Ecclesiastical Dogma?

[thistle]

Chuck, for men, yes, I really do believe it is essentially “hardwired” in them to masturbate, especially young men. Boys get erections that they cannot controol and then just have to walk around with them in discomfort, even pain, not to mention the embarrassment of a visible erection through clothing in high school. This is a physical thing. Any human being, man or woman, could masturbate with no lust involved, no thoughts of sex. The pleasure gained in this way might even be akin to a nice soak in a hot tub, just something relaxing to relieve stress and tension.

What I find wrong with the teaching is that I do not consider it to be grave matter because the sin is not in the body, but in the mind. If one is thinking about one’s wife and is fighting a war and away from her for a year, how can that be a mortal sin? If a boy is doing it just to get rid of an embarrassing physical problem, how can that be a mortal sin? It is silly to categorically state that masturbation is simply evil because people do it for MANY different reasons. Not to mention the fact that 2000 years ago, people generally got married at 14 or 15 years of age, practically at the onset of puberty. It’[s a bit different nowadays, don’t you think? i feel sorry for people trying to remain chaste until the age of 25 or 30. Not to mention the fact that people are made to feel evil and guilty for having VERY natural sexual feelings that cannot be helped.

I feel even sorrier for the priests who are told that they cannot be married and that they cannot masturbate or they will go to Hell. Why all the guilt over somethingd that is practically a physical necessity? People claim “natural law” for reasons why homosexuality is sinful, but they have no problem going completely against natural law when it comes to regular human sexuality.

You still have not provided any Church document which states masturbation is more serious than murder.
You babble on about innocent people being killed in war, That is not murder, albeit it is terrible.
You still don’t know what you are talking about. Show us the documents.

By the way masturbation ALWAYS involves lust and thoughts of sex.
[/quote]

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You still have not provided any Church document which states masturbation is more serious than murder.
You babble on about innocent people being killed in war, That is not murder, albeit it is terrible.
You still don’t know what you are talking about. Show us the documents.

By the way masturbation ALWAYS involves lust and thoughts of sex.

What I showed you was the Church’s “Just War Doctrine” which states that the collateral killing of innocent non-combattants, even when forseeable, is not sinful, whereas masturbation is necessarily GRAVELY sinful…so yes, I believe I do know what I’m talking about.

Also, I can tell you quite certainly that masturbation does not always necessitate sexual thoughts at all (especially if one willfully through the self-mastery you are all so fond of, takes great pains to avoid them) any more than a back massage or a soak in the tub necessitates the same. It can simply be something that just feels good. Children learn to masturbate and do so quite frequently before they even reach sexual maturity and before they know anything about the birds and the bees. Nothing sinful about it,

 

[thistle]

What I showed you was the Church’s “Just War Doctrine” which states that the collateral killing of innocent non-combattants, even when forseeable, is not sinful, whereas masturbation is necessarily GRAVELY sinful…so yes, I believe I do know what I’m talking about.

Also, I can tell you quite certainly that masturbation does not always necessitate sexual thoughts at all (especially if one willfully through the self-mastery you are all so fond of, takes great pains to avoid them) any more than a back massage or a soak in the tub necessitates the same. It can simply be something that just feels good. Children learn to masturbate and do so quite frequently before they even reach sexual maturity and before they know anything about the birds and the bees. Nothing sinful about it,

No you don’t know what you are talking about. Your earlier post said the Church views masturbation more serious than MURDER. We are all asking you to show us any document which says this is the case. Innocent people being killed in the course of a war is NOT MURDER, however terrible it is.

You are also wrong about masturbation being a purely physical thing. It cannot be done with an empty mind or someone thinking about a golf match or whatever. It always involves sexual thoughts.

The bottom line is that Christ did not give you authority to bind and loose. He gave it to the Church which means the Church has the backing of Christ for all its teachings. If you reject one or more of these teachings then that is heresy and is a grave sin. Anyone dying in a state of unrepented mortal sin condemns themselves to Hell.
To reject the Church or any of its teachings is a grave sin.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

No you don’t know what you are talking about. Your earlier post said the Church views masturbation more serious than MURDER. We are all asking you to show us any document which says this is the case. Innocent people being killed in the course of a war is NOT MURDER, however terrible it is.

You are also wrong about masturbation being a purely physical thing. It cannot be done with an empty mind or someone thinking about a golf match or whatever. It always involves sexual thoughts.

The bottom line is that Christ did not give you authority to bind and loose. He gave it to the Church which means the Church has the backing of Christ for all its teachings. If you reject one or more of these teachings then that is heresy and is a grave sin. Anyone dying in a state of unrepented mortal sin condemns themselves to Hell.
To reject the Church or any of its teachings is a grave sin.

If you do not think that killing innocent people with foreknowledge and deliberation is not murder, then I can’t help you. Fine, let’s say it’s not MURDER, per se. It is still killing innocent people with consent and forethought. Any normal person will tell you that this is so much worse than playing with one’s private parts!

And I hate to break it to you, but masturbation CAN and DOES often occur without sexual thoughts! I figured out how to do it as a little girl LONG before I knew anything about sex. And watch ANY little boy in the tub and you will see that it’s pretty much all they do BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD, not because they are having some kind of sick sexual thoughts. There is nothing sinful about this any more than a long soak in a hot bath that makes us feel good is sinful. It is when immoral sexual thoughts come into play that masturbation becomes a sin, but the Church does not allow for that, does it?

And threaten me with Hell all you want. Why do so many people on this forum lose it and start threatening the fires of Hell to people simply because their argument isn’t panning out the way they would like? I think that is probably the lowest form of argument. “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a heretic and going to Hell so there!” O.K.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Thoughtfulone, I’d suggest giving up on the masturbation vs murder issue. It’s getting silly and pedantic

Fact is, though, everyone else is dodging the issue of infallibility vs dogma, and het implications of this issue. The Church is what I follow, and see as a light in the darkness of contemporary, materialist, sensualist society. But lets not think that it understands ?Gods heart so infallibily, when really the Church itself doesn’t quite claim that - and I’m glad fore that.

I belive we are in the most enlightened religion there is - but even the saints, and Popes, are human. Judaism screwed up. So might Catholicism, if it hasn’t already. No reason to justify giving them up. Afterall, Jesus vilified Judaisim, but he condemned those who didn’t visit the synagogue. Because ultimately, we’re all here for God, and, perfect or not (and saintly or not, we’re all just human, and cannot reach such perfection), The Church is not exactly God, but is our best source to understand him. But not a perfect one, for our (self-inflicted) nature denies such. So please, don’t preach every ounce of Church teaching is infallible - it’s just a better understanding than anything else out there

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I really shouldn’t attempt such crescendic statements after so many beers!

 

[thistle]

If you do not think that killing innocent people with foreknowledge and deliberation is not murder, then I can’t help you. Fine, let’s say it’s not MURDER, per se. It is still killing innocent people with consent and forethought. Any normal person will tell you that this is so much worse than playing with one’s private parts!

And I hate to break it to you, but masturbation CAN and DOES often occur without sexual thoughts! I figured out how to do it as a little girl LONG before I knew anything about sex. And watch ANY little boy in the tub and you will see that it’s pretty much all they do BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD, not because they are having some kind of sick sexual thoughts. There is nothing sinful about this any more than a long soak in a hot bath that makes us feel good is sinful. It is when immoral sexual thoughts come into play that masturbation becomes a sin, but the Church does not allow for that, does it?

And threaten me with Hell all you want. Why do so many people on this forum lose it and start threatening the fires of Hell to people simply because their argument isn’t panning out the way they would like? I think that is probably the lowest form of argument. “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a heretic and going to Hell so there!” O.K.

What a stupid remark.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that innocent people get killed in wars. That is reality, not murder.

At least we now know your reason for opening this thread. You disagree with a teaching because you want to justify continuing to sin. Why can’t you be honest about that.

I did not say you are a heretic. I said that anyone who rejects one or more of the Church teachings is a heretic and is in a state of mortal sin and dying unrepentent such a person condemns themselves to Hell.
Only you know if you are rejecting a teaching of the Church.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

What a stupid remark.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that innocent people get killed in wars. That is reality, not murder.

At least we now know your reason for opening this thread. You disagree with a teaching because you want to justify continuing to sin. Why can’t you be honest about that.

I did not say you are a heretic. I said that anyone who rejects one or more of the Church teachings is a heretic and is in a state of mortal sin and dying unrepentent such a person condemns themselves to Hell.
Only you know if you are rejecting a teaching of the Church.

O.K., I will ignore the rude and insulting comments and get right to the heart of the matter.

That’s REALITY, not murder? It is reality because man, in his enormous capacity for evil, has invented bombs capable of indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of people in one shot. Man then justifies the use of these bombs by claiming, for example, that a military target (like a particular terrorist) is located “somewhere” in a city, so we bomb a residential neighborhood or a hospital or a school, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children for the sake of trying to kill ONE man. This is not exceptional. It happens ALL THE TIME, which is why over 1.3 million Iraqis have been killed so far in this war for the sake of stamping out a few thousand opponents. That, thistle, is EVIL, no matter how you slice it.

And then you accuse me of opening this thread to justify my proclivity to masturbate? O.K. I already stated previously that I do not masturbate. EVER. You can choose to believe it or not, but it would sure make you feel better if you could blame my objection to this teaching on some kind of moral depravity on my part as opposed to an honest, conscientious objection based upon study and research and prayer.

Also, the Church teaching on masturbation is not an infallible teaching by ecumenical council or as a matter of Dogma, nor has it ever been spoken of ex cathedra (no matter how many theologians like to think that Humanae Vitae rises to that level), and I am free to conscientiously disagree here. Church teaching about masturbation is not a point or article of faith. People on this board need to stop throwing around the word “heresy” every time someone disagrees with a Church teaching. That is NOT the threshold for heresy!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone, I’d suggest giving up on the masturbation vs murder issue. It’s getting silly and pedantic

Fact is, though, everyone else is dodging the issue of infallibility vs dogma, and het implications of this issue. The Church is what I follow, and see as a light in the darkness of contemporary, materialist, sensualist society. But lets not think that it understands ?Gods heart so infallibily, when really the Church itself doesn’t quite claim that - and I’m glad fore that.

I belive we are in the most enlightened religion there is - but even the saints, and Popes, are human. Judaism screwed up. So might Catholicism, if it hasn’t already. No reason to justify giving them up. Afterall, Jesus vilified Judaisim, but he condemned those who didn’t visit the synagogue. Because ultimately, we’re all here for God, and, perfect or not (and saintly or not, we’re all just human, and cannot reach such perfection), The Church is not exactly God, but is our best source to understand him. But not a perfect one, for our (self-inflicted) nature denies such. So please, don’t preach every ounce of Church teaching is infallible - it’s just a better understanding than anything else out there

I agree with most of this! Thanks!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I agree with most of this! Thanks!

…well thankyou! I congratulate you on having excellent interpretive skills - I was really quite befuddled with booze…

And apologies to any Jews who may have read it - I overstressed a couple of points there I think . Jesus obviously didn’t quite vilify Judaism - more like strongly criticised it’s contemporary practice. And to say Judaism screwed up is similarly misrepresenting the view I was trying to express :doh2:

 

[Thoughtfulone]

…well thankyou! I congratulate you on having excellent interpretive skills - I was really quite befuddled with booze…

And apologies to any Jews who may have read it - I overstressed a couple of points there I think . Jesus obviously didn’t quite vilify Judaism - more like strongly criticised it’s contemporary practice. And to say Judaism screwed up is similarly misrepresenting the view I was trying to express :doh2:

As long as you don’t pull a “Mel Gibson” I agree though with what you said about the CC being the closest religion to the truth out there, and I think that for the most part, their intentions are noble and true. I just have a problem with a few things, and like you said, the Church and everyone in it is NOT infallible, no matter what some people here would like to believe. We have to use our own discernment with some things because the Church can make mistakes too! That being said, I love the Church, which is why I do get so frustrated when I feel that they are leading people astray or in error about something really important, because I think the Church is better than that, and I think that Jesus expects more out of it than seemingly arbitrary rules and rationalizations.

 

[thistle]

As long as you don’t pull a “Mel Gibson” I agree though with what you said about the CC being the closest religion to the truth out there, and I think that for the most part, their intentions are noble and true. I just have a problem with a few things, and like you said, the Church and everyone in it is NOT infallible, no matter what some people here would like to believe. We have to use our own discernment with some things because the Church can make mistakes too! That being said, I love the Church, which is why I do get so frustrated when I feel that they are leading people astray or in error about something really important, because I think the Church is better than that, and I think that Jesus expects more out of it than seemingly arbitrary rules and rationalizations.

You really do not get it.

When it comes to Faith and Morals the Church has never been and cannot ever be in error and you are also wrong about it being the closest religion to the truth. Only the Catholic Church has the FULLNESS OF TRUTH.

I repeat that any Catholic who rejects one or more of the Church teachings has their own agenda and it is usually because they want to justify to themselves that what they are doing is not a sin (be it mastubation, or homosexual activity, or sexual activity outside marriage of heterosexuals or whatever). They plead its a natural act, not hurting anyone, and they anyway live good lives loving God and others.
What rubbish! They simply do not want to do God’s will. They want God to go along with their will. If they loved God they wouldn’t tell him to get lost by rejecting his teachings.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You really do not get it.

When it comes to Faith and Morals the Church has never been and cannot ever be in error and you are also wrong about it being the closest religion to the truth. Only the Catholic Church has the FULLNESS OF TRUTH.

I repeat that any Catholic who rejects one or more of the Church teachings has their own agenda and it is usually because they want to justify to themselves that what they are doing is not a sin (be it mastubation, or homosexual activity, or sexual activity outside marriage of heterosexuals or whatever). They plead its a natural act, not hurting anyone, and they anyway live good lives loving God and others.
What rubbish! They simply do not want to do God’s will. They want God to go along with their will. If they loved God they wouldn’t tell him to get lost by rejecting his teachings.

Has the Holy Spirit given the truth to the Church to disseminate to her flock? Yes. Does the Church ALWAYS interpret that truth correctly no matter what? Not always. Only in certain circumstances does infallibility apply. Ex Cathedra statements, ecumenical councils, Sacred Magisterium and more murkily, Ordinary Magisterium teachings (sometimes). Every single thing the Church teaches does not HAVE to be true. Also, if the Church wishes to clarify anything in Humanae Vitae, they may do so infallibly, but have not done so yet, and many Catholic theologians do not believe that the contents of it rise to the level of infallibility.

"A teaching falls under the Universal Magisterium (i.e. the ordinary universal Magisterium) when the Bishops of the Church “…even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 25)

All other teachings of the Magisterium, other than those that fall under one of the three modes of infallibility, are, without exception, ordinary and non-infallible, and are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation.

These teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger, with particular wording, as “the non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium” and “non-irreformable magisterial teaching,” in the document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith called ‘The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian,’ n. 28 and 33. This wording demonstrates Cardinal Ratzinger’s understanding that not all Magisterial teachings are infallible or irreformable.

Therefore, the Magisterium can teach both infallibly and non-infallibly. Heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of the infallible teachings and also of those ordinary teachings which are essential to salvation; heresy is a refusal to give the full assent of faith due to those teachings. The denial or doubt of non-infallible teachings in general might also be sinful and culpable, but the sin is not generally the sin of heresy and is a lesser matter, because the assent required is a lesser degree of assent."

For more, see catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm)

So as you see, the Church itself states that it CAN be fallible on matters of faith and morals if one of these three criteria for infallibility are not met. As far as the killing of non-combatants not being a grave sin, the criteria has not been met. As far as the teaching on masturbation and contraception goes, there is actually a lot of debate on that among Catholic theologians as well.

So, yes. I think i “get it”.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

According to Jesus, the Jews of his time should have realised the true way to apply ethics without him, but didn’t. The Church has reversed past decisions in the past - and may do so in the future. I doubt masturbation would ever be proclaimed good, or even OK, but mortal sin sounds a bit harsh to me, I must admit, and I find it hard to believe… on the other hand, I’ve gone too far in rejecting the Churches sexual morality in the past, and, quite frankly, regret it.

In summary, I think on the whole, the rather total rejection of sexual activity outside of the sanctity of marriage is probably about right! I know the troubles it causes, which are clearly a large proportion of the issues most relationships (both intimate and otherwise) face - in other words, I reckon Western culture is probably the most emotionally/sexually neurotic culture there is - and the irresponsible/self-righteous drive to ever-insatiable gratification is probably a core cause of that!

But masturbation = mortal sin? Still sounds hard to believe. Although that may well be an assessment built on the relativized ever escalating scale of participatory sexual sin around…

 

[Thoughtfulone]

According to Jesus, the Jews of his time should have realised the true way to apply ethics without him, but didn’t. The Church has reversed past decisions in the past - and may do so in the future. I doubt masturbation would ever be proclaimed good, or even OK, but mortal sin sounds a bit harsh to me, I must admit, and I find it hard to believe… on the other hand, I’ve gone too far in rejecting the Churches sexual morality in the past, and, quite frankly, regret it.

In summary, I think on the whole, the rather total rejection of sexual activity outside of the sanctity of marriage is probably about right! I know the troubles it causes, which are clearly a large proportion of the issues most relationships (both intimate and otherwise) face - in other words, I reckon Western culture is probably the most emotionally/sexually neurotic culture there is - and the irresponsible/self-righteous drive to ever-insatiable gratification is probably a core cause of that!

But masturbation = mortal sin? Still sounds hard to believe. Although that may well be an assessment built on the relativized ever escalating scale of participatory sexual sin around…

Exactly. I’m not saying that masturbation is great or anything, but I just don’t believe it rises to the level of mortal sin.

 

[Tomster]

Exactly. I’m not saying that masturbation is great or anything, but I just don’t believe it rises to the level of mortal sin.

I would take a look at CCC if I were you.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I would take a look at CCC if I were you.

I have. I disagree.

 

[thistle]

i have. i disagree.

heresy!!

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Sorry, this does not rise to the level of heresy. This is not a matter of dogma, an article/point of faith (ex: anything in the Nicene Creed) or a supernaturally revealed truth. On top of that, I don’t commit this “sin”, I merely disagree with Church teaching on it.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to** a point of faith** clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is** not clearly proposed as an article of faith** in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy.”

I am allowed to have an opinion that differs with Church teaching without being a heretic. Sorry to burst your bubble.

amazon.com/Why-Disagree-Remain-Faithful-Catholic/dp/0824514726

 

[Tomster]

I have. I disagree.

Your choice. A wrong one. But your choice nonetheless.

You might also check the CCC on such topics as free will, conscience (and its proper formation) and the legitimate teaching authority of the Church.