Masterbation as an Alternative to Normal Sex

[OraLabora]

The Church has given plenty of reasons. That are just rejected by many because they want to keep doing as they are doing. Also, I always wonder why Catholics are so quick to claim that docile submission to Christ through His Church is in some way not thinking critically?

It isn’t. In some cases, determining “submission to Christ” is dependent on fallible human thinking (with respect to teachings that aren’t Magisterial). The point though is that this is a forum for debate and exchange of ideas. If we are to evangelize and catechize properly to people of non-Catholic backgrounds who may happen to be reading these forums, then an answer of “because the Church says so” is not going to cut it. We’ll just appear to be somewhat loopy and out-of-touch people who check their brains in at the door.

Do we accept Church teaching only when we claim to understand the reasons sufficiently? Because if that is the standard then we really do not accept that Christ is the authority behind His Church.

It is easier to accept any teaching when we understand the reasons. I used to work in industrial health and safety. It was certainly important to explain to a worker why we were making him do something that on the surface didn’t make much sense. Poor explanations would cost lives. A good example was enclosed spaces. Through poor training workers in one facility were led to believe that if no toxic gases were present, the enclosed space was safe to enter. What they failed to understand was that a lack of oxygen also made it unsafe, and in one facility three workers went to their death when entering a mixing tank to effect repairs. They tested for toxic gas, but didn’t test oxygen level. This type of accident is all too frequent, and it also killed the father of my Senior Prom date many years ago. A experienced health and safety expert would have taught the workers basic physiology: you need an atmosphere of 21% oxygen to breathe, and you need to ensure that there are no poisons in the air. Either lack of oxygen OR poisons will kill you. You need to check for both first, as death due to lack of oxygen happens in a few short minutes. Instead they only learned to ensure that the environment was not “toxic” before entering it.

Simplistic answers to complex issues merely insults the intelligence of the audience.

Finally, is it hard to accept that certain actions are intrinsically evil and are never licit no matter the circumstances?

No, it isn’t. And that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is understanding why a specific action is “intrinsically evil”.

More thorough understanding of the Natural Law would have been more helpful than “because the Church says so”. In my own case, for instance, I have no problem accepting that ABC is intrinsically evil. Ditto for fornication, pornography, and other offenses to chastity.

My conscience struggles with this particular point, but I still submit to the teaching and make efforts to avoid this particular sin, in prayerful obedience. But it is only in prayerful obedience at this point because as a Benedictine I have made a promise of obedience.

 

[chessmane4e5]

No, it isn’t. And that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is understanding why a specific action is “intrinsically evil”.

More thorough understanding of the Natural Law would have been more helpful than “because the Church says so”. In my own case, for instance, I have no problem accepting that ABC is intrinsically evil. Ditto for fornication, pornography, and other offenses to chastity.

My conscience struggles with this particular point, but I still submit to the teaching and make efforts to avoid this particular sin, in prayerful obedience. But it is only in prayerful obedience at this point because as a Benedictine I have made a promise of obedience.

Now I am confused. You see that ABC, fornication, pornography, and other offenses to chastity are intrinsically evil, but you do not think that Masturbation falls into this category.

Please, buy the book “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West, you can get it from Amazon used for under $10 (including shipping, last time I checked).

 

[OraLabora]

Now I am confused. You see that ABC, fornication, pornography, and other offenses to chastity are intrinsically evil, but you do not think that Masturbation falls into this category.

Please, buy the book “Good News About Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West, you can get it from Amazon used for under $10 (including shipping, last time I checked).

I struggle with the issue.

I think the evil may be blown out of proportion. But I have not come to a conclusion. So it is incorrect to conclude that “I do not think it is an intrinsic evil”. I do not tend to be a “black and white” person.

 

[crazzeto]

No. The case I made is that there is scientific evidence of a probabilistic relationship between frequency of ejaculation and prostate cancer.

More likely, you’re just grasping at straws trying to find any way you can to try and prove the church wrong here. The trouble is you’re going to fail. I’m sorry, but it’s time to move on. Masturbation doesn’t make you healthier, in any way shape or form.

 

[OraLabora]

More likely, you’re just grasping at straws trying to find any way you can to try and prove the church wrong here. The trouble is you’re going to fail. I’m sorry, but it’s time to move on. Masturbation doesn’t make you healthier, in any way shape or form.

More likely, I am trying to discern. If the scientific evidence suggested the opposite, that masturbation damages the prostate, I would be among the first to say that this confirms Church teaching.

But it doesn’t.

I also do not claim that masturbation makes you healthier. It may slightly reduce the overall incidence of prostate cancer.

Actually it’s not masturbation per se that allegedly does that, it’s ejaculation frequency. Maybe you should encourage couples to marry in their late teens or early 20s and have a vigorous sex life (within the framework of Church teaching). I’m surprised that none of you black-and-white posters picked up on that strategy

I’m sure most men would certainly rather have a vigorous sex life with their wives than feel compelled to masturbate due to sexual frustration.

 

[crazzeto]

Why do you need medical science to say masturbation hurts your health to finally agree with the Church? The church is clear about it’s position, it’s immoral for reasons already stated. It radically affects your view of sexuality, ways which violate the natural law.

More over, you’re still clinging to some idea, any idea that masturbating is healthy. No matter how slight, you want to beleive there are positive health effects. There are not any, it’s a moral issue and the Church is clear. Masturbation is a violation of the natural law, this is enough as the Church in fact is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

 

[fix]

It isn’t. In some cases, determining “submission to Christ” is dependent on fallible human thinking (with respect to teachings that aren’t Magisterial). The point though is that this is a forum for debate and exchange of ideas. If we are to evangelize and catechize properly to people of non-Catholic backgrounds who may happen to be reading these forums, then an answer of “because the Church says so” is not going to cut it. We’ll just appear to be somewhat loopy and out-of-touch people who check their brains in at the door.

Well, no explanation is acceptable to many folks no matter how clear that explanation may be. It is an issue of authority. We see this in this debate and others like contraception. The Church has plenty of information, yet people will claim their private interpetation of moral facts trump the Church.

It is easier to accept any teaching when we understand the reasons. I used to work in industrial health and safety. It was certainly important to explain to a worker why we were making him do something that on the surface didn’t make much sense. Poor explanations would cost lives. A good example was enclosed spaces. Through poor training workers in one facility were led to believe that if no toxic gases were present, the enclosed space was safe to enter. What they failed to understand was that a lack of oxygen also made it unsafe, and in one facility three workers went to their death when entering a mixing tank to effect repairs. They tested for toxic gas, but didn’t test oxygen level. This type of accident is all too frequent, and it also killed the father of my Senior Prom date many years ago. A experienced health and safety expert would have taught the workers basic physiology: you need an atmosphere of 21% oxygen to breathe, and you need to ensure that there are no poisons in the air. Either lack of oxygen OR poisons will kill you. You need to check for both first, as death due to lack of oxygen happens in a few short minutes. Instead they only learned to ensure that the environment was not “toxic” before entering it.

Simplistic answers to complex issues merely insults the intelligence of the audience.

Simple does not mean weak or false. The problem seems to be that we fail to accept the direct answers from the Church and term them “black and white” when the problem may really be we are unprincipled.

I mean just a quick search can reveal things like this:

Some people, however, disregarding the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order,62 have actually posited a *complete sovereignty of reason *in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world. Such norms would constitute the boundaries for a merely “human” morality; they would be the expression of a law which man in an autonomous manner lays down for himself and which has its source exclusively in human reason. In no way could God be considered the Author of this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total mandate given to man by God. These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15:3-6) and the Church’s constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its author, and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish…

Now, this one encyclical goes into great depth regarding the nature of moral reasoning. Yet, this too is rejected. Why? Because it is insufficient? Too simple minded? No. It may be rejected because we are not open to the truth of the matter.

No, it isn’t. And that isn’t the issue here. The issue here is understanding why a specific action is “intrinsically evil”.

More thorough understanding of the Natural Law would have been more helpful than “because the Church says so”. In my own case, for instance, I have no problem accepting that ABC is intrinsically evil. Ditto for fornication, pornography, and other offenses to chastity.

My conscience struggles with this particular point, but I still submit to the teaching and make efforts to avoid this particular sin, in prayerful obedience. But it is only in prayerful obedience at this point because as a Benedictine I have made a promise of obedience.

How about this:

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.

 

[tjm190]

It radically affects your view of sexuality, ways which violate the natural law.

How so?

 

[OraLabora]

No matter how slight, you want to beleive there are positive health effects.

You’re actually quite wrong there. I’d rather believe that there are negative health effects because it would be congruent with Church teaching, I love the Church, and want and need her to be right.

But when the scientific evidence suggests it may be otherwise, I can’t help but have to stop and ask questions. I was trained as a scientist (chemist), and worked as a scientist for many years. Science and theology should complement each other. When science tries to play God we lose. But when the Church clings to a dogma that flies in the face of scientific evidence, we also lose. To this day atheists use the fact that the Church clung to the the concept of an Earth-centric universe and circular orbits for too long, to mock the Church.

At least in this case the evidence is not overwhelming, and if you don’t masturbate, you won’t die tomorrow or the day after or probably even for a normal life span.

So to end this useless debate I’ll cave in here, and say I accept Church teaching prayerfully even if with some skepticism, until proof it is wrong, if ever, emerges. I am after all a Benedictine and we value obedience to legitimate authority very highly, starting at the level of my spiritual director, throuth my Abbot, up to the Magisterium and the ultimately Christ through the Holy Father.

 

[crazzeto]

How so?

Go back and start on pg 2

 

[tjm190]

Go back and start on pg 2

Reading all of your posts in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you have not posted any historical, hypothetical, scriptural, or statistical evidence that supports the assertion I questioned.

 

[Newbie2]

***In any event any relationship between ejaculation and prostate cancer is probabilistic and not deterministic, so that in no way impacts on the morality of masturbation unless the effect was as overwhelming as it is for smoking. ***
Please don’t minimize the seriousness of prostate cancer. I have a friend undergoing radiation therapy for it at the moment. I have an colleague that was rendered incontinent by prostate cancer surgery. It’s not a walk in the park. Men need to be aware of this disease, and how to detect it.

I am not saying masturbation isn’t a grave sin. I am saying that some evidence indicates it may have one particular beneficial effect. It is similar to the effect of saying to cut down on, say, fatty foods. Cutting down won’t guarantee you’ll avoid a heart attack, but it will lessen the probability.

What I am saying though, is that the Church would do men a favor if it at least studied and commented intelligently on the data. Perhaps it already has. I am not aware of it.

In the meantime I will continue to do my best and struggle to conform to Church teaching on the matter with the help of a very wise old confessor. But I will not turn off my brain just because I am a Catholic scientist. I will ask questions, and I expect a better answer than I have read on these forums, basically “because the Church says so and that’s all you need to know”.

No. The case I made is that there is scientific evidence of a probabilistic relationship between frequency of ejaculation and prostate cancer.

Clearly you don’t understand the difference between a probabilistic effect and a deterministic one. If I was arguing that there was a deterministic effect, then your statement above would be correct.

I have argued no such thing. Maybe others have.

In a probabilistic relationship, your statistical chance of getting the disease being examined, increases or reduces based on a certain behavior. So for example the odds of getting prostate cancer might change from say 1000 cases in a male population sample of 60,000, to 990 cases in 60,000. These are not real statistics but examples to illustrate a point. It’s the same as increasing, say fruit and vegetable consumption and eating less red meat. People mistakenly assume this will protect them from cancer or heart disease later on. It doesn’t work on an individual basis, it works on the basis of a population of individuals. Some may still get cancer or heart disease, and some, who don’t follow the recommendations, may stay healthy until ripe old age, but on average those with the good behaviour have a better outcome than those who don’t.

In a deterministic relationship there is a direct relationship between dosage or frequency and outcome.

Radiation is an interesting example because at very low dosages, the effect is probabilistic (aka stochastic). At higher dosage, the effect is directly proportional to dosage: give dose x, your bone marrow is affected, give dose y, you get leukemia, give dose z, you die quickly.

Interesting responses. Regardless of the medical consequences, you seem to recognize masturbation for the “grave” sin that it is…so I’m a bit confused why you’re making the argument that something that may be beneficial for men, although gravely sinful, is something that the Church should give more study…as if the medical value of something mitigates its sinfulness.

That, theologically speaking, is unacceptable. Sin is sin.

If there were two people stranded on an island with limited food resources, only enough to support one person, it would be of benefit to one person to kill the other (assuming that both of them were OK with that). Gravely sinful, but it would help them live longer and less miserably. Same moral principle as masturbating to help prevent prostate cancer.

 

[crazzeto]

You’re actually quite wrong there. I’d rather believe that there are negative health effects because it would be congruent with Church teaching, I love the Church, and want and need her to be right.

But when the scientific evidence suggests it may be otherwise, I can’t help but have to stop and ask questions. I was trained as a scientist (chemist), and worked as a scientist for many years. Science and theology should complement each other. When science tries to play God we lose. But when the Church clings to a dogma that flies in the face of scientific evidence, we also lose. To this day atheists use the fact that the Church clung to the the concept of an Earth-centric universe and circular orbits for too long, to mock the Church.

At least in this case the evidence is not overwhelming, and if you don’t masturbate, you won’t die tomorrow or the day after or probably even for a normal life span.

So to end this useless debate I’ll cave in here, and say I accept Church teaching prayerfully even if with some skepticism, until proof it is wrong, if ever, emerges. I am after all a Benedictine and we value obedience to legitimate authority very highly, starting at the level of my spiritual director, throuth my Abbot, up to the Magisterium and the ultimately Christ through the Holy Father.

Let me ask you a simple question, do cell phones cause cancer? Gee, I guess it depends upon which study you read and when the study was done. Some say “yes you’ll die immediatly if you use a cell phone”, particularly when people were particularly upset about people misusing their phones. Others say “we can definitivly say there’s no link at alll”.

The point? You’re leaping at some rather weak “scientific evidence” to say “masturbating is good for you”.

 

[crazzeto]

Reading all of your posts in this thread has led me to the conclusion that you have not posted any historical, hypothetical, scriptural, or statistical evidence that supports the assertion I questioned.

divorce360.com/divorce-articles/causes-of-divorce/information/why-americans-divorce.aspx?artid=169

Men cite sex as the top reason for divorce.

 

[tjm190]

divorce360.com/divorce-articles/causes-of-divorce/information/why-americans-divorce.aspx?artid=169

Men cite sex as the top reason for divorce.

Fun fact- firefox tells me the word masturbation does not appear in that article.
And had you read the article, you would know that sex wasn’t the top reason for men.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Why do you need medical science to say masturbation hurts your health to finally agree with the Church? The church is clear about it’s position, it’s immoral for reasons already stated. It radically affects your view of sexuality, ways which violate the natural law.

More over, you’re still clinging to some idea, any idea that masturbating is healthy. No matter how slight, you want to beleive there are positive health effects. There are not any, it’s a moral issue and the Church is clear. Masturbation is a violation of the natural law, this is enough as the Church in fact is infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I just want to point out that not everything in the Catechism has been declared De Fide, i.e. not everything in it has been declared as binding in faith.

So it is possible that someday the Church could say that Masturbation is okay, but when one understands the creation of man and woman, it becomes highly unlikely, if not impossible.

But crazzeto has said it though. “Moral law trumps physical law.”

There are doctors that will claim that in order to protect the “mental” health of a woman, an abortion is necessary. Doesn’t matter, abortion is still wrong. The Church even goes so far to say that, even if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, we would not be justified to take the life of the baby. So even when facing death, it is never permissible to sin. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[OraLabora]

Let me ask you a simple question, do cell phones cause cancer? Gee, I guess it depends upon which study you read and when the study was done. Some say “yes you’ll die immediatly if you use a cell phone”, particularly when people were particularly upset about people misusing their phones. Others say “we can definitivly say there’s no link at alll”.

The point? You’re leaping at some rather weak “scientific evidence” to say “masturbating is good for you”.

I did not say “masturbation is good for you”. You extrapolated. I fully agree with you on its potential for moral degradation.

I concede that the data is far from overwhelming. But it merits further study.

For those who say “yes you’ll die immediatly if you use a cell phone”, they are as guilty of bad science as those who assert that masturbation will protect you from prostate cancer. It may have a mild protective effect for a large population sample but is by no means a guarantee of individual protection.

Interesting responses. Regardless of the medical consequences, you seem to recognize masturbation for the “grave” sin that it is…so I’m a bit confused why you’re making the argument that something that may be beneficial for men, although gravely sinful, is something that the Church should give more study…as if the medical value of something mitigates its sinfulness.

It could certainly mitigate the culpability of someone who sincerely, even if mistakenly, believes in a physical benefit and does it because of that. If anything the Church could study the situation and formulate an appropriate response, even if it isn’t the response that millions of horny men want to hear.

I think in practical terms I probably have more of a quibble with the propensity to assign to masturbation a higher level of culpability than actually exists for most in today’s hyper-sexualized context, than I do with its inherent definition as intrinsically disordered and a grave sin.

I also think that the Church does a poor job of lending a helping hand to those who do not have a natural outlet for their sexuality. It’s more the pity because in the vast treasury that is monastic life, there are concrete examples on how to deal with sexuality in a fully celibate environment. And it relies not on the denial of one’s sexuality, but in its redirection. Our abbot is an award-winning organist and an incredible musician. If you listened to his music, you’d have no doubt that he’s redirected his virility to his instrument, and not towards the flesh. Another expresses his yearning for a feminine presence in his life in the feminine qualities of his beautiful flower arrangements for the altar, and in his work designing vestments which the monastery sells to clergy.

And we would all benefit from reading the Martyrology every day.

 

[crazzeto]

OraLab:

I’m sorry, you can’t have this both ways… You’re trying to say it both decreases your risk of cancer, and at the same time isn’t good for you. Have you ever heard of Aristotle’s Philosophy of non-contradition? There’s something to it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

 

[AndyF]

USUlsterScot:

There is often great disparity in sexual drive between a man and women; being driven in large part by the level of hormones in both which can vary widely. The Church’s position offers no way of reconciling this disparity.

But it does. The Church has always maintained that charity overrides any sensual drives. There is also counseling with the appropriate care provider, and medical treatment if that is the cause.

Just watch a pair in their typical relationship. They become familiar with the other partner to the point they are comfortable and at one. Here we will witness the interplay of a charitable give and take. If one cannot, the other shares that loss with outward happiness. The sacrificing partner is careful not to make a martyr out of his/her situation, thus burdening the other with anxiety which adds to his/her misfortune.

One couple I known places so much humor and unimportance in their sexual glitches, they tease each other. (wink,nudge,etc.) The overall impression is they think sex is overrated. Some observers would say that all is lost and there surely can’t be a bond of any sort remaining. What they have in common is they find outlets of activity and keep busy, and it is evident they dedicate their lives for the other partner, not for themselves. They consecrate each other through Works. I can’t recall seeing a happier couple.

Besides, Jesus specified an outlet. Mat 19,12. If one finds himself driven in this area, then he should marry. If adolescent, he will need to sacrifice for a while, if celibate, then he needs to make commitments or reorient is life.

Andy

 

[OraLabora]

OraLab:

I’m sorry, you can’t have this both ways… You’re trying to say it both decreases your risk of cancer, and at the same time isn’t good for you. Have you ever heard of Aristotle’s Philosophy of non-contradition? There’s something to it.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

You have some difficulty with the concept I think, of a disease having a non-deterministic risk factor.

A decreased risk may be statistically significant for a population of men, but it may be small enough to be insignificant for an individual, and there is no guarantee that the behavior in question will improve your risk significantly.

You often hear in the media that a certain food, medication, activity, or whatever increases the risk off getting cancer by 30%. People think “wow, 30% more risk, I better not do that”. But people do not have a sense of the proportion of the risk. An example is that if the risk is 1:500,000 for a certain disease or 0.0002%, 30% more risk means it goes to about 1.3:500,000 or 0.00026%

That may be statistically significant for a population and a statistician, but not so much for an individual. Those are examples. I don’t know the numbers for prostate cancer; 1:6 men will get the disease over their entire lifetime. For many it will be the old-age, slow-growing, nearly silent kind. Others will have a more aggressive cancer that shows up earlier, say in the 50s. It’s the kind we want to avoid.

It may mean that taken along with other prostate cancer risk factors, putting all factors on your side can make a bigger overall population impact; for example, avoiding fatty foods (also implicated in prostate cancer risk).

I would say that the risk change is low enough at this point that a change in behavior is probably not going to achieve much, but I do think it merits study and an open mind.