal existence of man and woman from the personal perspective ‘of communion,’ which are proper to their perennial and reciprocal attraction, reducing this attraction and, so to speak, driving it toward utilitarian dimension, in whose sphere of influence one human being ‘makes use’ of another human being, ‘using her’ only to satisfy his own ‘urges.’
Concupiscence, True Communion, and Friends
Posted on June 30, 2008 // 2 Comments
from Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II
Friends was one of the big sitcoms in the 90’s. It had a lot of influence especially on my generation. This quote from John Paul II puts forward the basic weakness of the series. There is a total reduction of relationship between man and woman to sexual satisfaction. The two friends who ended up marrying each other. Their relationship started with sex. When they hid the ‘relationship’ from the other friends, they where hiding them having sex. To my knowledge, which is limited finite, and possibly wrong, they didn’t go out on a ‘date’ until it was public knowledge that they were dating. A relationship which ended in marriage was based and grounded upon sexual intercourse (sand). This is what my generation saw each week. This is what John Paul II called the utilitarian dimension, where the person of the opposite sex is an object for sexual gratification. The ideal in this dimension is mutual sexual gratification, which to many nowadays means a basis for a solid marriage.