a new spin on a common question (the m word)

[Frankr409]

You lose credibility when you try to deny evolution. The Church doesn’t.

Let me see if I can clear up what the Bible says about the creation of man, and then you can sort out for yourself what might have evolved from what.

Unless God meant to purposely mislead us with the book of Genesis, specifically Genesis 1:27 “God created man in his own image”

There was nothing mentioned of God creating man from a monkey, or in the image of a monkey.

Does that preclude the possibility that God created early hominid like creatures that greatly preceded Adam and Eve? No, in fact in Genesis 1:24 it is clear the God created all kinds of creatures. I suspect that the early Hominid creatures may have evolved into very intelligent creatures. In fact the fossil record suggests that it is true.

The bible though, suggests that God created man, and that man has a soul.

However genetically similar early hominids, or their offshoots the Bonobo chimpanzees who play lustily with their private parts all day, we are not related to them. We come from Adam and Eve.

I hope this clears up your concerns about evolution. The Church, by the way doesn’t take an official position on the matter, it simply reaffirms our existence as humans through our original mother and father.

 

[Frankr409]

You lose credibility when you try to deny evolution. The Church doesn’t.

I failed to provide this in my previous reply, but you can read an excellent treatise in the link below about the Catholic Churches position on evolution. As a faithful Catholic, I would also add that I share this position.

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

 

[Spirithound]

like i said, build up of sex drive. at some point their is enough tension that just release of that tension and pleasure are enough

this is the point to the whole thread…HOW IS IT A MOCKERY? i dont see how it defiles anything, if it defiled me or my future wife or anything of that nature of course it would be wrong. however when done without fantizisation the only thing that is accomplished are the subjective effects, which are release of sexual tension as well as pleasure and health benefits. when porn or fantasies are involved then yes it begins to degrade women and hurts the mind, but subjectively i dont see how it hurts anyone.

I see that I neglected your previous post. So…I don’t buy that. What is the sex drive? It is the drive to have sex. With who? Irrelevant to the conversation. If you have a sex drive, it is because you want to have sex with someone, whether she is a particular woman, or just any woman. And the point is, you need to think about this woman (indeterminate as she may be) in order to become erect. This is lust.

Masturbation is a mockery of the marital embrace because the proper ends for our sexual organs is procreation, with unity and pleasure as co-existent ends. If any of the three is missing, then you’re doing it wrong.

and to everyone…if masturbation is bad, what are we suppossed to do with the sex drive until marriage? the Church offers a critique of it, yet it proposes no alternative- just to not do anything. this is a ridiculous expectation, we have no idea how long it will be until we get married, to do nothing only will lead to a drive that continues to build in us. if masturbation really is bad, then what is a alternative for the single person?

“To not do anything” [about it] IS an alternative. What makes you think you NEED to do something about it? This is not a ridiculous expectation, I’m 25, male, and I have never masturbated. I am discerning priesthood, and I will be remaining celibate for life. THIS IS NOT RIDICULOUS.

Talk to your priest, unite your struggles with Jesus on the Cross, and keep soldiering on.

 

[camerong]

I’m 25, male, and I have never masturbated. I am discerning priesthood, and I will be remaining celibate for life. THIS IS NOT RIDICULOUS.
.

Praise God for people with your fortitude. If you become a priest, your future parish will be very blessed indeed.

 

[Arwen037]

Those two beliefs are not compatible, at least as you take them. You say the Church is divine, yet hold that the Magisterium, in its most fundamental teachings, can be wrong? Either the Church is divine and so are the teachings it claims to be infallible, or the Church is not divine, and all of its teachings are up to debate.

I can understand his confusion. The Church has been wrong on some things (Inquisition & Crusades) and it can be hard to distinguish between things like this and teachings.

Frankr409,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68737
The Catholic Church teaches that God is the creator of all things, and that man has a soul and is distinct from the animals. The bottom line is that the** theory (or theories) of evolution is a scientific dispute**, not a theological one. The real messsage is that God created the earth and everything in it, and that man fell through the error of Adam and Eve, the first of mankind.

Now, if you can argue against evolution from a scientific standpoint, I’ll listen. The Church being against evolution is a common misunderstanding held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101277
This entire answer is based on the idea that dinosaurs were real, which isn’t consistent with creationism only.

All this plus the fact that in your post you admit I’m right. The Church doesn’t deny evolution. So for you to use that as a basis of argument undermines your point and leaves openings for people to ignore you.

 

[Frankr409]

I can understand his confusion. The Church has been wrong on some things (Inquisition & Crusades) and it can be hard to distinguish between things like this and teachings.

Frankr409,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=68737
The Catholic Church teaches that God is the creator of all things, and that man has a soul and is distinct from the animals. The bottom line is that the** theory (or theories) of evolution is a scientific dispute**, not a theological one. The real messsage is that God created the earth and everything in it, and that man fell through the error of Adam and Eve, the first of mankind.

Now, if you can argue against evolution from a scientific standpoint, I’ll listen. The Church being against evolution is a common misunderstanding held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101277
This entire answer is based on the idea that dinosaurs were real, which isn’t consistent with creationism only.

All this plus the fact that in your post you admit I’m right. The Church doesn’t deny evolution. So for you to use that as a basis of argument undermines your point and leaves openings for people to ignore you.

I’m not against evolution, so you need go work someone else over my friend. The Church is neither for it or against it. The Bible though is very specific God created man in his own image. He created Eve from the rib of Adam, and the human race is descended from them.

If you are suggesting that Adam is a decedent of a monkey you are just plain wrong. If you can bring back the missing link that joins Mankind and the hominid creatures that predated Adam and Eve by millions of years, then do it. But you can’t, and neither has any scientist to date.

Now then, you can get on to ignoring me, and all of the other Orthodox Catholics on this forum.

The crux of the original posters argument was that a species of monkey unashamedly pleasures itself and felt that this was justification for his own indulgences.

 

[camerong]

I can understand his confusion. The Church has been wrong on some things (Inquisition & Crusades) and it can be hard to distinguish between things like this and teachings.

The Church has never been wrong on a fundamental teaching, like its teaching on sexuality (which includes prohibiting masturbation). Members of the Church, even Popes, have been wrong about many things, of that there is no doubt. But it is my firm belief (as it ought to be of all Catholics) that the Church has never declared anything to be infallible that was not, in fact, infallible.

Further, if I may be so bold (no pun intended), it is time to END this side track about evolution. The OP made a question about masturbation. Sound Catholics should have as their overwhelming goal to correct the OP’s mistaken belief. The evolution side-debate on this thread only detracts from that goal. Catholics, post with a purpose, not to prove you are right.

 

[Luke_K]

1. in the list of sexual sins provided in Leviticus 18, masturbation is not included, it is not mentioned in Deuteronomy either-both books contain many specific laws, some of which deal with apparently arbitrary things. since masturbation was not mentioned, it can be concluded that it was not a matter of great importance to God

A man who had nocturnal emissions was considered unclean (like a woman during menstruation) and had to purify himself, so how much more unclean would a man be if he masturbated consciously?

1. psychologically, it has been shown to have no negative side effects unless it becomes an addiction, actually it has been shown to have benefits for youth

It hurt me psychologically when I was doing it. I was trapped between two desires: God and evil. As Jesus said, no one can serve two masters.

1. it hurts no one

This is the most pervasive argument for immorality today. No man is an island. Everything we do affects our perspective on life and how we interact with other people. Masturbating teaches you to view women as a means to an end- a means to sexual release. This inevitably gives rise to demeaning behavior towards women.

1. it can be used to subdue the sex drive, meaning less of a desire for a woman (adultery) while single

The absurdity of this one is quite funny actually. Masturbating is just throwing more fuel on to the fire of lust. It shows that you are incapable of controlling your desires (ones that are not necessary for survival). The only way to tame the beast of lust is to starve it to death. After well over a year of not masturbating, I can tell you with the utmost sincerity that my sex drive is so much more controlled now. My libido is still present- it’s not like I’ve become a lifeless zombie- but it’s subject to my will now. Just like when I was younger and found it a heavy trial to wait for dessert or play video games, but now I’m an adult and can be patient, I used to not be able to wait or resist sexual stimulation, but now I’ve grown up.

1. (MAJOR POINT) it has been shown to be done in higher mammals, making it totally natural; Bonobo chimpanzees, which share 98.4% percent of our DNA, provides some confirmation that masturbation has likely been practiced since the dawn of mankind.
   -natural law is key in Church teaching, and masturbation appears to be natural

This is a common argument for immorality today too, and a very weak one. “Planet Earth” showed chimpanzee clans fighting and killing each other. Does that make fighting and killing part of natural law? Monkeys also fling poop at each other. Does that mean we humans should be doing it too? WE ARE NOT MONKEYS. Lets not base our morality on stupid monkeys for crying out loud!

1. the reason many people find call it un-natural and feel guilt for doing it is because of the STIGMA placed on it. it is taugh over and over that it is bad, creating a negative stigma

So what? Does the negative stigma associated with the act change the fact of whether it’s bad or good? No. Immoral acts should have negative stigmas attached to them.

ADVANTAGES TO ALLOWING IT:
-less sexual tension
-health and psychological benefits
-and increase in patience for the right woman who each one of us will love with our heart, because the sex drive will not cloud our view

-I have no sexual tension now, and I had tons of it when I was masturbating.
-I’m pretty healthy physically and psychologically, and priests and nuns don’t seem to be keeling over from not masturbating or having sex. (And please don’t bring up sexual abuse in the clergy…you tell me if the greater number of guys who are raping women and abusing children outside of the clergy never masturbate, have sex, or look at pornography.)
-Again, good joke. Masturbation does the exact opposite of what you propose. Just read the “Family Life” forum to see the large numbers of women who have been deeply hurt from their husbands being impure. An increase in patience and love for a woman comes from building our discipline and sacrificing our desires- giving our sexuality totally and freely to our spouse.

so there are the ten major arguments ive found which seem to support masturbation logically, yet the Church seems to teach from a illogical stand point as condemning it would seem to be jumping to conclusions

They aren’t logical. Don’t fall into the trap of so many cynical atheists and agnostics today who simply brand things they like as “logical” and things they dislike as “illogical” in order to simplify their worldview and build up their pride while making fun of religion.

so please answer my questions, i only wish to do what God wants and this subject confuses me a great deal

Good for you. If only more people sought what God wishes first…

 

[Arwen037]

The Church has never been wrong on a fundamental teaching, like its teaching on sexuality (which includes prohibiting masturbation). Members of the Church, even Popes, have been wrong about many things, of that there is no doubt. But it is my firm belief (as it ought to be of all Catholics) that the Church has never declared anything to be infallible that was not, in fact, infallible.

Further, if I may be so bold (no pun intended), it is time to END this side track about evolution. The OP made a question about masturbation. Sound Catholics should have as their overwhelming goal to correct the OP’s mistaken belief. The evolution side-debate on this thread only detracts from that goal. Catholics, post with a purpose, not to prove you are right.

Don’t be smart about this. I pointed out where the confusion about the Chruch being wrong comes from.
And the evolution argument is not a side track. When you make false arguments then it encourages the behavior. It the same reason you shouldn’t say that masturbating makes you go blinds or the other ridiculous beliefs. People realize that is a false argument and then they ignore your arguments. Go ahead and argue that we are not monkeys, and we shouldn’t behave like monkeys. But to say we didn’t come from monkeys so we shouldn’t behave like them is a bad argument that will just be ignored and will undermine the Church’s position.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Don’t be smart about this. I pointed out where the confusion about the Chruch being wrong comes from.
And the evolution argument is not a side track. When you make false arguments then it encourages the behavior. It the same reason you shouldn’t say that masturbating makes you go blinds or the other ridiculous beliefs. People realize that is a false argument and then they ignore your arguments. Go ahead and argue that we are not monkeys, and we shouldn’t behave like monkeys. But to say we didn’t come from monkeys so we shouldn’t behave like them is a bad argument that will just be ignored and will undermine the Church’s position.

If you want to talk about false arguments then what about comparing a the topic to masturbation to indulgences. That’s about as false as it comes not to mention it’s justifying a terrible sin.

Furthermore this topic has nothing to do with evolution. The poster brought up a point that we are not monkeys (which we aren’t) and that masturbation is not part of how God created us. Now whether or not you agree with his claim that we didn’t evolve from monkeys is something separate from this thread.

 

[Luke_K]

You lose credibility when you try to deny evolution. The Church doesn’t.

Evolutionary theory doesn’t say we evolved from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution proposes that monkeys are our cousins, not our fathers, so what they do has no relevance to what we humans are supposed to do.

 

[bleh_confused]

“Masturbation is a mockery of the marital embrace because the proper ends for our sexual organs is procreation, with unity and pleasure as co-existent ends. If any of the three is missing, then you’re doing it wrong.”

firstly may i ask where they draw this view from? also, the use of the sex organs primarily for procreation seems animalistic- that would mean they are meant to preserve the species, and if it is animalistic, wouldn’t that justify my argument?

and to the evolution side track that has occured i can say only one thing- don’t cite genesis for scientific evidence of anything. it only further contributes to the idea that Catholics are crazy and so is the Bible…scientific evidence supports evolution, and many Religous people, including myself, say that God guided it along, and the fact is, those chimpanzees share 98% of our DNA, we should obviously have similar habits reguardless of whether or not were the same creature

“I see that I neglected your previous post. So…I don’t buy that. What is the sex drive? It is the drive to have sex. With who? Irrelevant to the conversation. If you have a sex drive, it is because you want to have sex with someone, whether she is a particular woman, or just any woman. And the point is, you need to think about this woman (indeterminate as she may be) in order to become erect. This is lust.”

my point im arguing is that there are times when there is a hormonal influx in people, to the degree they don’t need to think of a woman to become, as you bluntly put, erect. it is during these times that i believe masturbation is fine. when a woman comes into the picture, it is a sin of lust

 

[bleh_confused]

The Church has never been wrong on a fundamental teaching, like its teaching on sexuality (which includes prohibiting masturbation). Members of the Church, even Popes, have been wrong about many things, of that there is no doubt. But it is my firm belief (as it ought to be of all Catholics) that the Church has never declared anything to be infallible that was not, in fact, infallible.

i did not know they called themselves infallible on this issue,i knew they were very strict on their guidelines and keeping them the same way, but i did not know they called themselves infallible on the matter. please cite a source for this, it’d help a great deal

“This is the most pervasive argument for immorality today. No man is an island. Everything we do affects our perspective on life and how we interact with other people. Masturbating teaches you to view women as a means to an end- a means to sexual release. This inevitably gives rise to demeaning behavior towards women.”

not if it is done without fantisization, as i said above at times the act is enough

 

[Luke_K]

firstly may i ask where they draw this view from? also, the use of the sex organs primarily for procreation seems animalistic- that would mean they are meant to preserve the species, and if it is animalistic, wouldn’t that justify my argument?

There is a common misconception among even Catholics regarding this point. Catholicism don’t say that every deliberate release of seed from the male has to result in conception- only that the procreative aspect of the act has to always be present. This basically means that you can’t deliberately do anything to frustrate the potential for procreation from the marital embrace.

I’ll try to give the ultra-condensed version of the reasoning behind this. True love has four aspects to it, which can be drawn from Jesus’ example. It is total (He loved them to the last," John 13:1), free (“No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.” John 10:18), faithful (“I am with you always,” Matthew 28:20), and fruitful (“I came that they may have life,” John 10:10). God in his Triune nature also reveals this. The Father gives himself entirely to the Son, who gives himself entirely back to the Father, and this action of giving is the Holy Spirit. God’s existence, and ultimately all existence, derives from this eternal action of love- giving of ourselves totally in order to produce life. To say that God loves something is the same as to say he gives it existence!

Humans are created in God’s image. The martial embrace is a sign of the inner life of the trinity- the husband and wife give themselves to each other totally and produce life in the process. The human body is the means by which the spiritual is made physical. It is not just a meaningless vessel that our souls inhabit. When we deliberately use the sexual organs in a way that hides the life-giving aspect of them, we are saying one thing with our body and the opposite with our will. The action becomes a lie.

The marital embrace therefore must be total (no holding back the procreative aspect of our bodies), free (the action doesn’t result as a compulsion of lust), faithful (no adultery), and fruitful (again, no holding back the procreative aspect).

not if it is done without fantisization, as i said above at times the act is enough

If your male body somehow is so pent up with libido that you can do that, then it will occur naturally in your sleep. You should also consider where that build-up of hormones is coming from…If you’re filling your life with raunchy television, movies, songs, sexual images, and lustful thoughts, it’s like you’re filling a keg with dynamite and lighting the fuse. There are other ways to release libido anyways, like exercising.

 

[brittrossiter]

i did not know they called themselves infallible on this issue,i knew they were very strict on their guidelines and keeping them the same way, but i did not know they called themselves infallible on the matter. please cite a source for this, it’d help a great deal

“… Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. …” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2352).

The Catechism cites, as a reference, paragraph 9 of the document “Persona Humana,” which was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1975. That document reads, in relevant part, as follows:

"The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (‘ipsation’), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

"This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of ‘impurity,’ ‘unchasteness’ and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

“Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts.[21] The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man’s innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity. …”

Persona Humana can be viewed on the Vatican’s website. Hope this helps you.

 

[Spirithound]

“Masturbation is a mockery of the marital embrace because the proper ends for our sexual organs is procreation, with unity and pleasure as co-existent ends. If any of the three is missing, then you’re doing it wrong.”

firstly may i ask where they draw this view from? also, the use of the sex organs primarily for procreation seems animalistic- that would mean they are meant to preserve the species, and if it is animalistic, wouldn’t that justify my argument?

Luke answered the first part of this very nicely, but I will underscore that no, this is not animalistic. I did not say ‘primarily for procreation’, I said that openness to procreation, unity, and pleasure are to be co-existent ends to sex. Most animals do not have sex for pleasure, but rather only when the female is in heat. The unitive aspect is kinda default…So to vaguely quote CS Lewis from The Four Loves, when a man is said to act animalistically, he certainly is not, for the animals are not clever enough to act thusly.

my point im arguing is that there are times when there is a hormonal influx in people, to the degree they don’t need to think of a woman to become, as you bluntly put, erect. it is during these times that i believe masturbation is fine. when a woman comes into the picture, it is a sin of lust

Question for you then; why would you masturbate if this is the case? Most men who masturbate do so in a mistaken attempt at a relationship, ie, fantasizing that a woman is with them. Why masturbate if this is not present?

 

[bleh_confused]

I’ll try to give the ultra-condensed version of the reasoning behind this. True love has four aspects to it, which can be drawn from Jesus’ example. It is total (He loved them to the last," John 13:1), free (“No one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.” John 10:18), faithful (“I am with you always,” Matthew 28:20), and fruitful (“I came that they may have life,” John 10:10). God in his Triune nature also reveals this. The Father gives himself entirely to the Son, who gives himself entirely back to the Father, and this action of giving is the Holy Spirit. God’s existence, and ultimately all existence, derives from this eternal action of love- giving of ourselves totally in order to produce life. To say that God loves something is the same as to say he gives it existence!"

thank you first off for condensing that, i’ve been looking for something that straight forward for a while. second, how is it that if any of these things are missing, a sin automatically results? if there is no woman involved, it seems to just be an action in which the sex parts are used, not something that defiles love- like using contraception to obtain only physical pleasure from the act

"Question for you then; why would you masturbate if this is the case? Most men who masturbate do so in a mistaken attempt at a relationship, ie, fantasizing that a woman is with them. Why masturbate if this is not present? "

pleasure, bluntly put. a woman doesnt have to be involved for their to be pleasure.

 

[camerong]

Since brittrossiter has established above that the Church does, in fact, hold its teaching on masturbation to be infallible, I’m interested in hearing your response to it. Again, let me state that, as a Catholic, our very first response to any assertion should be whether there is a fundamental teaching for or against it. In this case, everything else that has been said is merely academic speculation, at least as a Catholic should be concerned.

I very much doubt that we can discern using our own logic–outside of God–whether any acts are good or bad. That appears to me to be what you are trying to do, because God’s answer has been given.

 

[prettylarge]

Masturbation does hurt people. For one, it is a habit which is difficult to stop when one gets married, and there is no shortage of wives around who have been hurt by their husband’s habit. (Not to mention the negative effects it has on sex in a marriage…)

lol, you have serious problems if your masturbation effects your sex life. I am happily married and still masturbate. It doesn’t hurt anyone. I totally agree with the thread starter. The Catholic Church is obsessed masturbation and sexual sins when it should focus on more important things.

The Church’s teachings perpetuate unneeded guilt. Now THAT is what is hurting people.

 

[Luke_K]

thank you first off for condensing that, i’ve been looking for something that straight forward for a while. second, how is it that if any of these things are missing, a sin automatically results? if there is no woman involved, it seems to just be an action in which the sex parts are used, not something that defiles love- like using contraception to obtain only physical pleasure from the act

pleasure, bluntly put. a woman doesnt have to be involved for their to be pleasure.

I’m sure you realize that what you do to get that pleasure is mimicking the marital embrace…

From chastity.com: “We can not justify a physical sin by mentally distracting ourselves from our actions. It’s like asking if it’s okay to shoplift a CD as long as you are thinking about feeding the homeless. Your mind may be doing one thing, but your actions say another. You could even compare it to the kiss of Judas. His body showed love to Christ, but his intentions were full of sin. When you masturbate while trying not to lust, it’s kind of like doing the reverse. You are supposedly doing something noble with your mind, and something disordered with the gift of your sexuality.”

Don’t forget that our bodies have been created in the image of God- male and female- so much so that God himself was willing to embody himself as Jesus. Our physical actions contain intrinsic meaning. Masturbating is like trying to shake hands with, hug, or kiss yourself. These physical actions are meant to be shared with other people. They are all God’s gift to us so that we can share love through our bodies. Willfully masturbating is so incredibly much more disordered than those other things mentioned, because the built-in purpose of the sex organs is to create life and bond the two people who are creating that life in order to strengthen their relationship for raising the children.

Using our sexual organs with ourselves becomes the absolute antithesis of what the physical act is saying. The use of your own hands becomes the female, and the pleasure becomes its own end, rather than being there because the act reproduces the species and bonds the pair together.

Speaking of which, you are a big fan of using evolution to justify morality, so why don’t you accept that our bodies make sex pleasurable because it propagates the species? The orgasm is what gets us to make babies! It’s what nature intended, right?

lol, you have serious problems if your masturbation effects your sex life. I am happily married and still masturbate. It doesn’t hurt anyone. I totally agree with the thread starter. The Catholic Church is obsessed masturbation and sexual sins when it should focus on more important things.

The Church’s teachings perpetuate unneeded guilt. Now THAT is what is hurting people.

Does your wife know you’re doing this? There are many wives on these forums who have been devastated by their husbands viewing porn and masturbating.

It’s strange how modern society likes to view the Church as against sex, yet when we talk about what a big deal and how holy sex is, people say to lighten up…If only everyone valued sex as much as the Church does!