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

[bleh_confused]

My point, as I discuss in nearly every post on this thread, is that the evidence for Catholicism being true is far greater than the evidence that masturbation or any other sin is wrong. The entire world has been debating whether certain acts are right or wrong for thousands of years and is completely lost. I very much suspect the OP will never come to see that masturbation is wrong until he accepts the divinity of the Church in all teachings it claims are infallible–the lack of this belief is why virtually all non-Catholics see masturbation as acceptable, as do very many Catholics. As I have said elsewhere on this very thread, the starting point of the discussion should be that it is covered by an infallible teaching. I never, ever said it should be the ending point. And, of course, please noticed that I gave a detailed defense of the Church’s teachings in my very first response. When that response–and many others from several talented and well-spoken Catholics–failed to move the OP, I decided it was appropriate to re-assert the futility of evaluating such important matters using our reasoning alone.

Let me again say: The Catholic Church has declared that its teaching on masturbation is divinely inspired and infallible. If one is Catholic and disputes this, it is not a question of “man’s understanding of God,” as you assert, but rather is a question of the Church’s claim to divinity. It is, of course, entirely appropriate to discuss the Church’s teachings as they relate to us, and the reasons we can see for and against them. But at the end of the day, it is not logic or arguments that converts the sinner or comforts the weary, but FAITH, in Christ and His Church. To claim otherwise is folly.

where do they say it is divinely inspired? i only know they strongly enforce it, but ive never heard that it was divinely inspired.

 

[bleh_confused]

I think you mis-read what the Catechism is saying. We can question in order to better understand, but not to justify. Also, I am wondering exactly what that first line means

I am struggling with the word “may”, it sounds like we do not have to accept infallibility of the pope. I know this is not true, so I can only surmise it is saying, we are to accept infallibility and faith in God, but we should question man. I am not sure.

The argument that “Jesus didn’t say not to do it” does not work. If Jesus did not say something, we can not assume it must be okay. Jesus did not talk about abortion or smoking crack, but we know those things are bad.

One reason for not mentioning masturbation was that it was known to be wrong. Why would Jesus spend time teaching something that everyone knew was wrong? Jesus focused on the issues of the day. But this is why He founded a living Church, so it could adapt to the current problems of society and guide the people.

he spoke on several issues already known to be wrong, like adultery. why wouldn’t he say this is wrong, as it is much easier to commit and much more common, or at the least say hwo we were supposed to use the sexual organs.

 

[bleh_confused]

The Catholic Church possesses all truth. Why should we go outside to find it?

they possess a finite amount of information, if they knew all truth there would be no need for the expanding of doctrine.

 

[bleh_confused]

also, i have something i would like to say to everyone who seems to think its terrible to go against the Church; to everyone whose saying i should accept their teaching…

i will not roll over and die like a child and accept the Church’s teaching on anything if i feel they are wrong. i question, i think. i can’t see how you people can just except what they say. i think for myself, i believe in the Divinity of the Church, yes, but it is run by men, and men make mistakes. i believe the dogma’s and such that are essential to the faith. outside that, though, its up for debate. its not a sin to question and go against something you feel is an incorrect teaching.

i submit my will to Christ, not the Church

 

[wolters1]

I am struggling with the word “may”, it sounds like we do not have to accept infallibility of the pope.

This should help your grasp of the English language:
"OED:

1. Expressing present subjective possibility, i.e. the admissibility of a supposition, in a direct or indirect statement.

What I originally wrote was:

Catholics may accept the infallibility of the Pope and have faith in God,

Let it be said, suppose, assume, taken, granted, given,

wolters1:

but there is not an expectation that

however, it does not necessarily follow that

wolters1:

Catholics have faith in the infallibility of man. Not only is there nothing wrong with questioning man’s understanding of God, but it only hurts the Church if the Church or its members respond, as you have, to an attempt to understand a tenet of the Church’s teaching. In centuries past it may have been enough to tell an uneducated and illiterate mob to “have faith” with no explanation. In an educated, literate, and astute society, that is unacceptable and the layity have the same right as the clergy to examine the bases for their beliefs.

chessmane4e5:

we are to accept infallibility and faith in God, but we should question man. I am not sure.

To take but one patently obvious example, how are we to know the anti-Christ if we do not question? How are we to know whether we are being led to sin if we do not question? How are we to know whether our conduct glorifies God? As you point out, Jesus didn’t provide the answer to every problem we may have. Faith is one component, but God gave us sentience and reason. It would be odd if we were prohibited from using that great gift, one of the few things, if not the only thing, that sets us apart from all of His creations, to better understand God and his wishes.

chessmane4e5:

The argument that “Jesus didn’t say not to do it” does not work. If Jesus did not say something, we can not assume it must be okay. Jesus did not talk about abortion or smoking crack, but we know those things are bad.

One reason for not mentioning masturbation was that it was known to be wrong. Why would Jesus spend time teaching something that everyone knew was wrong? Jesus focused on the issues of the day. But this is why He founded a living Church, so it could adapt to the current problems of society and guide the people.

I have no idea what you’re on about there… it isn’t responsive to what I wrote.

I am pretty convinced TS just doesn’t like the answers he’s getting, and that’s fine. It’s his problem.

My problem is the condemnation from “Catholics” when someone seeks to understand the reasons underlying a belief. One answer is to have faith, and ideally we would all have faith in God. But to question someone who clearly lacks that faith for trying to understand is wrong. God wants people to have faith and come to understand Him. He doesn’t want those seeking to understand him to be turned away because they were not born with faith.

 

[wolters1]

The Catholic Church possesses all truth. Why should we go outside to find it?

I recognize that you may be someone with a very strong faith, and this isn’t meant as a personal attack: Your statement that the Catholic Church “possesses all truth” (emphasis mine) is patently absurd and entirely unsupported. If you’re speaking literally…

Perhaps you were not speaking literally.

 

[stringbeanduck]

also, i have something i would like to say to everyone who seems to think its terrible to go against the Church; to everyone whose saying i should accept their teaching…

i will not roll over and die like a child and accept the Church’s teaching on anything if i feel they are wrong. i question, i think. i can’t see how you people can just except what they say. i think for myself, i believe in the Divinity of the Church, yes, but it is run by men, and men make mistakes. i believe the dogma’s and such that are essential to the faith. outside that, though, its up for debate. its not a sin to question and go against something you feel is an incorrect teaching.

i submit my will to Christ, not the Church

It may not be sin according the moral relativism of Bleh confused, but according to the Catholic Church which has been around longer than you it is a sin to refuse Catholic church teaching. So with that in mind I’m more inclined to believe the Bride of Christ than you with all due respect.

St Thomas Aquinas once said Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.

 

[wolters1]

St Thomas Aquinas once said Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches.

That’s a truism. He also said we should execute heretics.

 

[Spirithound]

they possess a finite amount of information, if they knew all truth there would be no need for the expanding of doctrine.

I recognize that you may be someone with a very strong faith, and this isn’t meant as a personal attack: Your statement that the Catholic Church “possesses all truth” (emphasis mine) is patently absurd and entirely unsupported. If you’re speaking literally…

Perhaps you were not speaking literally.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

819 … …Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

Perhaps I was wrong to use the verb “possess”, but I give my assent to the CCC.

 

[stringbeanduck]

That’s a truism. He also said we should execute heretics.

Umm what does that have to do with masturbation?

 

[wolters1]

Umm what does that have to do with masturbation?

Just as with your appeal to authority, absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. It did not strengthen your argument.

I really think children should be tought how to reason and the art of rhetoric in schools. If they did we might have a polity actually capable of intelligent discussion.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Just as with your appeal to authority, absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. It did not strengthen your argument.

I really think children should be tought how to reason and the art of rhetoric in schools. If they did we might have a polity actually capable of intelligent discussion.

My post had everything to do with masturbation giving that it is a sound Catholic teaching that bleh confused was denying. I was simply explaining how denying such teaching is a sin within the church. That is, if one calls themselves Catholic. St Thomas is a legitimate authority within the Catholic Church(the Bride of Christ) and there is nothing wrong with citing his quotes. There’s no fallacy in that my friend. lol

Furthermore, you bringing up a claim that he supports the execution of heretics is attempt to discredit him as good source because of that claim.

 

[fix]

Just as with your appeal to authority, absolutely nothing to do with masturbation. It did not strengthen your argument.

I really think children should be tought how to reason and the art of rhetoric in schools. If they did we might have a polity actually capable of intelligent discussion.

The appeal is to the ultimate authority, Jesus Christ, who is the authority behind His Church. Now, if His authority is not accepted, then we have a much bigger issue.

The teachings of the church have plenty of proof including the proof that Christ founded the Church and He speaks through it on these matters which bind us.

The problem with these discussions is that Catholics, who should have already reasoned that the Christ is the authority behind His Church, claim that everything He teaches must be “reasonable” to them regardless of what the Church teaches. Meaning that they only accept the parts they claim to grasp. That would mean they do not accept the authority of Christ through His Church.

 

[camerong]

Just as with your appeal to authority. . .

Appeal to authority? We are not appealing to an authority in the place of logic or evidence. We are saying that (1) we believe that fundamental teachings of the Church are divinely inspired, (2) clearly among those teachings are that masturbation is wrong, and therefore (3) we see masturbation as wrong. It is beyond debate that among teachings the Church claims to be fundamental and infallible is the teaching on masturbation. Thus, the only assailable part of that logic is the first proposition, that fundamental teachings of the Church are divinely inspired.

As I recognized several pages ago, this debate is no longer about Catholic teaching, but about the very divinity of the Catholic Church to make infallible teachings. If one does not believe the Catholic Church can make infallible teachings, then he ought to dismiss the Church as a liar through and through, because it is constantly making the claim to infallibility.

 

[camerong]

where do they say it is divinely inspired? i only know they strongly enforce it, but ive never heard that it was divinely inspired.

“… 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 Magisterium produces infallible teachings. See newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm.

 

[Bbigam]

also, i have something i would like to say to everyone who seems to think its terrible to go against the Church; to everyone whose saying i should accept their teaching…

i will not roll over and die like a child and accept the Church’s teaching on anything if i feel they are wrong. i question, i think. i can’t see how you people can just except what they say. i think for myself, i believe in the Divinity of the Church, yes, but it is run by men, and men make mistakes. i believe the dogma’s and such that are essential to the faith. outside that, though, its up for debate. its not a sin to question and go against something you feel is an incorrect teaching.

i submit my will to Christ, not the Church

Here you are incorrect and draw a false dichotomy.

You are correct that it is okay to think, to question. But this should be seeking to understand and accept the Church’s teaching. It is in fact sin to reject official teachings of the Church. If you don’t understand it, humbly accept that the Church is right even though you don’t get it, and submit yourself to its teaching.

Who gets to decide what is essential to the Faith? The Church has already done it, it’s not your job.

You can’t submit your will to Christ and not to the Church. Christ is the head of the Church, which is His Body. Ephesians 1:22-23: “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Reject the Church, you reject Christ.

 

[John21652]

The most important thing is that if the Church is wrong on this, what is it right on? How do you tell? In my book, you’re not Catholic if you’re willing to question such basic tenets of belief as this. Either everything the Church teaches (with this degree of emphasis) is infallible, or nothing is.

But to address your points…

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…)

Masturbation will always lead to adultery with the heart. Consider masturbating to the same mental image (or same photo) for a year in a row. It doesn’t work. Masturbation needs new and different objects to sustain it. That is why so much porn exists. And few can masturbate (much, at least) without an object at least in mind.

Higher mammals also have sex with whomever they chose. Is that a practice you suggest? The standard of higher mammals’ behavior as good and natural immediately fails when we think of a little thing called morality.

It can be used to subdue sex drive, sure. But as C.S. Lewis writes, a starving person thinks a lot about food, but so does a glutton. It will not provide relief for long–for most people, not more than 24 hours. And having to do it every 24 hours is a strange definition for a reduced sex-drive.

Having been on both sides of the coin, let me tell you that sex within a committed marriage is unimaginably better than sex without it. And I now deeply regret my previous activities. Not because some stigma society has placed on it–there is a similar stigma to going to Church during the week and a million other things Catholics do–but because I can see how it has scarred me.

Is it possible that you are trying to rationalize this so that you will feel comfortable doing it? That is, actually, the reason I first came to this website–for a “Catholic” defense of pornography, so that I might not feel bad about it.

If you believe the Church is really divine, then you have to have faith that it is correct on important teachings such as this, even though you cannot see that now. I would bet a year of paychecks that you change your mind someday, perhaps having developed a stronger faith, perhaps in a committed marriage.

Good luck trying to solve this situation, I know it can be difficult. But I want you to consider, at least for a few moments, that the Devil is whispering these arguments in your ear, and wanting you to believe them. Can you really see Christ watching you do this, and smiling down upon it? When I used to be involved in sexual immorality, I would try to push God out of my head–I had to. Today, when I am involved in Godly sexuality, I can pray during it, without interrupting or detracting from the experience. Perhaps that is a good barometer for whether a sexuality is moral or not–try to say a Hail Mary while doing it.

You raise many good points in your response, but the part I have highlighted I disagree with. To tell someone they are not Catholic if they question basic tenets and beliefs is
a moral wrong. If everyone in the Church adopted this view we’d still be back in the dark ages torturing people. I also question your use of the word “infallible”. Not everything the Church teaches is infallible. The assent of faith must be given through understanding and acceptance. Understanding and acceptance requires, I submit, intellectual enquiry. Through this process, of being able to accept a given teaching, we arrive at the infallibility of the teaching. If the members of the Church are not allowed to undertake this process, then the teachings of the Church will never be held to account, as they rightly should be.
On masturbation, the Cathechism says "…masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."
The Catechism also says "…To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. I light of that, is it not true that members of the Church should examine questions such as this without fear of being ridiculed as ‘not Catholic’? After all, the original post was enquiring into the “moral culpability” associated with masturbation.

 

[bleh_confused]

ok everyone, firstly i would like to thank you all for your help you’ve given me. next i would like to say that after a lot of thought (and im pretty sure some of God’s grace) i have come to the conclusion that masturbation is bad. thank you all!!! its nice to have this sorted out.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!

i end by saying this: the Church was instituted by Christ, yes, but it is not a sin to question

 

[stringbeanduck]

ok everyone, firstly i would like to thank you all for your help you’ve given me. next i would like to say that after a lot of thought (and im pretty sure some of God’s grace) i have come to the conclusion that masturbation is bad. thank you all!!! its nice to have this sorted out.

GOD BLESS YOU ALL!!!

i end by saying this: the Church was instituted by Christ, yes, but it is not a sin to question

:clapping: I am so happy for you my brother. To learn and accept the Church’s teaching is a wonderful thing. And you are absoultly correct about the last statement. It’s okay to question church teaching so long as we are doing so to gain knowledge of it. By doing that you build a more solid conviction to the church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Masturbation does hurt people. For one, it is a habit which is difficult to stop…

It can be used to subdue sex drive, sure. But as C.S. Lewis writes, a starving person thinks a lot about food, but so does a glutton. It will not provide relief for long–for most people, not more than 24 hours. And having to do it every 24 hours is a strange definition for a reduced sex-drive.

Your two paragraphs (not in immediate sequence) come close to contradicting each other, but the first paragraph is more accurate, as it doesn’t “subdue” sex drive. It encourages. It becomes addictive – the pleasure trigger/response syndrome which feeds on itself. Further, if the “people” hurt include oneself (yes), that makes it sinful right there.

Is it possible that you are trying to rationalize this so that you will feel comfortable doing it? That is, actually, the reason I first came to this website–for a “Catholic” defense of pornography, so that I might not feel bad about it.

This is so evident to me on so many threads about this subject…Because if people deep down felt OK about it, they wouldn’t forever need to come on CAF and either post long rationalizations about it, question whether it is “really, truly” a sin, or worse (now) – post opinion polls about its morality.

I want you to consider, at least for a few moments, that the Devil is whispering these arguments in your ear, and wanting you to believe them. Can you really see Christ watching you do this, and smiling down upon it?

I’m glad someone agrees with me. That’s actually close to what I suggested many months ago, to those questioning or justifying: Try imagining Jesus himself in the room with you, facing you: Do you still feel OK with it or that you can trivialize it?

And just remember, just because we can’t see Him with eyes does not mean that he does not see everything we do vividly – not to mention evil intentions in our hearts.