How about female masturbation? No spilling of seed there…
I find it interesting that threads on this topic are almost ALWAYS started by men. While women may struggle with this sin, generally they do not go to such great lengths to defend it, as the men seem to do. Perhaps, in God’s wisdom, he understood that the male would have more difficulty with chastity.
This is clearly not masturbation and is a grasping at straws to find Biblical proof where there is none.
You don’t have to accept the story of Onan as justification for the prohibition against masturbation. We are not Bible Christians, we are Catholics. As such, we understand that Tradition and Scripture, in total, form the teaching of the Church.
Once again Christ seems to have much compassion for those caught in sexual crimes. The adulteress situation is the “he without sin cast the 1st stone” answer. Does this make adultery alright? NO But once again doesn’t Christ use some of his more scathing remarks simply for the “holier than thou” crowd of Pharisee’s and other religious leaders?
What’s your point? You are equivocating on something that is irrelevent. We know murder is illegal - always. Yet, in our very human justice system, we understand that there are mitigating circumstances that may lessen culpability and thereby reduce one’s punishment. It may be considered manslaughter, or a crime of passion, or temporary insanity. But still, it is understood that a murder was committed and that a law has been broken. Just because it appears to you that masurbation is a lesser sin, it is still a sin. What about the sin of missing Mass on Sunday? Do you want to debate that too?
In addition, Jesus was compassionate with ANYONE who repented. In the Gospels, the Pharisee’s remained steadfast in their refusal to accept Him and the Savior. But look at Levi - the tax collector. As a member of the “establishment”, he converted his heart and followed Christ. As with Magdelane, who also repented, they were both shown the compassion that all who repent will receive.
In my opinion and in reading the Catechism which has “loopholes” of anxiety, immaturity, habit etc…which states clearer than Onan it may not be a sin at all!

If the Catechism did not have some stipulations about culpability, the masses would accuse them of being too rigid and unyielding. When they do allow for the possibility of reduced culpability, they are accused of arbitrarily creating “loopholes”. As an other poster stated, for those who wish to justify sin, a loophole can be found just about anywhere.
Once again I’m not going to sit here like some of you and condemn by choosing my words. Why did none of you quote the entire Catechism with it’s “loopholes”? Most jumped right to “grave sin” and either didn’t read further or decided that anything more wasn’t what they wanted to say. Ridiculus extremes were brought in but very little compassion.
The compassion is built into the Catechism. If this does not apply to your current predicament, then you are seeking something other than compassion - approval perhaps?
