Is masturbation ALWAYS a mortal sin?

[russell007]

I personally do not think you have to stop receiving communion for this sin if it is habitual as long as you plan on confessing it some time in the future. However, I also think that not receiving communion is probably one of the hardest things to do. I mean everyone probably wonders what this person did which is causing him not to receive communion. I mean, although it’s not like I obsess over it but I wonder myself when I see that situation so I know others probaby wonder about the same thing so it’s very embarrassing. If you have enough will power to not let that bother you then that is a wonderful thing.

It is tough when you know youve commited a mortal sin and everyone else is getting up going to communion.

Are they wondering about me like “I wonder what that guy did”? LOL

Truly for some of us its embarrasing sitting there while everyone else goes but I think we will be rewarded for it one fine day.

I grew up in the 70s and remember as a child having to navagate past half the people in the pew to get to the Lords Supper.

Today seems everyone goes and you cant tell me EVERYONE is without mortal sin.

I tell myself atleast I know Im doing the right thing.

 

[renepape]

“I did not say they all did. That is your assumption. I simply indicated such things had been done”

I did not say that you said they all did. I said that it is not true that in general priests do such things. You seem to have a negative view of priests as having no credentials or status of greater respect.

“God is NOT a figment of the imagination. But the anthropomorphic god of the Abrahamists is an intellectual construct.”

So do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? If not, who do you believe Him to be?

“Please don’t waste your energy. Use it instead to examine how and why you acquired your faith and keep it”

Jesus Christ instituted the Catholic Church. Can you name any other religion that has maintained an organized structure and kept teaching the same beliefs for its entire history? I would think you would give special deference or at least special consideration and regard for the Catholic Church simply because of this fact.

“Agreed. That is why I am so concerned about nonsense promulgated by the church”

So do you think you would know better than 2000 years of consistent teachings and traditions? Again, you seem to think that you know better. While there may be problems within the Catholic Church today, there have always been problems and disputes within the Church. This does not mean that the Church itself and what it teaches is false. There is an extremely important distinction.

“In your opinion as influenced by what you have accepted as true on simple and questionable authority.”

Why is it questionable?

For anything else which removes sexual acts from marriage is a perversion and abuse, because then sexual pleasure is sought only for oneself and not as a true and most intimate communion of persons.“That is extreme cowa-dunga.”

I was hoping to have a rational discussion…please at least explain why you disagree with this.

“Any irresponsible contact does that, same as not covering your mouth when you sneeze or cough, or go to work when you are sick. Ignorance, such as the church sponsors, along with it’s advocacy of not using protection, also fosters contagion and death.”’

A sneeze or a cough does not spread sexual disease. My point is sexual disease are transmitted through sexual or blood contact. You can’t get AIDS from someone if they cough on you. Furthermore, since you bring up the condom issue, it has been proven that condoms are not 100% effective. in fact, as the Pope recently stated, the widespread use of condoms only promotes promiscuity. We have a false sense of protection, and think that we can do anything we want, regardless of the moral and even physical consequences. This is pure absurdity. The only way we can avoid sexual disease is through what the Church teaches: abstinence and prudence.

“Similarly to those metaphysicians who feared most the prayers of their students on the grounds of their ignorance, I beseech you to do no such thing, as you will certainly do more harm to both of us than good. I hope that you will turn to the Church. If by church you meant the Catholic church, I have been freed from it into its foundation.”

Prayer never hurts. I simply pray that you turn towards God and accept Him and the Catholic Church which He instituted and promised to protect so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

"I think you mean “in the way I have come to accept as a belief either through default of birth and early training, or conversion through lack of knowledge of saner options.” "

So may I ask: what do you believe sexuality is for?

 

[Detales]

part 1 (you asked)

Renepape~~“You seem to have a negative view of priests as having no credentials or status of greater respect.”

You can see post #825 in Why did God allow Protestantism? for my Catholc credentials. In my experience with the priests who were friends of the family, my teachers, or in my Parrish, an inordinately high number had some discernible or discovered deviancy, alleged or actual, in this area.(sexuality) I have also known at least two priests, in my opinion, of exceedingly great character and useful service.

~~“So do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? If not, who do you believe Him to be?”

The Son of God or The Christ are titles of accomplishment not referring to person. If Iesus did exist and did Himself speak the Identity statements attributed to Him, (they had been written, at least, before, and more than likely spoken by otheres) then yes, He was. Otherwise, He is a historicized version of a story that has been around in remarkable parallel for 5000 years. He may be both. I never met Him, so don’t personally know.

~~“Jesus Christ instituted the Catholic Church. Can you name any other religion that has maintained an organized structure and kept teaching the same beliefs for its entire history? I would think you would give special deference or at least special consideration and regard for the Catholic Church simply because of this fact.”

It is an allegation, not a fact. Scriptural proof, especially given its history under the hands of the church, is about the last acceptable card to play. Advaita in some form but identical substance predates christianism by millenia. But that is an acedemic assertion. Find out for yourself by self inquiry.

~~“So do you think you would know better than 2000 years of consistent teachings and traditions? Again, you seem to think that you know better. While there may be problems within the Catholic Church today, there have always been problems and disputes within the Church. This does not mean that the Church itself and what it teaches is false. There is an extremely important distinction.”

I know about the roughly 1700 years of somewhat constant tradition, having been a highly catechized, devoted, and proselytizing Catholic. After a rather altering shock I was graced to be able to see the church, for better or worse, through more impartial eyes and exercised my option of observing my life as a phenomenon in a context, and the church as a phenomenon in a context as well. We didn’t agree on the grounds of misrepresentation of Incarnation, Passion , Death, and Resurrection. Those are all very real, but not quite in the way the church presents.

~~“Why is it questionable?”

Look at the history of the church, especially at its first three hundred years, in the light of what came before it in Egypt, South America, Scandinavia, and the East. But that is ridiculously simplistic and evoking only similar scriptures to which you already adhere. If you are indeed made in the image and likeness of God, question yourself ceaselessly as to what you are. You may strike Gold beyond your imagination. This is the time honored way from the beginning of Man: “Gnothi Seauton.”

~~"For anything else which removes sexual acts from marriage is a perversion and abuse, because then sexual pleasure is sought only for oneself and not as a true and most intimate communion of persons. ~~ Detales:“That is extreme cowa-dunga.”

Simplistically put, yes. Love is a Universal equatable to God and we know not its Power, subtleties, or forms. You seem to have accepted a dogmatic way of viewing that Love, and that is fine. For you. Don’t limit the God of you to your beliefs about. Go direct.

~~“I was hoping to have a rational discussion…please at least explain why you disagree with this.”

We are; see above. You just don’t accept my premises, though I have lived and exercised the church’s premises and earned my differences with them, and stand by and as those.

 

[Detales]

part 2

~~“A sneeze or a cough does not spread sexual disease. My point is sexual disease are transmitted through sexual or blood contact. You can’t get AIDS from someone if they cough on you. Furthermore, since you bring up the condom issue, it has been proven that condoms are not 100% effective. in fact, as the Pope recently stated, the widespread use of condoms only promotes promiscuity. We have a false sense of protection, and think that we can do anything we want, regardless of the moral and even physical consequences. This is pure absurdity. The only way we can avoid sexual disease is through what the Church teaches: abstinence and prudence.”

I was talking about the aspect of responsibility in terms of spreading a disease by carelessness and casual regard for the welfare of others when you know you are “carrying.” And we don’t know all the %rates for all vectors of anything, just the median+ vector, or the highest instance vector. I can bring up the condom issue; And my wife and I used condoms in conjunction with the rhythm method. We could not afford to bring another child into the world. And, regarding their use, everyone in the world is not Catholic or morally sane, including Catholics. I wonder if you would choose to be responsibel for the children and disesaes that came into the world if condoms suddently disappeared from the Earth? Would you welcome more taxes, charity appeals, or food crisis in other countries where you don’t have to see them?

Perhaps you have been in contact with the news some many years and can arrive at this for yourself. Condoms are not at fault for promoting promiscuity any more than guns go seek people to hold them and pull their triggers so they can go off. A false sense of protection may be idiocy, but is better than the alternative. The general level of maturity in the world appears to be at anywhere between two and seventeen years of age. But then perhaps the Pope is aware of the overpopulation of the Earth plotted against resources (20%+ deficit this year) and this is his way of helping out. Just kill the poor ones.

I know it is sarcastic, but I don’t know how to get through to such as the deniers I constantly meet who think the world is in great shape and don’t worry, “Jesus will come.” Or who believe that the world ought to unanimously bow to a particular moral thinking. You are the Jesus you are waiting for. And of course, abstinence and prudence are efficacious, but the church has not been overly successful in instilling such virtues in its own members, never mind the what, 80% or so non-Catholic portion of the world population. (I beleive that only about a third are christianists of any discription.)

~~“Prayer never hurts. I simply pray that you turn towards God and accept Him and the Catholic Church which He instituted and promised to protect so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.”

You are claiming that I have not turned towards God from your own particular and parochial imagination of what God IS. I assure you, God is not a thought, especially any thought you might have about God. Such thoughts are only potentially practical in finding the actual relationship of Man to Divinity. The same holds for your belief about the origin of the church and its internal self verifying logics. It is not the church the gates of hell shall not prevail against, as we have seen from some of its leadership, but the Son of God that they shall not prevail against. Thank you for your good intent in any case, but really, no thank you. (Is it a sin to pray for someone against their will? Wow! another thread! )

~~"*So may I ask: what do you believe sexuality is for? *"

Sexuality, the twelve temperamental forms of it that I am aware of plus two somewhat minor but charged physically necessitated ones, are all forms of energy. That energy is rightfully attributed as having Divine origin. Sexuality is one state of similar levels and temperaments of other phases of the generative function, itself being the avenue of the possible communion with the Divine in the discovery of the “other” as Self. That “Self”, capitalized here to distinguish it from person, has absolutely nothing to do with personality or a human other than being the ground of its existence, and is equatable with Soul, Life, Truth, Love, Spirit, Principle, and Mind, each a synonym for God. Sexuality is the medium of creative activity which may be used or abused, but may with training be used to discover the trans-personal aspects of Divine Love. Again, a too brief and simplistic exposition, not itself an adequate answer, but perhaps an indicator.

 

[renepape]

“You can see post #825 in Why did God allow Protestantism? for my Catholc credentials. In my experience with the priests who were friends of the family, my teachers, or in my Parrish, an inordinately high number had some discernible or discovered deviancy, alleged or actual, in this area.(sexuality) I have also known at least two priests, in my opinion, of exceedingly great character and useful service.”

I am glad to hear that you have known good priests. The fact of course is that priests, like everyone else, are human, and tempted by the same temptations. I would imagine priests might even face stronger temptations toward sexual sins because of their celibacy, but therein lies their special place of honor.

“The Son of God or The Christ are titles of accomplishment not referring to person. If Iesus did exist and did Himself speak the Identity statements attributed to Him, (they had been written, at least, before, and more than likely spoken by otheres) then yes, He was. Otherwise, He is a historicized version of a story that has been around in remarkable parallel for 5000 years. He may be both. I never met Him, so don’t personally know.”

So you do not accept Jesus Christ in the Gospels? Jesus is referred to as a person in many sources, not as an idea. He is not a story, He is not an idea. You do not believe that he was born of the Virgin Mary? It seems to me that it makes much more sense to believe the very numerous sources that refer to Jesus as a person than to listen to some concocted theory.

“It is an allegation, not a fact. Scriptural proof, especially given its history under the hands of the church, is about the last acceptable card to play. Advaita in some form but identical substance predates christianism by millenia. But that is an acedemic assertion. Find out for yourself by self inquiry.”

Well, we can clearly see the results of personal interpretation of Scripture. The numerous sects of Protestantism attest to this fact. The great thing about the Church is that we as Catholics accept the Church’s teaching authority on Scripture, and do not think that we know better. Rather, we conquer our pride, and realize that we alone cannot interpret Scripture, but need the help of the Holy Spirit through the Catholic Church.

"I know about the roughly 1700 years of somewhat constant tradition, having been a highly catechized, devoted, and proselytizing Catholic. After a rather altering shock I was graced to be able to see the church, for better or worse, through more impartial eyes and exercised my option of observing my life as a phenomenon in a context, and the church as a phenomenon in a context as well. We didn’t agree on the grounds of misrepresentation of Incarnation, Passion , Death, and Resurrection. Those are all very real, but not quite in the way the church presents.

Look at the history of the church, especially at its first three hundred years, in the light of what came before it in Egypt, South America, Scandinavia, and the East. But that is ridiculously simplistic and evoking only similar scriptures to which you already adhere. If you are indeed made in the image and likeness of God, question yourself ceaselessly as to what you are. You may strike Gold beyond your imagination. This is the time honored way from the beginning of Man: “Gnothi Seauton.” "

The Church has an amazing history. It saved Western civilization in the Dark Ages, for one. In persona John Paul II, it conquered the Communist Empire of the USSR, for another. While it is true that we each have a unique relation to God, this does not in any way contradict the legitimacy and authority of the Church. Your argument is wholly irrelevant.

“Simplistically put, yes. Love is a Universal equatable to God and we know not its Power, subtleties, or forms. You seem to have accepted a dogmatic way of viewing that Love, and that is fine. For you. Don’t limit the God of you to your beliefs about. Go direct.”

I will answer in the second part.

 

[renepape]

part 2

~~“A sneeze or a cough does not spread sexual disease. My point is sexual disease are transmitted through sexual or blood contact. You can’t get AIDS from someone if they cough on you. Furthermore, since you bring up the condom issue, it has been proven that condoms are not 100% effective. in fact, as the Pope recently stated, the widespread use of condoms only promotes promiscuity. We have a false sense of protection, and think that we can do anything we want, regardless of the moral and even physical consequences. This is pure absurdity. The only way we can avoid sexual disease is through what the Church teaches: abstinence and prudence.”

I was talking about the aspect of responsibility in terms of spreading a disease by carelessness and casual regard for the welfare of others when you know you are “carrying.” And we don’t know all the %rates for all vectors of anything, just the median+ vector, or the highest instance vector. I can bring up the condom issue; And my wife and I used condoms in conjunction with the rhythm method. We could not afford to bring another child into the world. And, regarding their use, everyone in the world is not Catholic or morally sane, including Catholics. I wonder if you would choose to be responsibel for the children and disesaes that came into the world if condoms suddently disappeared from the Earth? Would you welcome more taxes, charity appeals, or food crisis in other countries where you don’t have to see them?

Perhaps you have been in contact with the news some many years and can arrive at this for yourself. Condoms are not at fault for promoting promiscuity any more than guns go seek people to hold them and pull their triggers so they can go off. A false sense of protection may be idiocy, but is better than the alternative. The general level of maturity in the world appears to be at anywhere between two and seventeen years of age. But then perhaps the Pope is aware of the overpopulation of the Earth plotted against resources (20%+ deficit this year) and this is his way of helping out. Just kill the poor ones.

I know it is sarcastic, but I don’t know how to get through to such as the deniers I constantly meet who think the world is in great shape and don’t worry, “Jesus will come.” Or who believe that the world ought to unanimously bow to a particular moral thinking. You are the Jesus you are waiting for. And of course, abstinence and prudence are efficacious, but the church has not been overly successful in instilling such virtues in its own members, never mind the what, 80% or so non-Catholic portion of the world population. (I beleive that only about a third are christianists of any discription.)

~~“Prayer never hurts. I simply pray that you turn towards God and accept Him and the Catholic Church which He instituted and promised to protect so that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.”

You are claiming that I have not turned towards God from your own particular and parochial imagination of what God IS. I assure you, God is not a thought, especially any thought you might have about God. Such thoughts are only potentially practical in finding the actual relationship of Man to Divinity. The same holds for your belief about the origin of the church and its internal self verifying logics. It is not the church the gates of hell shall not prevail against, as we have seen from some of its leadership, but the Son of God that they shall not prevail against. Thank you for your good intent in any case, but really, no thank you. (Is it a sin to pray for someone against their will? Wow! another thread! )

~~"*So may I ask: what do you believe sexuality is for? *"

Sexuality, the twelve temperamental forms of it that I am aware of plus two somewhat minor but charged physically necessitated ones, are all forms of energy. That energy is rightfully attributed as having Divine origin. Sexuality is one state of similar levels and temperaments of other phases of the generative function, itself being the avenue of the possible communion with the Divine in the discovery of the “other” as Self. That “Self”, capitalized here to distinguish it from person, has absolutely nothing to do with personality or a human other than being the ground of its existence, and is equatable with Soul, Life, Truth, Love, Spirit, Principle, and Mind, each a synonym for God. Sexuality is the medium of creative activity which may be used or abused, but may with training be used to discover the trans-personal aspects of Divine Love. Again, a too brief and simplistic exposition, not itself an adequate answer, but perhaps an indicator.

If you have good reasons for not having a child, such as really not being able to support one, then abstinence is 100% effective. Using condoms just means that we cannot control ourselves. But if we use abstinence during a woman’s fertile periods, this respects the woman’s and the man’s body, and would even make sex more enjoyable, because we don’t just take it for granted. And condoms don’t protect against all diseases, and certainly encourage promiscuity and are a perversion of sexuality.

Well, the sexually saturated culture that we live in certainly promotes promiscuity, and does not encourage people to wait for anything really. But this whole thing about the overpopulation of the Earth is, in my opinion, simply false, and is meant to promote contraception and abortion. And do you know why? Because there is so much money in the business.

What does it mean when you say “You are the Jesus you are waiting for.” That sounds very modern, and doesn’t mean anything. If you look up the quote, Jesus is referring to the Church, not himself, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against. Look up Matthew 16:18.

Where did you find that definition of sexuality?

Just a note to consider: if the Catholic Church were not the true Church, would there be such a circle of white-hot hate around it? (I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who talked about this–but please correct me, someone, if I am wrong) There is so much hatred for the Church–do you think it would get all this negative attention if there were not something trying desperately to bring it down? If you think about this in conjunction with Matthew 16:18 (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) I think you will be able to see more clearly why the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

 

[Detales]

Renepape~~" Just a note to consider: if the Catholic Church were not the true Church, would there be such a circle of white-hot hate around it? (I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who talked about this–but please correct me, someone, if I am wrong) There is so much hatred for the Church–do you think it would get all this negative attention if there were not something trying desperately to bring it down? If you think about this in conjunction with Matthew 16:18 (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) I think you will be able to see more clearly why the Catholic Church is the one true Church."

Since your “argument” seems to boil down to this, we shall start here. If the Catholic Church was the one true church it would be as popular as cars, or guns, or shoes. Only maybe 20% of the world is Catholic, and most of them by far live in the Southern hemisphere. After 2K years, how good is that? Does it mean that Satan is 80%+ successful? Against GOD? Please.

As for your subjective assessment of white hot hate, most people generally could give a hoot. I only do because I hope that my experience will give a hand up to a few who are able to think for themselves beyond the habits of the cradle. And by alleging hate of the sort you do, you are as well putting the church into the same arena as Muslims, cults, drug use, prostitution, murder, and other hated things. It is a wild flight of fantasy to say that the Church is right because it is hated. There are too many crossed wires there to make sense. And it also knocks your argument off the pedestal of having something as salvific value that is useful as a proof of rightness. Despite that it does, if you spend yourself looking. There are just more direct ways. I take such a “hate” statement from you and from Chesterton as admitting defeat by exhaustion of applicable arguments. You might as well convert to Judaism and cry about the Holocaust, ignoring that the Russians killed far more of their own than the Germans killed Jews. Your hatred argument is contextually meaningless and embarrassing. Hate is a way of life on this planet due to the general level of the immaturity of its residents. Here, the church and other institiutions have been remarkably useful in keeping us down.

Such scripture as you offer from Mathew is self referential to a book that is about 5000 years old in some version or other. Horus in one of his roles was a “fisher of men” and had twelve followers, etc, etc, etc, pretty much the whole story. Read those stories. The story is a model for self transformation, as the Jesus story was meant to be, but was wrongly constricted to only His allegedly historic person. I think if He was around today He would not know to laugh or cry. But He wouldn’t dare Teach: folks would come after Him again as a blasphemer. Renepape, really, I have the same structure of ideology as you do, save I discovered much of its inner history and actual intent.

As for being the Jesus you are waiting for, I have to ask if five millennia ago is modern. I admit to the structuring of the phrase. I have not seen it elsewhere. Don’t go plagiarizing it now! But it is essentially what is at the core of christianism as expropriated from paganism, if you but look. It isn’t about names of belief systems, Angel, it is about Waking UP. (Bach wrote a lovely piece advising it, Wacht Auf, I believe. Lovely listening. Wish I could play it!)

As for my “definition” of sexuality, unlike you, I would guess, it is not what I “found” as a ready made dogma, but what I arrived at by observation, thinking, and research, coupled with much conversation and experience over the last six decades. The worst part to overcome was my early training. Ever see a documetary called Women in Black?

The license surrounding sexuality has been with us from day 1. You might be interested in looking at the history of sexuality, which seems to swing historically from liberalism to repression. If, as the Ancients propounded, sexuality was understood as a governable force of creative energy, and not treated as the church treats it, we would not have had the ugly mood swings or Western sexual expression. Go thou and read, my friend. And enjoy!

As for the relationship of population to Earthian resources, I don’t need to argue that. Your statement about it is naive. I would guess that you have no concept of the application of logarithmic functions. If you do, you are in denial as to their application to practicalities beyond compound interest on your savings and investments. Our children will reap the harvest of your ignorance. But hey, they will die of malnutrition and disease, not needing condoms as most won’t last long enough to even consider it. Very kind of you and you kind.

 

[bbentrup]

I´m in mortal sin you say…so if I die right now I spend my eternity in HELL…FOREVER?!

I´m sorry but I don´t believe that. You don´t even know my situation, you don´t know if I truly knew the essense of the sin of masturbation, and you don´t even know if if I cried to God before I commited it. Basicaly you don´t know nothing beside the fact I did commit it. AFTER 19 years!!! This religious battle isn´t a game its a battle. Its not like once you do this you´re going to hell, once you do this you´re saved. It´s much deeper then that. This is why I´m not afraid to recive Holy communion on Sunday afternoon. Because God would point me to the right path. I am not being ingornant trust me. Honestly, I doubt I was ever in mortal sin in my entire life, so its pretty foolish to think this “act” just did the job. … But you´re right, if I have the CHANCE to go to confession before Mass I am, if not, well Jesus will understand.

Hopefully you can ask yourself some questions to help your understanding. First, off mortal means “death” - so I think you would agree that a mortal sin would indeed send its performer to hell if he/she is unrepentant. I think here you are actually questioning instead whether masturbation is a grave sin or not (and mortal if we include full knowledge and consent).

Some other posters have already cited the Catholic Church’s teaching on why it is indeed a grave sin. First, I think you need to realize that while intellectually you may understandably disagree (at least at first), please realize the extreme position this has put you: you are pitting your wisdom against that of thousands of saints over thousands of years and the full Magisterium of the Church. To think that your wisdom is somehow more correct than theirs strikes me as very risky at best and arrogant at worst. Wouldn’t it instead be better to pray: “Lord, I do not understand this teaching. As far as I can make out, Your Church seems wrong, but give me the intelligence to understand.” and in the meantime, until you get that understanding that masturbation is gravely sinful, to simply submit in holy obedience to the church teaching (even if you think they are possibly wrong)?

You say that you don’t think you are going to Hell if you committed this sin with full consent and knowledge. If you did not commit an act of true and full repentence, wouldn’t it make sense in that scenario that you would go to hell if you died in that state? Perhaps you did make an act of repentance. The Church teaches that if you make an act of perfect contrition after committing a mortal sin, then you will not go to Hell, even if you have not been to Confession since that sin. So, in a sense, you would be right about that. But here again, we get in to very dangerous waters for the penitent. You have to make a PERFECT act of contrition. This is doable, but it is not a standard that I would normally like to be required to meet. Among other things, it means complete detachment from worldly passions. To think that you can have made that perfect act of contrition is very risky at best and arrogant at worst. Much better is instead to confess your sins to a priest in confession. In the confession, you have the promise of Jesus that all your sins will be forgiven and IM-perfect contrition is all that is necessary to remove the mortal sins, it could simply be fear of hell and intent not to commit those acts in the future.

The church does teach that you can receive Communion after a mortal sin and a subsequent act of PERFECT contrition, but it needs to be by way of being an emergency, like near death, or leaving the country perhaps, but the intent must be to go to confession with a priest very soon. If you had committed a mortal sin, and there was no emergency, it was wrong to receive the Eucharist first, even if you planned on going to confession almost immediately after.

So the only question that’s left - is this a mortal sin for you, specifically dwelling on the full consent aspect? I don’t think anyone can say for sure, although the best you can do is to find a holy (note the emphasis) priest and consult with him about this subject in confession. If you follow his advice, whatever that is, I doubt God would hold that against you (although my best guess is that he would advise you not to receive Communion if you have committed this sin). Until then, you have to make this decision on your own. On the one hand, it is important and helpful to receive Jesus in the Eucharist regularly, but on the other hand, if you are in mortal sin, you have just made problems that much worse. Do you think you have the full knowledge of yourself that you have made a PERFECT act of contrition? Knowing how hard that is, I think it is much safer to try to make that perfect act, avoid receiving the Eucharist in case you haven’t, and get to confession as soon as possible, so you don’t even have to worry about the question. Why risk committing a grave sacrilege when waiting penitentially will solve the problem perfectly? Ultimately, it’s your call, but I’m not that kind of gambling man.

Finally, since one can never know one’s hour of death, and this is an ongoing struggle for some people for years, it is wise to pray also for a peaceful death. If this grace is given you, it won’t ultimately matter that you may have masturbated (in a mortal way) even the day before you died, since it assumes that you will have been to confession even after that.

I hope this helps and I will pray for you. Pray for all of us. All glory be to Jesus! Amen.

 

[MikiBee]

What I don’t get is haven’t you all read the Old Testament? Sex was EVERYWHERE! There was rape, fornication, concubines, polygamy-- and it was okay back then. It was the norm! Sure if you raped a woman, by God’s law, you’d have to marry her. If she were married, you’d have to pay the husband some sum of money. God’s law had lots of rules regarding sex, but nowhere does it say you shouldn’t self-stimulate. Nowhere. Adultery meant sleeping with another man’s wife. No more, no less. Fornication and masturbation are not included.

Can someone please point me to where the rules changed? If I have it correctly, Jesus did away with “the old law,” and replaced it with “Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul,” and “love they neighbor as thyself.” In abiding by these two laws, you will essentially be abiding by the 10 commandments… But where did Jesus change the laws concerning what adultery meant?

 

[Mike_Dye]

What I don’t get is haven’t you all read the Old Testament? Sex was EVERYWHERE! There was rape, fornication, concubines, polygamy-- and it was okay back then. It was the norm! Sure if you raped a woman, by God’s law, you’d have to marry her. If she were married, you’d have to pay the husband some sum of money. God’s law had lots of rules regarding sex, but nowhere does it say you shouldn’t self-stimulate. Nowhere. Adultery meant sleeping with another man’s wife. No more, no less. Fornication and masturbation are not included.

Can someone please point me to where the rules changed? If I have it correctly, Jesus did away with “the old law,” and replaced it with “Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul,” and “love they neighbor as thyself.” In abiding by these two laws, you will essentially be abiding by the 10 commandments… But where did Jesus change the laws concerning what adultery meant?/QUOT

Try as you may there will be no free passes regarding sexual sins regardless of what you want Sacred Scripture to say.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

Hopefully you can ask yourself some questions to help your understanding. First, off mortal means “death” - so I think you would agree that a mortal sin would indeed send its performer to hell if he/she is unrepentant. I think here you are actually questioning instead whether masturbation is a grave sin or not (and mortal if we include full knowledge and consent).

Some other posters have already cited the Catholic Church’s teaching on why it is indeed a grave sin. First, I think you need to realize that while intellectually you may understandably disagree (at least at first), please realize the extreme position this has put you: you are pitting your wisdom against that of thousands of saints over thousands of years and the full Magisterium of the Church. To think that your wisdom is somehow more correct than theirs strikes me as very risky at best and arrogant at worst. Wouldn’t it instead be better to pray: “Lord, I do not understand this teaching. As far as I can make out, Your Church seems wrong, but give me the intelligence to understand.” and in the meantime, until you get that understanding that masturbation is gravely sinful, to simply submit in holy obedience to the church teaching (even if you think they are possibly wrong)?

You say that you don’t think you are going to Hell if you committed this sin with full consent and knowledge. If you did not commit an act of true and full repentence, wouldn’t it make sense in that scenario that you would go to hell if you died in that state? Perhaps you did make an act of repentance. The Church teaches that if you make an act of perfect contrition after committing a mortal sin, then you will not go to Hell, even if you have not been to Confession since that sin. So, in a sense, you would be right about that. But here again, we get in to very dangerous waters for the penitent. You have to make a PERFECT act of contrition. This is doable, but it is not a standard that I would normally like to be required to meet. Among other things, it means complete detachment from worldly passions. To think that you can have made that perfect act of contrition is very risky at best and arrogant at worst. Much better is instead to confess your sins to a priest in confession. In the confession, you have the promise of Jesus that all your sins will be forgiven and IM-perfect contrition is all that is necessary to remove the mortal sins, it could simply be fear of hell and intent not to commit those acts in the future.

The church does teach that you can receive Communion after a mortal sin and a subsequent act of PERFECT contrition, but it needs to be by way of being an emergency, like near death, or leaving the country perhaps, but the intent must be to go to confession with a priest very soon. If you had committed a mortal sin, and there was no emergency, it was wrong to receive the Eucharist first, even if you planned on going to confession almost immediately after.

So the only question that’s left - is this a mortal sin for you, specifically dwelling on the full consent aspect? I don’t think anyone can say for sure, although the best you can do is to find a holy (note the emphasis) priest and consult with him about this subject in confession. If you follow his advice, whatever that is, I doubt God would hold that against you (although my best guess is that he would advise you not to receive Communion if you have committed this sin). Until then, you have to make this decision on your own. On the one hand, it is important and helpful to receive Jesus in the Eucharist regularly, but on the other hand, if you are in mortal sin, you have just made problems that much worse. Do you think you have the full knowledge of yourself that you have made a PERFECT act of contrition? Knowing how hard that is, I think it is much safer to try to make that perfect act, avoid receiving the Eucharist in case you haven’t, and get to confession as soon as possible, so you don’t even have to worry about the question. Why risk committing a grave sacrilege when waiting penitentially will solve the problem perfectly? Ultimately, it’s your call, but I’m not that kind of gambling man.

Finally, since one can never know one’s hour of death, and this is an ongoing struggle for some people for years, it is wise to pray also for a peaceful death. If this grace is given you, it won’t ultimately matter that you may have masturbated (in a mortal way) even the day before you died, since it assumes that you will have been to confession even after that.

I hope this helps and I will pray for you. Pray for all of us. All glory be to Jesus! Amen.

I thank you for your post I really do appreciate it. And hey, yesterday I decided not to receive Holy Communion. I committed this sin one too many times and I thought I shouldn’t have gone to receive Jesus. But to be honest I don´t believe I´m in a state of mortal sin. I mean I even increased my prayer life and I become more closer to God. I also want to add after I commit masturbation I always fall in a state where I am truly sorry and wonder why did I just do this. Before I even think of masturbation I keep in mind that the Church has a few exception regarding mortal sin ie. maturity. So, that´s why I believe I am not in mortal sin but I do want to go to confession.

God Bless and thank you for your prayers.

 

[johankrava]

today I fell into the sin of masturbation

My advice: stop thinking of masturbation as a sin. It is your choice what you believe. If you take a look at what the “other” world thinks about masturbation then you will have the answer.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

At this point, it might be helpful to quote a respected theologian. Thus, I give you Father Guido Sarducci:

Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents (it doesn’t seem like much, but it adds up). If there’s money left when you subtract what you owe from what you’ve earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work. (Sort of like reincarnation – many nuns are Mafia guys working it off.)

everything2.com/title/Father+Guido+Sarducci

 

[Detales]

Benjamin, did you know that the original word that is now translated as “sin” originally meant “to miss the point?” Do you ever wonder if the very fact that masturbation is labeled a “sin,” therefore something evil in itself, is not a factor in drawing your attention to something in a way it was never meant to? Every thought given attention grows. Somehow you seem to have allowed this unfortunately simple one to grow into Jack’s beanstalk!

All that could ever have possibly been meant, from wherever the “sin” idea stems from, was to respect the generative function. That means that if like Robin Williams, in one of his shows, where his imaginary father recommends he have an operation to remove his hand from his crotch, there is a problem: you only have one hand available to do other things.

The generative function is energy, and that energy is a gift of creative might. So if you are stymied in your life in some way, or frustrated bye things in your life, the raising of what at first seems to be sexual energy is the natural mobilization of God’s gift of ability to solve problems. Nothing moves without energy.

If for some reason you have gotten into the habit of thinking your energy is something to be on the alert for as a temptation, you are missing the point. The point of energy is to use it creatively in finding your loving way through the gift of Life. That could be in your job, you hobby, your avocation, social service, or in a responsible relationship at whatever stage it is in. You don’t, it seems to me, have so much of a problem as an artificial obsession created by being overly scrupulous. This is not an uncommon phenomenon in Catholics who have been brought up by over analyzing parents or clergy who have been sadly thus influenced themselves. Maybe your “sin” is having listened to incomplete teaching to the point of your considerations causing unnecessary turbulence in your life.

God is Love. There is allowance for sincere inquiry in our lives. Being Catholic doesn’t mean you have it right already, or even that you have a complete understanding of the Church teaching. But in your case, maybe it would be good to step back and give yourself a break. You are essentially made in the image and likeness of God. Love, not rules, is the dynamic of God. The Master gave us two laws that fulfill the Ten. Don’t let someone else’s hangups make your life. Create your own way in Love and own what you do. Sincerity trumps as much as Charity. You will see.

 

[bbentrup]

What I don’t get is haven’t you all read the Old Testament? Sex was EVERYWHERE! There was rape, fornication, concubines, polygamy-- and it was okay back then. It was the norm! Sure if you raped a woman, by God’s law, you’d have to marry her. If she were married, you’d have to pay the husband some sum of money. God’s law had lots of rules regarding sex, but nowhere does it say you shouldn’t self-stimulate. Nowhere. Adultery meant sleeping with another man’s wife. No more, no less. Fornication and masturbation are not included.

Can someone please point me to where the rules changed? If I have it correctly, Jesus did away with “the old law,” and replaced it with “Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul,” and “love they neighbor as thyself.” In abiding by these two laws, you will essentially be abiding by the 10 commandments… But where did Jesus change the laws concerning what adultery meant?

So many mistruths here, hopefully accidental. Sex was not everywhere, as you say, and the way you write about it, you seem to make it look like a bad thing - it isn’t. Maybe you mean, the *perversion *of sex is everywhere - again, not so. And just because the Bible records many instances of sin, does not mean that it condones the sin. The Bible records a lot about murder, but never was it condoned. So down with the false assumption that it was mentioned a lot so it must be condoned. You say: “It was okay back then. It was the norm!” Where does the Bible say that? Deuteronomy Chapter 22 shows how in God’s law a woman who commits adultery against a spouse or betrothed and her lover must die. A man who rapes a betrothed woman must die, and the woman too if she failed to cry for help in a public place. If the woman were an unbetrothed maiden, the man had to pay a steep fine (years of daily wages, as far as I can make out), had to marry her, and could never divorce her.

Regarding masturbation in the Bible, I will quote from the other thread on the subject from the document Persona Humana:

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.

Benjamin8o8, you talk like a Protestant. In your last poast, you write, “I decided not to…”; “I thought I shouldn’t…”; “I don’t believe I’m in…”; “I believe I am not in…” Do you realize you are under the tyrrany of your conscience? Why, as a Catholic, would you subject yourself to that state? Protestants have no choice in the matter and must use such language, and I pity them. But you - you have the full teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church on this matter, which as Jesus has promised, is free from error when teaching on faith and morals. Why do you worry or argue about what you yourself believe? It doesn’t matter! Submit to Holy Mother Church and she will raise you up on the path to wisdom and you will have eternal life. Allow a misinformed conscience to raise you up (and you have to admit that your conscience might be wrong), and you risk separating yourself from the Church. Again, pray for understanding as to what the Church teaches. I know it is very hard to accept and abide by what you can’t understand with the mind, but trust and have faith in Jesus’ church on this matter if your conscience is telling you to do something different. If you follow your conscience, and your conscience ends up being wrong, the amount of guilt attached to your sin may be lessened, but you may find that you neglected to form your conscience properly when you were younger, and that sin may have even greater guilt attached to it. Better to be safe than sorry - submit to the Church’s teaching.

 

[bbentrup]

At this point, it might be helpful to quote a respected theologian. Thus, I give you Father Guido Sarducci:

Life is a job. You get $14.50 a day, but after you die, you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents (it doesn’t seem like much, but it adds up). If there’s money left when you subtract what you owe from what you’ve earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work. (Sort of like reincarnation – many nuns are Mafia guys working it off.)

everything2.com/title/Father+Guido+Sarducci

This is ludicrous. Masturbation is a grave sin, not how you characterize it. Pure speculation here, but with full knowledge and consent, is probably worse than stealing a hubcap - admittedly, we can’t know (but with its usual accompanyment of lust, most certainly is worse). Entry to heaven is not a ± sheet of your sins vs. good deeds - that’s not how it works. It also most certainly has nothing to do with reincarnation. To get into heaven, the simple formula is: we have to ask Jesus for His mercy to forgive us our many sins (especially our mortal ones). If we do that sincerely and perfectly, once a purgation period has removed from us all impure attachments, we will be able to enter into heaven.

 

[Detales]

I’m going with Fr. Guido on this one. At least there is a modicum of sanity in his take. No wonder only less than 20% of the world is Catholic after these 2K years, with the vast majority in the Southern hemisphere. Bbentrup, you have the whole resource of Western and Eastern civilization at your fingertips and you put forth such misguided medieval scrupulosity? Do you really think God is that silly?

 

[bbentrup]

I’m going with Fr. Guido on this one. At least there is a modicum of sanity in his take. No wonder only less than 20% of the world is Catholic after these 2K years, with the vast majority in the Southern hemisphere. Bbentrup, you have the whole resource of Western and Eastern civilization at your fingertips and you put forth such misguided medieval scrupulosity? Do you really think God is that silly?

You dare call the teachings of the Catholic Church “misguided medieval scrupulosity” and say that God thinks His Church is “silly”? How much more do you want to insult us? The amount or percentage of believers has nothing whatsoever to do with objective truth, and the fact that you spurn the southern hemisphere also has nothing to do with objective truth. Do not use such strawman, nonsensical arguments to disparage our faith. Remember that posting is a privilege and that you need to be very respectful all the more since your contrary views might lead people astray.

 

[Detales]

I was hoping that my views, which are, I believe, alligned with the Teaching the church is historically derived from, might srve to at least spur folks to think, if not wake up.

If there is any insult, it is to you by the Church for not confessing it’s own history from 1CE especially through circa 300CE and to today.

 

[bbentrup]

I was hoping that my views, which are, I believe, alligned with the Teaching the church is historically derived from, might srve to at least spur folks to think, if not wake up.

If there is any insult, it is to you by the Church for not confessing it’s own history from 1CE especially through circa 300CE and to today.

God’s eternal truths cannot change. What was once true is always true. Appealing to the Church’s history as evidence that its teaching on masturbation could somehow be different then than it is today is a baseless argument. The Bible asked us to be pure and told us how impure actions are very sinful. Your views are not aligned with the Church’s magisterium. You need to stop trying to subvert its authority, at least on these boards.