A hard, but very serious and vague, question for all Catholics

[Exporter]

I am not capable of writing on this topic as well as the author of a paper I read a year ago,

The jist of the paper was, 1. Both practices are sinful, any sexual satisfaction outside the marriage act is sinful.

1. In adultry you contribute to another’s sin, while when alone you contribute to your sin.

 

[Deacon2006]

AlanFromWichita:

I
By the logic of several posters on this thread, could we not say that these are both grave sexual disorders and therefore equally evil? Don’t the temporal effects of sin count when determining which is “worse?” Doesn’t the fact that one sin involves one person alone and the other one involves more than one count?

Alan

Yes, the deeper one sinks in vice the harder it is to pull out of the death spiral and the more sins one then takes on themselves. A personal sin may be easier to break free from then a sin that drags others into it, and as such, one is worse then the other, but that is only from the perspective of our hope for redemption and not a temperature gauge of suffereing to be metted out in hell.

God Bless

 

[Bob_Baran]

As I read in the earlier posts, I do agree both are morally evil; thus they are grave sins worthy of eternal damnation. I also agree that culpability may mitigate the degree of responsibility. However, this does not change the sin. Both of these acts are disordered conduct because, I believe, they are not rooted in Love.

 

[patricius]

If we listen to our Pope, we learn that the the real abomination involved in both of these sins is that of using a human person for one’s own selfish pleasure, without regard for God’s love and purpose for that person.

When we masturbate, we unequivocally use ourselves in such a way. No way around it. That’s why, from a dry objective point of view at least, this sin is “worse.”

Fornication, on the other hand, can have a wide range of moral implications. It may be an attempt, out of moral ignorance, to express a limited form of the true love that is fully expressed in marriage. In this case, it would be truly “premarital” in the sense that it would (sinfully) “anticipate” marriage. Those circumstances could possibly make it into a rather “minor” sin. However, in its blackest incarnation, premarital sex can be the heartless use of oneself and of another person and a potential child for one’s own personal pleasure. I think this kind of thing would more properly be called “amarital” or “contramarital” sex, because unlike the fornication I posited above it is a negation of everything that marriage is supposed to be.

So my answer is: objectively, masturbation is worse, because it twists the moral order more violently. But premarital sex, because it involves a subtler perversion of God’s plan, can be subjectively a much more wicked thing to engage in.

I hope that Alan, while not approving of any of it, could see the difference between a guy who honestly loved his daughter and just went “too far” a week before their wedding, and a guy who was just creepy and looking for a quick lay. Even though they’re both having premarital sex, one of them, IMO is worse than the other.

 

[dalcent]

I’m really surprised that people here are saying masturbation is worse than pre-marital sex. Amazing. You would be more concerned if you married a young woman who had masturbated than who had lost her virginity before marriage? This is madness!

Sex outside marriage is far far worse. For a start you are linking up spiritually with another person. You are engaging in behaviour which leads to unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexually-transmitted diseases, contraception.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

patricius:

So my answer is: objectively, masturbation is worse, because it twists the moral order more violently. But premarital sex, because it involves a subtler perversion of God’s plan, can be subjectively a much more wicked thing to engage in.

Dear patricius,

I’m not sure I completely understand your division line of “objectively” or “subjectively” unless it roughly corresponds to what I might call “theologically” or “practically.”

That said, I respect your ability to hold an opinion about the one being worse in one sense while recognizing that the other could be potentially more damaging to the body of Christ. At least I think that’s what I respect about you, if I understand you right.

I hope that Alan, while not approving of any of it, could see the difference between a guy who honestly loved his daughter and just went “too far” a week before their wedding, and a guy who was just creepy and looking for a quick lay. Even though they’re both having premarital sex, one of them, IMO is worse than the other.

Egad! The first time I read through this I thought you meant a guy who loved his daughter, as in “his own” daughter. :bigyikes:

Now that I’ve gathered my composure, I see that you meant “a guy” and “my daughter.” Yes, I would be much more inclined to want to usurp God’s prerogative of revenge against the second guy than the first. I hope that you can agree with me that the second guy is doing something much more harmful (and thus sinful?) than he would have been if he had just stayed home and imagined himself with my daughter. Maybe Jesus wouldn’t agree, but I’m not asking Jesus; I’m stating my own opinion! (Lord have mercy on me a sinner. Lord have mercy on me, a sinner, Lord …)

Alan

 

[patricius]

Alan,

I’m not a theologian, but I think correlating “objective” with “theological” (and “subjective” with “practical”) is probably pretty faithful to what I mean-- I was using “objective” to refer to the nature of the act, considered apart from the persons involved, and “subjective” to address the effects on the souls involved, apart from the nature of the act.

Egad! The first time I read through this I thought you meant a guy who loved his daughter, as in “his own” daughter. :bigyikes:

Sorry about that! I guess I should have said “Alan’s daughter.” I’ll leave it up the way it was for humor value though.

You’re right, the point I was trying to make was that the second guy’s act is worse than solo masturbation because he is, effectively, masturbating with two people instead of one-- using two human beings simply for his own personal pleasure, and trampling on the unique dignity God has given to both of them in their sexuality. It’s in this sense that masturbation is “objectively” worse.

In addition, I would submit that the first guy I described would be doing something worse (for his part, anyway) if he stayed home and imagined himself with his soon-to-be wife, because this would be more of an illegitimate use of his own sexuality and of his love for her than if he was actually with her. I say “for his part” because it’s tough to evaluate his moral culpability for involving someone else in sin-- from his POV, he’s degrading her just by imagining her, but for her, well, it’s tough to say.

Thoughts?

 

[patricius]

I’m really surprised that people here are saying masturbation is worse than pre-marital sex. Amazing. You would be more concerned if you married a young woman who had masturbated than who had lost her virginity before marriage? This is madness!

Sex outside marriage is far far worse. For a start you are linking up spiritually with another person. You are engaging in behaviour which leads to unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexually-transmitted diseases, contraception.

dalcent,

It matters greatly whether the sex we’re talking about is “premarital” or just “extramarital.” See paragraph 3 of my post #24. For an illustration of what “premarital” might be, let’s put a twist on your example: would you prefer to marry a young lady who had masturbated or who had lost her virginity to you?

Or even, consider the choice between a girl who had masturbated and one who had a child from a premarital relationship. Doesn’t the one who is a mother seem much more wholesome and natural?

A note: I hope no one is offended by the fact that all these examples are women. It’s just that I’m a guy, so it’s easier for me to consider women.

 

[AndyF]

“Natural”, as used in this discussion, refers to natural law (the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law) rather than “what the animals do”.

Hi Vincent!

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

The paragragh on primates was to show other species were likely to manifest this behaviour as well as man. In context with the paragraph, the use of the word was in it’s proper place. The natural drive of the primate as it relates to the sensual appetites of man. What is natural(primal matter common to both species) within the confines of nature, was the question.

Man can sin through influence of satan, but also through his nature. He has advantages over primates in that he can use intellect and reason to ensure he does not fall into submission to his* natural* influence.

"rational creature’s participation in the eternal law

yes, this is a process, … that includes the use of reasoning and his intellect.

Andy

 

[jeffreedy789]

hey alan - i always am amused and appreciative of your candor and honesty.

you said: ‘For example, the exact same outward behavior can either constitute a mortal or venial sin depending on subtle distinctions in the mind and will of the perpetrator. The Church, in emphasizing the severity differences and in creating rules that depend on whether our sins are mortal or venial, creates legalistic confusion and anxiety,’

you’re right, there is definitely a difference in motive. and the church recognizes this. our culpability for even very grave sin, murder even, depends on our ability NOT to commit the action, and our intent in doing so.

you’re right, also, that the ‘system’ of categorization CAN be abused, and people made to feel confused and anxious about things that they shouldn’t. however, i see the catholic church’s delineation of mortal vs venial sins as LIBERATING from this confusion and anxiety, not contributing TO it. i know that in my life (and in the lives of those i know personally), realizing that something is mortal has given me (and them) the nudge needed to move past behavior that was keeping me from growing in my faith.

but alternatively, and more pertinent to my point, i have been shown that some behavior about which i’d felt needlessly guilty for years, was merely venial and not something to beat myself up about.

in either case, going to confession has allowed me to deal with my sinfulness in depth - to see it in light of the grace of a) God’s grace, and b) another person’s perspective. and going to confession would be an exercise in confusion and anxiety if there were no line between what is grave sin and what is venial. if there were no line, i would never receive the eucharist, as i know that i sin even from the time i leave the confessional until i go sit down in the pew.

i’m JUST that sinful.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

patricius:

Sorry about that! I guess I should have said “Alan’s daughter.” I’ll leave it up the way it was for humor value though.

LOL. I like your style.

You’re right, the point I was trying to make was that the second guy’s act is worse than solo masturbation because he is, effectively, masturbating with two people instead of one-- using two human beings simply for his own personal pleasure, and trampling on the unique dignity God has given to both of them in their sexuality. It’s in this sense that masturbation is “objectively” worse.

Sounds like I had the same conclusion, but with different reasoning. I suppose I could embrace your reasoning if I consider tying the second person, as opposed to the first, to the concept of “using” the other person as a means. By consequence, then, my daughter gets deeply hurt. It sounds like you’re focusing on the using itself rather than the hurt it causes.

In addition, I would submit that the first guy I described would be doing something worse (for his part, anyway) if he stayed home and imagined himself with his soon-to-be wife, because this would be more of an illegitimate use of his own sexuality and of his love for her than if he was actually with her. I say “for his part” because it’s tough to evaluate his moral culpability for involving someone else in sin-- from his POV, he’s degrading her just by imagining her, but for her, well, it’s tough to say.

Hmmmm. I really don’t know what to think of this. I guess it didn’t occur to me that there might be a young man about to marry my daughter who had not masturbated! Not that I’ve taken a statistical survey, but I’ve never known of an actual case of a young man of marrying age that was virginal in that way!

That said, I don’t even like the idea of their getting together after the wedding. Yuck. Let the guy support her but keep to his own room. If they want to have children, I think they should do it the way Joseph and Mary did. :yup:

Still, I’m tempted to hold my ground on this, at least for the time being. Perhaps my feelings might vary depending on the imminence of the wedding and other factors, but if I had my druthers I think I’d rather he waited. (Spoken by a man who got married when his second child was on the way ). Maybe it’s just because I care more about my daughter than the other person’s son, and it would be different if it were my son and somebody else’s daughter. Nahhh, I don’t think so. I’d be more concerned over my son going at it with his fiance than him doing what I figure he probably does anyway. I guess I just can’t get past the assumption that all young boys will “do it” because they are incapable of refraining.

Oh, well. I guess I have no opinion on whether one is more sinful in a theological sense. As a practical matter, I think one is worse off for conspiring with another to sin the one way than to sin by oneself the other way.

Alan

 

[patricius]

Well, not to get really, really personal here, but I’m 21 and going to be married in 2 months, and neither my fiancee or I have ever masturbated. (We’re also both virgins in the more conventional sense, and intending to stay that way for the next 2 months )

However, this is the Lord’s doing and not my own.

 

[patricius]

That said, I don’t even like the idea of their getting together after the wedding. Yuck. Let the guy support her but keep to his own room. If they want to have children, I think they should do it the way Joseph and Mary did. :yup:

Something that funny just deserves to be up here twice.

 

[jeffreedy789]

i wish it were ‘the lord’s doing’ in far more cases than yours.

‘That said, I don’t even like the idea of their getting together after the wedding.’

amen to that. all of my daughters are going to be NUNS!!!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

patricius:

However, this is the Lord’s doing and not my own.

:clapping:

:bowdown:

That’s really cool. I keep forgetting – with God all things are possible.

Alan

 

[otm]

“Is it more evil to masturbate or to have pre-marital sex…or are they both intrinsically evil?”

For the unmarried is not masterbation pre-marital sex with yourself?

I would turn it around; given the amount of contraception that is introduced so that non married couples can have "safe"sex, I would propose that pre-marital sex is just a form of mutual masterbation. I am well aware of the physical possibility of having a child; but the objective is to not have a child.

Further, even a short analysis of Theology of the Body, or a good understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage would indicate that in a true marriage, the spouses are to be completely open to the other and self-giving. Pre-marital sex is just about the epitomey of self-taking.

 

[patricius]

Thanks, Alan.

I think we’ve actually been trying to answer different questions. Many posters here are trying to answer the question, “Which sin is a greater offense against the order of God’s creation?” But when you come down to a personal level, we have to start thinking about things like “Which sin would I rather have my friend/child/spouse commit?” I think it’s perfectly all right for the answers to these two questions to be different, based on factors that other posters have noted.

 

[patricius]

By the way, Alan and Jeff, I’ve got to say that I’m kind of glad I’m not marrying one of your guys’ daughters

 

[jeffreedy789]

so am i. can you say shotgun?

 

[patricius]

I can indeed say “shotgun,” but I don’t quite understand-- is the shotgun being pointed at me?