Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Reflecting on October 8, 1980

The last time SJPII talked about adultery of the heart being possible even if you are looking upon your spouse. In this talk, he not only expands on that, but says that it may applied to those in marriage “even more so”. In reflecting on all that we have learned, that seems to follow exactly on the road we have laid. The married couple in a unique communion, in both giving and receiving. At its most pure, it is a complete opening of one’s self to the other. In the openness, one also becomes the most vulnerable a person will ever be. In opening yourself up like that, you are trusting the other to receive that gift in a way that is pure. That is the responsibility of the other. When they distort that responsibility and look upon the other in a reductive way, that gift is shattered. To shift the Spiderman quote, with that great responsibility comes the great power to destroy a person’s experience and affect their human understanding. It is precisely because that relationship is so important in the view of SJPII and Christ that a spouse “even more so” can commit adultery in his heart on their own spouse. It is also precisely that this spousal relationship is unimportant in the eyes of the world that the world sees no violation in viewing each other this way.

SJPII makes the distinction that it is not whether the woman that is being looked upon is your wife that determines whether it is adultery in the heart, but “precisely because he looks in this way at a woman”. What I thought about was the application of this to homosexuality and how that might be explained. If people try to get around the teaching by saying I can look on my wife with lust, some might argue that Christ only points to the opposite sex as being adulteress, therefore looking upon the same sex with lust is not restricted here. That may seem like a stretch because in many places homosexual acts is spoken of as sinful, but even if the arguments are made, I think the same arguments made for spouses defeat it. The gender is not Christ focus, it is the intentionality of the look. If you look on a person with a reductionist desire, if you look upon them as an object to satisfy your sexual urges, then you are committing adultery in your heart. Just as wife or not does not determine the sin, male or female does not matter. It is the intentionality of the look that determines whether it is adulteress.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Reflection on October 1, 1980

There was a time when SAINT JPII’s logical argument about desire in your heart for your own wife made a lot of sense to me. I don’t know if I ever thought about it in those terms or thought about it in general, but I know that is exactly the attitude I had. Adultery is the conjugal act outside of marriage, adultery in the heart is looking on a person with desire that is outside your marriage, therefore you cannot commit adultery in your heart with your own wife. If A and B, then C. That is logic and that makes sense. In order to see the flaw, we must go past the logic and look to all the revealed Truths about being human that we have seen so far. When you reflect on all that we have seen, it become plainly obvious that this logic leads to a complete objectification of the other, a reduction in who they are, and a complete distortion of what is meant to be in this communion.

When you look at the 4 parts that SJPII has broken this into (“to commit adultery, to desire, to commit adultery in the body, to commit adultery in the heart), I was wondering if the Jews that were listening were able to digest it at all. Christ starts by changing their interpretation of what adultery is, so the very foundation of the argument is something that they have to climb. After they get over that, then they must understand what is meant by desire, and only after that, understand the difference in physical and “heart” adultery. I would think that many couldn’t get past the first understanding. Western civilization has a much clearer understanding of adultery, in the idea of one husband, one wife, although that definition is deteriorating. We might understand the idea of desire, although in modern times the understanding is twisted into indulging in them and not suppressing them. But I don’t know if we still have a solid understanding in our age of the idea of adultery in the heart and what effect that has.

It made me think that Christ knew all, He knew how what He was saying was not going to be understood by those hearing it, but it would be taken down and digested and analyzed and someday understood and shared. It makes you think about what those that heard Christ really got and what He might have said knowing it was going to speak to us, and what He said that we don’t understand but will be understood in the future. I think the same can be said of SJPII’s talks given on Wednesday audiences to different groups every time. There might have been a small percentage that heard and comprehended some of it, but he was speaking to the future, to those that would digest it more fully. I am looking forward to him going more into the adultery of the heart and how it can apply to a spouse, although I think it flows from what we have already read, I hope he explains it in a clearer way.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Reflection on September 24, 1980

We have all heard the saying, “If looks could kill”. I found myself thinking about this as I was reading JPII here. He is speaking about the “look” that the man is giving to the woman and the effect it is having. At least, at first, he is focused on the effect on the man. When the man looks on her with desire, JPII speaks of the “intentionality” of the look being of importance, what is the intended purpose of the look. The effect is “purely interior” on the man, but “a change of existence takes place in him”. Because a change is experienced and experiences are foundational to our understanding, this “look” and it effects shape our view of our existence, in ourselves and in communion with others. Thus we see the importance of a “look” and begin to see why Christ makes it an important part of His teaching, part of His correct interpretation.

This seems like he is saying the same thing he has been, but using language that is denser. What I gleam is this. The “look” and its intentionality is a fork in the road. When the intentionality ceases to be to view the other as a “subject of communion” but becomes an “object for the possible satisfaction of sexual urge”, that shift is the first step down a bad path. The word JPII uses is “enslavement”. This shift “comes to be in the heart to the degree in which it has come to be in the will”. This reduction “drags the will into its narrow horizon, when it awakens I n it a decision for a relation with another…according to the scale of values proper to concupiscence”. He speaks of the path taking over your view of the other, which I think would flow into your view of the world as a whole and yourself through that experience. The more you allow your “look” to have an intentionality of reduction, the more that will drag you into a life of concupiscence.

This may seem like an obvious observation, but if that is the case, why is pornography so acceptable. True, it may not be acceptable in the fact that you can watch it at work, but it appears acceptable in the fact that everyone figures everyone looks at it privately and is okay with it. (With the book “Fifty Shades of Gray becoming a movie, the idea that pornography is even more acceptable than I give it credit for is a possibility) Pornography is the playing out of Christ caution to the extreme, but as obvious as we no taking a wrong path will lead to a bad consequence, we ignore it to satisfy our pleasure.

I think enslavement to concupiscence is an interesting idea to reflect on. It came up in a discussion last night about free will and predestination and how that might all fit together. There are those out there that don’t want to believe in a God that controls us and feel you cannot have it both ways. (God either knows all and free will is not there or we have free will and God is outside it and cannot effect it.) I don’t want to focus on that, but on those that don’t believe in that God but rely on the world and surround themselves in this life of concupiscence with the belief that doing whatever you want is true freedom. As you dive into this world of sin, we have already talked about, it does not diminish the desires, but causes them to increase, thus leading to the enslavement that JPII was talking about. Many with that view don’t want a God that they feel takes away your free will. But how much free will do they have as a slave to the sin in their lives. When you cannot say no, your yes means nothing. When you cannot say no, your choice is gone. When you cannot say no, free will is gone. Completely opposite to God, sin enslaves you and gives you no choices. God allows you to choose Him or not, sin takes choices away.

When you read the following it makes it completely obvious why contraception is considered sinful in the eyes of the Church. Contraception, if you think about the fork in the road, is a good hard shove in the back down the wrong road that cooperates fully in the dragging of intention away from communion and into objectification.

“Concupiscence removes the intentional dimension of the man's and woman's mutual existence from the personal perspectives, "of communion," characteristic of their perennial and mutual attraction, reducing it, and, so to speak, pushing it toward utilitarian dimensions, within which the human being uses the other human being, for the sake merely of satisfying his own needs.”

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Reflection on September 17, 1980

Concupiscence is a deception of the heart in regards to is perennial call to communion. I looked up the word perennial because I had heard it before, but didn’t see how it fit here. I had only heard it in dealing with plants that come back. But it can mean indefinite and enduring. That makes more sense here. We have an indefinite and enduring call to be in communion with others. I was at a conference yesterday that spoke on child development and the importance of relationship to the development. We are not supposed to be independent beings, but interdependent. No one makes it on their own, no one has “pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps”. We all require help, we all require guides, we all require relationships to develop, that is how God created us. It is interesting that the speaker was talking about research and studies and showing that we have proven something that JPII has developed from looking at the most ancient books in the Bible.

Look at what it means to think that concupiscence is a deception of the foundational idea that we need community. And if you see family as the foundational community that is the key to all human development, what are we doing as a society to our development when we are destroying the idea of family. This was by no means a religious speaker, but purely scientific, but his basic point was the importance of family, yet the world is toppling that idea. They will say that they are not and that family is important to them, but they are not seeking to save families, but “change the definition”, much like they want to do with marriage. (Basically all winds up in the same ball of wax)

JPII talks about the worldly idea that desire is a natural part of being human. The world uses this as a springboard for its arguments against the Church’s moral teachings. If desires are natural, it is unnatural to subdue them. Why should we stamp something out that is a part of us? But just because it is a part of us does not mean we need to indulge it. When you get your paycheck, do you send it all on junk? (Many might answer this in the affirmative.) You shouldn’t. You should save your money for when you might need it. That is the responsible thing, that is what we should be teaching. Yet the world tells us to spend, to indulge, to do whatever feels good. The Church teaches to push back that urge and to control it. Look at the example of homosexuality. The world says to indulge, the Church says it is sinful and you should restrain your urges, stay chaste. It has absolutely nothing to do with bigotry. The Catholic Church teaches the same restraint to heterosexual before they are married. They are to remain chaste and show restraint. It is the same teaching to both groups, but because on one’s lifestyle, its bigotry. (It might be like it you were selling alcohol and a white teen tried and you said “no, you’re not 21. Then a black teen showed up and you said “no, you’re not 21”. But in the second instance being called a racist for not selling to them.)

These desires trample on our original meaning. The more we allow these desires to be met, the further we move away from original man. The only objective they have is to satisfy an urge, a feeling, and in many cases, a sexual urge. When you are seeking only to satisfy this urge, a person becomes an object, a thing to bring pleasure, a means to an end, and it is an end that WILL NEVER MAKE YOU HAPPY, only take you further from happiness.

Words I looked up.

Perennial - lasting for an indefinitely long time; enduring

Axiological - the branch of philosophy dealing with values, as those of ethics, aesthetics, or religion.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Reflection on September 10, 1980

The image of fire being used to describe passion and satisfaction is interesting. If you have a passion (fire), give into that passion in order to satisfy it (feed the fire), you do not extinguish or satisfy the passion but make it bigger. Fueling a fire does not extinguish it but helps it to grow. The same thing happens with our passions, especially our physical and sexual passions. The world tells us to feed these passions in order to satisfy our desires and find peace. But indulging the passion only builds the fire and makes us seek more and more. Rather than achieving freedom from the passion, we become enslaved to it until the passion (fire) consumes us.

JPII talks about Christ not pointing to the physical act of adultery because He points to the heart. Christ isn’t looking at the fiery blaze that we become when we are a slave to sin, He wants us to put the fire out when it starts, He never wants us to catch fire in the first place. When it is small, when it first starts, that is when you need to resist and extinguish these passions. Christ wants us to understand that letting that fire kindle, not putting it out, looking with lust, is a sin and will only grow into bigger flames unless it is extinguished. He understands how hard it is to put out the large fires, so He wants us to stop them from becoming large. He knows that we all have these fires, these battles, to deal with, but calls us to extinguish, not indulge, the fire so that we do not become consumed and enslaved.

We have already seen that adultery (physical) is so harmful because of so much of our human understanding coming from that communion of persons. JPII brings about the same type of harm through adultery of the heart. When you think about the emphasis on the idea that each person is a gift to the other, when you look at someone with lust, they are not a gift, they are likely to not even know what you are doing. Basically, you are stealing their gift of self. When what we experience is so important to our understanding of the world and our human nature, such an experience that is so divergent from what God intended can only lead to a distorted understanding of humanity.

The idea of seeking pleasure from looking at another is most easily applicable in the issue of pornography. There you have an image that is looked upon with lust to elicit physical pleasure. Looking at what is meant to be in the communion of persons, pornography distorts almost every aspect and becomes the cause of a truly distorted image of humanity. There is no communion, there is no gift, a person becomes an object, (literally only a picture or film) And it is not something that you can simply use and then go back to living a life. The experience of pornography, every experience, affects the person, changes who they are, how they see themselves, how they see others (especially the other sex). Not only does it affect them, it is addictive. Not only is it addictive, but like the fire above, it builds on itself and requires a person to seek more and more, increase the intensity. It can get to the point where “real” life is not satisfactory anymore, or a person mistreats their “real” partners in order to get the pleasure they seek from their fantasy world. This increase can also lead to seeking out different “objects” that they feel will please them, possibly leading into a world of pedophilia and other extremes. I don’t think there is any doubt that the sexual revolution and increase in “freedom” has lead to an increase in abuses of this kind, but anyone that cares to look, the connection is obvious and will only get worse as we continue to push for more indulgences in our sexual “freedom”.

Words I looked up.

Connatural - belonging to a person or thing by nature or from birth or origin; inborn.

Dynamism - any of various theories or philosophical systems that seek to explain phenomena of nature by the action of force.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Reflection on September 3, 1980

When Christ says “but I say to you”, it sounds like a abolishing of all the previous laws. I think many see it that way and do not give the Old Testament its proper due. But you must look at this in the context of all that Christ said, including the fact that He said He did not come to change a single letter of the law. It is hard on the other hand to understand how to fit the Old Testament with the new when looking at marriage when JPII has already discussed how Israel viewed marriage. He talks about making adultery not just a sin of the body (as Israel would see it), but more importantly a sin of the heart, as Christ preached against it. We see, like before, that JPII appears to repeat the lessons learned over and over to make sure they are understood, this lesson of the importance of the heart’s sin in adultery and the affect on our human understanding and experience.

This “shift” to the heart that Christ preaches was not completely new. JPII shows that it is found in the Wisdom books and in reading the Old Testament over the 4 year reflections, you see it enough to notice it. It stands out because we remember Christ saying it and the way He said it to the Jews, it makes you think they had never heard it before. But they had. All of the Jews knew the readings, they knew what the prophets said, they knew what they were supposed to do, but they followed a law written to cater to their “hardness of heart”. When you think about the prophets preaching the same thing as Christ and being ignored and worse, it made me think very quickly to the parable of the Vineyard owner. He sent servants to the workers of the vineyards, the vineyard care takers, asking for what was due. They treated them harshly, beating or killing them. So, he sends his son. He thinks his son will be treated differently, his son will have more authority, his son will be listened to. The son says the same things as the servants and Christ is only repeating (fulfilling) what the prophets have already said.

Words I looked up.

Polemics - the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy.

Pedagogical - the art or science of teaching; education; instructional methods.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Reflection on August 27, 1980

I have never reflected on the difference between adultery and prostitution, but that is what JPII reflects upon here. Both are obviously sinful, but there seems to be more sin in the act of adultery. And when you look at each, you look at what the purpose of the sin is and judged from that its wrongfulness. Prostitution seeks to gain money, which is what they want for their actions. In adultery, the purpose is to satisfy a desire, to bend to the concupiscence within. Also, in the act of adultery there is the breaking of a covenant, which is why God uses it as an example for idolatry over and over in the Old Testament. I think many in the world would say that prostitution is far worse than adultery, and the laws of our nation would agree with them, (Only one is against the law, although that was not always the case) but just because a thing is legal or not does not make it more or less evil in the eyes of God or in its effects on a person. Think about the act of prostitution and who it might affect (if it is not a married man or woman doing it) and who the act of adultery affects and which is more harmful.

I have never reflected on the use of adultery as analogous to God and Israel, yet the idea of the covenant and marriage with God is not as strongly or often used. It might be implied with the use of adultery, but JPII seems to say that the “marriage” is not as analogous because Israel’s “flexibility” with marriage made the analogy weaker. Israel did not have a monogamous definition of marriage and so if you tell them their covenant with God is like a marriage covenant, they could go very easily and seek another God and not feel they broke the first covenant. When you think about that, Christ telling them that their whole idea of marriage, divorce, adultery, and covenants was misinterpreted does not just effect their understanding of spousal relationships, but their whole understanding of their relationship with God. Christ tells them to go back to the beginning, one husband, one wife, one covenant, for life. Then, go back and read your prophets and the talk of adultery and going to other Gods and what God wanted from you. When you change the definition of marriage, you change your understanding of your very relationship with God. (No intention of applying to the controversies today with gay marriage, but as I typed I think it bears reflecting what effect our changing the definition of marriage might have on our understanding of our relationship with God.)

The prophets and the law each saw adultery in a different light. The prophets saw it as a breaking of the covenant; the law saw it as a loss of property rights. The prophets point to the monogamous relationship that is from the beginning. JPII didn’t mention it, but if you go through the prophets, time and again, Israel is called the chosen people. They were chosen by God, no other nation was chosen. That, in and of itself, is significant in pointing to a monogamous relationship. God (the groom) does not have many brides. After Christ, who came to save all, the chosen people become all people. It is still only one bride, it is still a monogamous marriage, it is only the fulfillment of what once was. The chosen people of Israel are fulfilled in become the chosen people of all humanity.

What is the real sin in adultery? You must reflect on all that we have learned so far in the importance of that communion of persons; the uniqueness of the gift, what we learn about being human because of that experience, the need for it to be a full gift, fully received, no barriers and everything that makes that union so important is thrown away in adultery. The conjugal covenant is of the utmost importance in understanding the very nature of what it means to be human, of what God intended us for. Adultery is the antithesis of all that.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Reflection on August 20, 1980

While I was reading about the legislation that the Jews developed to protect polygamy, yet punish adultery, I found myself thinking that what they were really trying to do is “redefine” marriage to fit their desires. We are dealing with the same issue today with homosexual unions and the movement to try and redefine what marriage is. “Such a right, while it combated sin, at the same time contained within itself, or rather protected the social dimension of sin, which it actually legalized.” This quote lays out what is going on with gay marriage. The sin that is being combated then was adultery, but the laws brought about polygamy and thus legalized sin in the fact that marriage was redefined. The right to gay marriage might try to protect (I was having a hard time coming up with a sin that this is meant to prevent) the right for couples to have certain rights, but its result is the legalization of an act that is sinful. In both cases, Christ can look at the law that is being proposed and tell us, in the beginning it was not so.

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Reflection on August 13, 1980

Christ is there to fulfill all that the law and prophets had set down, not to abolish or change what was written or said. But this fulfillment comes, perhaps, in an different way than we might think fulfillment would come. Christ doesn’t “do” anything during the Sermon on the Mount other than give a correct interpretation of what is already there. The law says do not commit adultery. Over the many centuries, Jews read that to mean one thing, Christ is giving them a correct interpretation in order to bring to fulfillment what was meant by the original command. If Christ interpretation of the words is that important, then we must understand how important the correct interpretation of all of Scripture is.

There are many out there that are relying on people that are interpreting Scripture without any authority to do so. We watch Christ change the entire focus of a single command by His correct interpretation and should fully realize how dangerous it is to follow an incorrect interpretation. Yet, there are so many that are doing so. If we look at the very issue that is discussed in these talks, divorce, we can see how someone’s interpretation can lead people astray. There are countless denominations of Christianity that fully accept that divorce is allowed. That belief is based on those leaders of those denominations interpreting Scripture in a certain way. We can see how different interpretations can be confusing to Christian followers and how important it is to have one voice, why Christ established One Church. Christ either taught the divorce is okay or that it was not. Christ is not wishy washy and He does not teach contradictions. What He teaches is a correct interpretation of God.

I thought the brief look at the lack of monogamy in Abraham and David was interesting. We see Abraham’s act was done out of an overwhelming longing for heirs and at the encouragement of Sarah. David’s was done out of lust for another man’s wife, much closer to our understanding of concupiscence. But both lay the foundations for a tradition that is firmly planted when Christ comes. Adultery was seen as a violation of a man’s property (his wife or wives) by another, but fully allows for polygamy. Christ disagrees with their interpretation and points them back to the beginning, one man, and one woman. Christ has come to correct their distortion of God’s command. I would imagine you could take this analysis of Christ interpreting the command of adultery and apply that too many of the laws of the Jews that Christ came to “fulfill” by a re-interpretation.

Friday, April 04, 2014

Reflection on August 6, 1980

I found myself thinking about what the difference is between being accused and being judged. In my line of work I am very familiar with the difference, but those that are not dealing with “accused” everyday may think they are the same. In fact, that is one of the many warnings that a person will receive when they are thinking about a jury trial. Many believe that if you are accused, then you are guilty (judged). I know my wife comes to this conclusion. (I would never want her on a jury) I cannot say that everyone is innocent, I can agree that most are guilty, but there are accused that are not guilty. There is a huge difference between being accused and being judged. JPII talks about the two quotes from Christ; “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” and “He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.” The later he says is more of an accusation, the first he describes more as a judgment.

I am not sure I fully understand where the distinctions lie, but I did follow that the first Christ speaks not only to those present, but to the historical man and to the individual “you”. It is a judgment on “you” as an individual 2000 years after the words were spoken that when you did this, you were guilty or when you do it you will be guilty.

It made me think about those that wanted to stone Mary. They had accused her of adultery, but accusations were not enough. They wanted to be her judge as well. They put her before Christ to test Him as an accuser and judge. What does He do? He questions their ability to judge. He tells them that the one without sin should cast the first stone and they all walk away. We are not called to be the judge, to pass judgment. That doesn’t mean we cannot accuse or call someone out on their sin. There is a difference between telling someone they are acting in a sinful manner and telling them they are going to hell. The judging is left to God, the perfect Judge. And He does judge, and He is a perfectly fair judge. But being fair doesn’t mean being weak. Just because you love someone, doesn’t mean you ignore their sin. You accuse them, call them out, try to help them overcome, but do not judge. But, there are people in Hell that God loves just as much as He loves you, all of them in fact. Just because they were judged as deserving of Hell does not change God’s love. And just because I tell a person I don’t agree with their choices or think they are sinning doesn’t mean I don’t love them, I think I show love by speaking up and trying to help them on a different path. It is very difficult for many to see the difference between being accused and being judged, but, especially in our country, it happens every day. We should be more comfortable with it, but when it comes to sin and social issues, there are many that only see judgment when accusation is given and on the flip side, judgment is cast when we are called to only be accusers.

JPII talks about Christ speaking to our heart. I think that does give a very individual feel to His words, like He is speaking right to us. That is His target, our hearts. The fall did not affect our physic, the physical being of the person. (Maybe that isn’t entirely true because we became mortal) The fall affected our heart, our inner person. That is what Christ wants to speak to, wants to get to, wants to change. In the Old Testament there are laws that are very physically pertinent: Plant certain plants next to each other, build the Temple in such and such way, treat leprosy in a certain way. Those were the old laws and they have the purpose of pointing to Christ. Christ commands that we get past the physical world and change our hearts, He speaks to our hearts, says that we sin when we sin in our hearts. In that way He speaks to us, through the ages, until the end of time, He speaks to you, speaks to your heart.

Tuesday, April 01, 2014

Reflection on July 30, 1980

As one of the parties seeks the other as an object, the result becomes that they become an object to the other in the process. Thus, both spiral together away from the place they were meant to be, in seeing each other in authentic subjectivity. But JPII says that this objectifying is felt more by the woman. I think we can see that very clearly in the world. Although we have male models and the like, the vast majority of sexual objectifying in the world is done to woman. Look at a Hardee’s commercial or a Victoria Secret commercial, any type of frat boy movie or Maxim magazine, and you will see women thrown out there to entice men, not as humans, but as objects. And what you see is not real, I posted a link earlier about a photo shopped person and what is done behind the scenes and what we see. What we see distorts and destroys reality and develops in both men and women the idea that the female body is only an object of desire to be used when wanted and discarded when no longer needed. The way we treat, view, use, and destroy women in this country and is Western culture is destructive and completely opposed to what Christ commanded. What is more puzzling is that much of this treatment is promoted and brought about by a women’s liberation movement that made its platform a longing for women to be treated fairly. Almost everything they accomplished has pushed women into a position to be further objectified, not viewed more humanly.

Because the woman is more affected by objectifying, it appears to be the responsibility of the man to strive to get back to the “true balance” of fully receiving and giving the full gift of self. This is not what men are being taught outside the Church, but it is something that I have found stressed in the Church very bluntly. I think it is often taken for granted that in a marriage, the man no longer has to fear this objectification because it is his wife. Because of this, a husband is even more vulnerable. I think it took me a while, and I still battle with it, that my wife is not an object for my pleasure, but a gift given by God to be received as a gift, fully received, and to fully give myself as a gift. We are so immersed in a world of objects that it is hard to pull ourselves out of that to view the relationship in with a different lens. But it is only in striving to do reach that point that we will begin to experience the happiness God intended for this union and to begin to understand our own meaning through that experience.

From the fall, the battle begins between the law of the body and the law of the mind. We must be on constant guard against this law of the body and the desires it wants. But, in the end, the mind is in control, the heart is what determines the actions of the body. That is what Christ was going after. The body acts only after the heart has made a determination. He wants us to understand that if you sin in your heart, you are already on the path to sinning with the body. When you sin in your heart that is when you must already seek repentance and get back to God.