How to understand the Catechism? Is it proper to think of sexual desire as an itch to scratch?

[ethereality]

There are two points to address in this post. The first regards how to properly understand the Catechism; the second is how to refute an argument encouraging masturbation.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm:

Offenses against chastity

2352

1. 
   *]By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.
   *]“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.”
   *]“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”
   *]For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

1. 
   Is the following analysis correct?
   1. 
      *]This statement establishes a working definition, so that “masturbation” here means “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure”: It is possible that “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to relieve sexual pressure” is not masturbation, unless “to relieve sexual pressure” is “to derive sexual pleasure”.
      *]Such deliberate stimulation for sexual pleasure is intrinsically gravely disordered. (Again, deliberate stimulation for other purposes may not be.)
      *]This statement addresses the ambiguity of the first statement: Even if to relieve sexual pressure, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose. Hence to obtain relief from sexual pressure is not licit for those seeking to live an ordered life, a life according to reason and God’s design.
      *]This statement casts doubt on the above conclusion: Its wording, “for here sexual pleasure is sought” excludes the scenario under consideration, and the motive that is condemned, seeking pleasure outside of the proper sexual relationship, is not the motive that is being considered, namely seeking relief of sexual pressure. (Again, there is no ambiguity if “to relieve sexual pressure” is “to derive sexual pleasure”.)
      
      The point of application, now:
      
      Someone I know commented that for him masturbation was “merely scratching an itch”, that he didn’t do it to seek sexual pleasure, but rather for relief from “that itch”. So the argument here is that it’s not sinful if you’re not lusting after someone or something and you’re not seeking sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. Even if you happen to experience some sexual pleasure from doing so, it appears from a literal reading that if you’re not seeking it, then it’s not illicit (from the principle of double effect).
      
      If seeking relief from sexual pressure is not explicitly condemned by the Church, there is another hurdle to pass: We are to do everything for the glory of God, honoring God in everything we do. Do we honor God by scratching an itch? One could argue that we do, and that the pleasure experienced from itch-scratching gives glory to God insofar as we experience something good given to us by God.
      
      What are your thoughts regarding that analysis and argument? How would you respond? What does the Church mean here, and how can we be sure?
      
      Attempting to answer these questions myself: I think the matter is resolved when “applying it”: The sexual faculty appears to require an “other”, real or imagined, and without such an other, the sexual faculty does not function. I have a textbook, Anatomy & Physiology 4th ed. by Saladin, which affirms that mental stimulus is necessary for arousal, etc. Hence the sexual faculty cannot be used, sexual pressure cannot be relieved, without the presence of another, real or imagined. Thus any solitary use of the sexual faculty dishonors God, who designed it to be used in the presence of another. However, this only addresses the question of solitary efforts to relieve sexual pressure, and says nothing about seeking the assistance of another to relieve sexual pressure.
      
      I think the problems multiply when reading the Catechism in such a strictly literal manner, similar to what happens to such an approach of the Bible. I think the statements are meant to overlap and are not meant to be read so strictly. Hence statement #3 should be seen as comprehensive, clarifying any ambiguity not already addressed by the first two statements, and condemns attempts to “relieve sexual pressure”, regardless of the ambiguity introduced by the following statement’s “for here …” clause.
      
      Do you agree?

 

[ethereality]

I think the problems multiply when reading the Catechism in such a strictly literal manner, similar to what happens to such an approach of the Bible. I think the statements are meant to overlap and are not meant to be read so strictly. Hence statement #3 should be seen as comprehensive, clarifying any ambiguity not already addressed by the first two statements, and condemns attempts to “relieve sexual pressure”, regardless of the ambiguity introduced by the following statement’s “for here …” clause.

Do you agree?

 

[IrishRush]

It sounds to me like semantics are being used to justify an action.
Either it’s sinful or not, regardless of the “why” behind it.
Just my take.

 

[JNdoum]

That’s sort of a bad way to look at sex. It’s not just an “itch,” it’s a gift God has given us for unity between married persons and for the creation of life. It isn’t really an itch. I realize that it may be difficult to stop doing such actions, but it would probably be in your best interests to do so. Consider this:

How does it benefit you?
Is it something you would willingly admit to doing in public?
If you admit it in public, would you be willing to admit it to your grandmother?
Is your grandmother likely to have some form of attack if you tell her, or be otherwise scandalized?
Is it really something that someone who is in a relationship with you be likely to approve of?
Is it respectful to your body?

If you have no answer to the first one, or if you answer yes to any of the next three, or no to any of the last three, then you probably shouldn’t do it. Just saying.

 

[Baelor]

*]This statement establishes a working definition, so that “masturbation” here means “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure”: It is possible that “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to relieve sexual pressure” is not masturbation, unless “to relieve sexual pressure” is “to derive sexual pleasure”.

No, because the relief of “sexual pressure” would require sexual pleasure to be achieved, i.e. orgasm (or anything up to that point, for that matter). Sexual pleasure seems to be used in the CCC (clearly, may I add) in a physical/physiological sense.

 

[jmcrae]

Cold showers also work, and are not sinful.

 

[underacloud]

Someone I know commented that for him masturbation was “merely scratching an itch”, that he didn’t do it to seek sexual pleasure, but rather for relief from “that itch”. So the argument here is that it’s not sinful if you’re not lusting after someone or something and you’re not seeking sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. Even if you happen to experience some sexual pleasure from doing so, it appears from a literal reading that if you’re not seeking it, then it’s not illicit (from the principle of double effect).

Firstly, I think it is merely semantic gymnastics going on here. But I’ll assume it’s not to address a key point.

With regard to double effect, a lesser evil can be tolerated if a greater good is achieved. Yet is is crucial to the principle that the greater good is achieved through legitimate means in itself. You cannot do wrong that good may come out of it - or to put it in more typical terms, the ends don’t justify the means. In this case, the ends of sexual relief are achieved through an illegitimate means, which is sexual pleasure outside of the marital act. Even if sexual relief is considered a legitimate moral good, it should not be achieved through this manner. This is why sexual relief is considered legitimate within marriage (the quietening of concupiscence as advocated by St Paul) but not outside of marriage.

 

[ethereality]

Firstly, I think it is merely semantic gymnastics going on here. But I’ll assume it’s not to address a key point.

I’m not sure of your logic here: It’s either true or false. Calling it “merely semantic gymnastics” avoids the matter entirely, i.e. is an excuse to not think through the matter and to not say, “It is wrong because ___,” as I ultimately did. I’m happy to see you said something further, though.

In this case, the ends of sexual relief are achieved through an illegitimate means, which is sexual pleasure outside of the marital act.

You have assumed that such stimulation brings sexual pleasure. It need not do so. That is, sexual stimulation does not always bring sexual pleasure, especially for those who have been circumcised.

 

[underacloud]

I’m not sure of your logic here: It’s either true or false. Calling it “merely semantic gymnastics” avoids the matter entirely, i.e. is an excuse to not think through the matter and to not say, “It is wrong because ___,” as I ultimately did. I’m happy to see you said something further, though.

You have assumed that such stimulation brings sexual pleasure. It need not do so. That is, sexual stimulation does not always bring sexual pleasure, especially for those who have been circumcised.

It is no excuse at all; I assumed your premise for the sake of argument.

Very well, so that I’m not accused of avoiding the matter, I will say that those who say that they don’t masturbate for sexual pleasure, but for sexual relief without pleasure, are not being honest with themselves. Sexual relief is acheived through pleasure. It is physiological rubbish to pretend otherwise - the orgasm, male or female, is a physiological climax of sexual pleasure. You can’t take pleasure out of the equation - and thus, it is not a legitimate means to achive relief.

 

[Baelor]

I
You have assumed that such stimulation brings sexual pleasure. It need not do so. That is, sexual stimulation does not always bring sexual pleasure, especially for those who have been circumcised.

You did not read my post, which addressed this issue. I stated that it was contextually clear that the Church was referring to any sexual stimulation/orgasm as “sexual pleasurable,” regardless of whether a particular (or any) instance of sexual stimulation is in fact pleasurable in the broader sense for a particular individual.

In other words, sexual pleasure in the CCC is synonymous with stimulation and/or orgasm in this case, which resolves the quandary in your OP completely.

 

[ethereality]

You can’t take pleasure out of the equation - and thus, it is not a legitimate means to achive relief.

You are incorrect (if you mean that one must experience pleasure, particularly or at least during climax).

I stated that it was contextually clear that the Church was referring to any sexual stimulation/orgasm as “sexual[ly] pleasurable,” regardless of whether [it] is in fact pleasurable …] sexual pleasure in the CCC is synonymous with stimulation …] which resolves the quandary in your OP completely.

In that case, QED. However, I don’t think it’s sound to declare something what it is not, and I don’t think the Church would do so – it is one argument against redefining marriage to include homosexual activity, after all. I suppose you mean that such stimulation is generally pleasurable, and hence generally illicit: But you have made your point clearly that it is always illicit if pleasurable for most.

Anyway, I’m not looking to argue. I think the matter’s pretty much resolved, since any use of the sexual faculty outside of the marital act is from a certain perspective wasteful and a deceiving of the body into thinking it is with another person.

 

[underacloud]

You are incorrect (if you mean that one must experience pleasure, particularly or at least during climax).

Perhaps you mean something different when you talk of pleasure? Certainly for some people orgasm does not result in the same release of certain neurotransmitters that lead to the euphoric feelings that most experience. But there is still physical pleasure inherent in the act. Rubbing of the penis (for males), resulting in it becoming erect, involves physiological pleasure - otherwise it would not become erect.

So while some people may correctly say that orgasm does not give them pleasure (in the same way that it usually does for others), it is not correct to say that pleasure is not involved at all.

At any rate, I believe that Baelor has sufficiently addressed this point. So again, assuming this point for arguments sake, I still don’t think it’s relevant.

 

[Baelor]

In that case, QED.

Indeed.

However, I don’t think it’s sound to declare something what it is not, and I don’t think the Church would do so – it is one argument against redefining marriage to include homosexual activity, after all

We are not declaring that anything is other than what it is. I am posting that the definition of pleasure in the CCC does not need to conform to your narrow conception of what pleasure entails, I am saying that the sexual pleasure in the CCC literally means the act of sexual stimulus, regardless of whether someone feels what most people would consider pleasure while it occurs.

I suppose you mean that such stimulation is generally pleasurable, and hence generally illicit: But you have made your point clearly that it is always illicit if pleasurable for most.

That is not what I was arguing, nor did I make that point.

 

[ethereality]

lol, these are dumb arguments, so this is my last post in response to them.

• underacloud, pleasure does not cause arousal: It often accompanies it. You are confusing correlation with causation.
• Baelor, you have adopted a definition of ‘pleasure’ that is overly broad – “it also includes acts that are not pleasurable” – and then accuse me of adopting too narrow a definition. There is nothing more to be said.

 

[Baelor]

*]Baelor, you have adopted a definition of ‘pleasure’ that is overly broad – “it also includes acts that are not pleasurable” – and then accuse me of adopting too narrow a definition. There is nothing more to be said.

I am saying that your definition does not correspond to the definition used in the CCC. The CCC is very obviously defining sexual pleasure as stimulus and arousal (which generally lead to orgasm). This is what they mean by “sexual pleasure.” To say that it does not feel good to some people does not change the fact that the CCC is defining sexual pleasure in a particular way.

As I said, the issue resolves itself because you are not actually addressing what the CCC is saying.

To address your issue of “acts that are not pleasurable,” my claim was very clear, and my definition was not too broad. I stated outright – and correctly – that your definition of pleasure was not congruent with the CCC’s definition of pleasure. Therefore, your argument is based on a totally false premise.

More elaborately, sexual itches that need to be scratched would result in stimulus until orgasm (or whatever). This is, according to the CCC, by definition sexual pleasure.

 

[JNdoum]

lol, these are dumb arguments, so this is my last post in response to them.

• underacloud, pleasure does not cause arousal: It often accompanies it. You are confusing correlation with causation.
• Baelor, you have adopted a definition of ‘pleasure’ that is overly broad – “it also includes acts that are not pleasurable” – and then accuse me of adopting too narrow a definition. There is nothing more to be said.

Why on earth are you so determined to prove this point? It is irrelevant whether someone feels pleasure, or how we define it. The point is that the act of masturbation is inherently wrong, and the Catechism is against it regardless of the pleasure involved. At least that’s how I saw it.

 

[underacloud]

lol, these are dumb arguments, so this is my last post in response to them.

Wow. Really? What a rude and intellectually bankrupt response.

 

[ethereality]

Why on earth are you so determined to prove this point?

Oh. I’m not determined to prove anything – I really considered it “case closed” after my OP that deliberate sexual stimulation outside of the marital act was never acceptable: I argued both sides and concluded in favor of the Church’s position.

However, it is important to refute logical fallacies or incorrect reasoning, regardless of which side it occurs on, in the interest of truth (namely, Jesus).

(in response to calling two arguments ‘dumb’) Wow. Really? [How] rude

C’mon, man, grow thicker skin.

 

[Baelor]

However, it is important to refute logical fallacies or incorrect reasoning, regardless of which side it occurs on, in the interest of truth (namely, Jesus).

I am glad that you realized the fallacious nature of the argument in the OP.

 

[underacloud]

C’mon, man, grow thicker skin.

So your response to my suggestion that your post was rude (for laughing it us, calling our arguments dumb, and saying that you won’t discuss them anymore - wow, three x rude in one very short sentence) is to suggest that I’m thin skinned and roll your eyes at me?

Rudeness on top of rudeness. Perhaps you’re trying to be funny and coming off wrong? I’ll try to assume this is the case.