Masterbation is or isn't a sin?

[aperture]

How is this proof of anything?

Wasn’t the middle-ages Church quite corrupt? Didn’t it do a lot of decidedly un-Christian things? Isn’t this proof that the Church has done wrong before?

But I do appreciate the extended quote from the Catechism, since it does a better job of elaborating on the “why” of the Church’s decision. But it still seems like their explanation is problematic, for the reasons I’m grappling with [below.]

lycorth:

No glutton will be led into terrible perversions, or at least possibly exposed to them, by being a glutton - being a glutton merely makes him selfish and wasteful. Lust can lead to all sorts of ills, inspire one to treachery and violence, lead to adultery and fornication and easily worse - and masturbation almost cannot exist without lust to fuel the action.

It’s not even so much the playing with one’s self that is the problem, it’s the motivations for doing so, which are always lustful and base at their foundation. Masturbation is all about getting off, about titillation, about one’s own selfish sexual desires. No amount of gun chewing or gluttony can match up to that.

So masturbation/lust is sinful because it could lead to fornication or violence? That’s just a slippery-slope argument. Lots of things could lead to awful things without themselves being awful. “Me drinking alcohol could lead to me driving drunk. Clearly, alcohol is a grave sin.”

The reasoning that it’s bad because it’s about “getting off…titillation…selfish sexual desires” still seems to me as just a sexual variant of, say, eating a slice of chocolate cake. Don’t tell me that’s anything other than satisfying your own selfish desires.

At any rate, for the record, I’m not arguing that masturbation is a clean and sinless activity, but I’m not sure that it’s “grave.”

 

[OraLabora]

Wasn’t the middle-ages Church quite corrupt? Didn’t it do a lot of decidedly un-Christian things? Isn’t this proof that the Church has done wrong before?

The Church was never corrupt.

At various times in her history, some of her clergy and laity have been corrupt and have done despicable things, mistakenly in the name of the Church.

The sin however, lies not with the Church but with her corrupt officials.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Noel, while the Church recognizes masturbation as grave matter it may not always be a mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal you have to have 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge and 3) full consent.

The Church teaches that masturbation is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral; it is an objective mortal sin. Every deliberate use of the sexual faculty other than natural marital relations open to life is objectively a mortal sin.

If any objective mortal sin is done with full knowledge and full consent, then the act is an actual mortal sin. Only actual mortal sins deprive the soul of the state of grace, and deserve eternal punishment (if one does not repent).

 

[LilyM]

Wasn’t the middle-ages Church quite corrupt? Didn’t it do a lot of decidedly un-Christian things? Isn’t this proof that the Church has done wrong before?

But I do appreciate the extended quote from the Catechism, since it does a better job of elaborating on the “why” of the Church’s decision. But it still seems like their explanation is problematic, for the reasons I’m grappling with [below.]

So masturbation/lust is sinful because it could lead to fornication or violence? That’s just a slippery-slope argument. Lots of things could lead to awful things without themselves being awful. “Me drinking alcohol could lead to me driving drunk. Clearly, alcohol is a grave sin.”

The reasoning that it’s bad because it’s about “getting off…titillation…selfish sexual desires” still seems to me as just a sexual variant of, say, eating a slice of chocolate cake. Don’t tell me that’s anything other than satisfying your own selfish desires.

Wrong. Masturbation IS the sin of lust (disordered sexual desire) in and of itself, and possibly the sin of fornication in and of itself as well. It doesn’t merely lead to those things. There’s no such thing as a ‘moderate’ amount of masturbation any more than there is a ‘moderate’ amount of adultery.

We are ALLOWED to eat cake within moderation - it’s perfectly fine if not healthy . It’s not like eating one reasonably-sized piece of chocolate cake is in any way disordered or sinfully selfish. Pleasure in food is not wrong in and of itself. Neither, for that matter, is pleasure in sex, it’s only when both become disordered that they become sinful.

So what level of pleasure IS disordered and sinful? The difference is one of degree - masturbation is the sexual equivalent of something like eating 3 whole chocolate cakes, 2 huge boxes of cookies and a massive tub of ice cream all in one sitting. Now that WOULD be gravely sinful, being a totally disordered seeking of gluttonous pleasure.

Hope this helps.

 

[davidv]

Wasn’t the middle-ages Church quite corrupt?

No.

Didn’t it do a lot of decidedly un-Christian things? Isn’t this proof that the Church has done wrong before?

No. Some of her members, as they are in every age, were great sinners.

But I do appreciate the extended quote from the Catechism, since it does a better job of elaborating on the “why” of the Church’s decision. But it still seems like their explanation is problematic, for the reasons I’m grappling with [below.]

So masturbation/lust is sinful because it could lead to fornication or violence?

No. It doesn’t need to lead to anything else. It is intrinsically wrong, whether it leads to other wrongs, or not. It appears that you didn’t really understand the CCC, if that is what think the basis is.

That’s just a slippery-slope argument. Lots of things could lead to awful things without themselves being awful. “Me drinking alcohol could lead to me driving drunk. Clearly, alcohol is a grave sin.”

Since it is intrinsically disordered, there is no slippery slope argument.

The reasoning that it’s bad because it’s about “getting off…titillation…selfish sexual desires” still seems to me as just a sexual variant of, say, eating a slice of chocolate cake. Don’t tell me that’s anything other than satisfying your own selfish desires.

Which suggests to me that you haven’t understood what you read about it from authentic Catholic sources.

At any rate, for the record, I’m not arguing that masturbation is a clean and sinless activity, but I’m not sure that it’s “grave.”

Well, I am sure it is “grave” for all of the reasons already given.

 

[aperture]

No.

No. Some of her members, as they are in every age, were great sinners.

Prominent members of the clergy, and the pope himself, were sinners in the middle ages. Lived extravagant lives while “ministering” to people that were dirt-poor, sold indulgences, fathered illegitimate children, etc. Aren’t these the same people that write the catechesis today? It’s clear that not everything they’ve done is perfect, or even good. Therefore, I posit that, while the abstract Church may be infallible, the people that serve it - and the work they produce - isn’t.

No. It doesn’t need to lead to anything else. It is intrinsically wrong, whether it leads to other wrongs, or not. It appears that you didn’t really understand the CCC, if that is what think the basis is.

That’s just one of the qualms I had - it’s not the main one. My main one was the gum/cake thing.

LilyM:

Wrong. Masturbation IS the sin of lust (disordered sexual desire) in and of itself, and possibly the sin of fornication in and of itself as well. It doesn’t merely lead to those things. There’s no such thing as a ‘moderate’ amount of masturbation any more than there is a ‘moderate’ amount of adultery.

We are ALLOWED to eat cake within moderation - it’s perfectly fine if not healthy . It’s not like eating one reasonably-sized piece of chocolate cake is in any way disordered or sinfully selfish. Pleasure in food is not wrong in and of itself. Neither, for that matter, is pleasure in sex, it’s only when both become disordered that they become sinful.

So what level of pleasure IS disordered and sinful? The difference is one of degree - masturbation is the sexual equivalent of something like eating 3 whole chocolate cakes, 2 huge boxes of cookies and a massive tub of ice cream all in one sitting. Now that WOULD be gravely sinful, being a totally disordered seeking of gluttonous pleasure.

Hope this helps.

So masturbation is wrong because it separates procreation from pleasure, i.e. lust. That is why it is disordered. God made sex for procreation.

But eating some delicious chocolate cake is not wrong, even though it separates nutrition from pleasure. God made eating for nutrition.

What’s the difference?

 

[LilyM]

So masturbation is wrong because it separates procreation from pleasure, i.e. lust. That is why it is disordered. God made sex for procreation.

But eating some delicious chocolate cake is not wrong, even though it separates nutrition from pleasure. God made eating for nutrition.

What’s the difference?

My goodness, have you even READ what the Catechism has to say about sex? And marriage? Please do, immediately. It will help your comprehension no end.

Church teaching is that sex serves TWO functions, a) procreative and b) unitive. The pleasure of sex is undoubtedly part of its design. However, it is not a purpose of sex equivalent to a) or b). Rather it is an element, a sub-set of the unitive function. Ie the pleasure two spouses share in the marital act is part of the unifying, bonding experience.

Pleasure, while part, is not the WHOLE of the unitive function, however. It it is not to be assumed that every pleasurable sexual activity serves a unitive purpose. Clearly adulterous sex, however pleasurable, is ANTI-unitive in that it breaks the bond of the spouses apart.

Masturbation is wrong because it serves NEITHER the procreative NOR the unitive (in its full and accurate sense) purpose. In other words it doesn’t properly achieve either of the purposes of sex.

God made eating for nutrition? And not for pleasure? Says who, apart from yourself? That idea is something you’ve made up off the top of your head - there’s no scriptural or Church teaching to the effect that the only purpose of eating is nutrition.

 

[davidv]

Prominent members of the clergy, and the pope himself, were sinners in the middle ages. Lived extravagant lives while “ministering” to people that were dirt-poor, sold indulgences, fathered illegitimate children, etc. Aren’t these the same people that write the catechesis today? It’s clear that not everything they’ve done is perfect, or even good. Therefore, I posit that, while the abstract Church may be infallible, the people that serve it - and the work they produce - isn’t.

There is nothing abstract about a Pope or the Magisterium when they are teaching the universal Church on faith and morals. (They are protected from error by God)

That’s just one of the qualms I had - it’s not the main one. My main one was the gum/cake thing.

I don’t know why, as it has been shown to you that it is not a valid analogy.

So masturbation is wrong because it separates procreation from pleasure, i.e. lust. That is why it is disordered. God made sex for procreation.

No. It is wrong because it is a disordered use of our sexuality.

But eating some delicious chocolate cake is not wrong, even though it separates nutrition from pleasure. God made eating for nutrition.

What’s the difference?

The difference is in the essence of the two. One, masturbation, is intrinically wrong. The other, eating, can only be made wrong by circumstances or intent.

 

[stringbeanduck]

You mean grave sin, not mortal sin. And thus far smoking and masturbation seem to be in a similar category.

Smoking certainly can be classed as grave matter, and hence potentially mortal sin. There’s nothing in Church teaching saying it can’t be, rather the opposite if I remember. Nicotine is a drug, after all, and abuse of any drug is pretty much grave matter.

Remember, however, that nicotine is insidiously addictive, and that acting under the compulsion of a serious addiction greatly lessens one’s subjective culpability for a sin. So the Church doesn’t press so hard on the issue of smoking because it realises most smokers subjectively are only guilty of venial sin. And for the same reason when the Catechism discusses masturbation it is also careful to point out those circumstances that make IT a venial sin as well.

Well yeah that, and abuse of tobacco falls under offences against temperance and masturbation falls under an offences against chastity. Different virtues.

 

[aperture]

…snip…
God made eating for nutrition? And not for pleasure? Says who, apart from yourself? That idea is something you’ve made up off the top of your head - there’s no scriptural or Church teaching to the effect that the only purpose of eating is nutrition.

Actually, now may be a good time to ask for the scriptural reasoning for sex-must-be-procreative [unitive I can find.]

davidv:

There is nothing abstract about a Pope or the Magisterium when they are teaching the universal Church on faith and morals. (They are protected from error by God)

How can this be true when popes in the middle ages taught and did some clearly wrong stuff? How can God have protected the magisterium from error when they were so corrupt?

No. It is wrong because it is a disordered use of our sexuality.

I don’t really see how that conflicts with what I said.

 

[davidv]

Actually, now may be a good time to ask for the scriptural reasoning for sex-must-be-procreative [unitive I can find.]

Genesis 1:28

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
[28] And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;

How can this be true when popes in the middle ages taught and did some clearly wrong stuff? How can God have protected the magisterium from error when they were so corrupt?

I don’t really see how that conflicts with what I said.

Now would be a good time for you to demonstrate that the Church, at any time, taught anything wrong regarding faith and morals.

What the Popes did has no bearing on your claim of erroneous teaching. This is really off topic so it should be discussed in another thread, as it has been nearly continuously on this forum. Use the search function to find other threads discussing this.

 

[aperture]

Genesis 1:28

It seems like this specifies that God wants us to procreate. I wouldn’t disagree with that. But I don’t see much basis for the sex-without-procreating-is-always-wrong mode of thought. God wants us to procreate, but I don’t see how that would logically mean he wants us to always do so.

Now would be a good time for you to demonstrate that the Church, at any time, taught anything wrong regarding faith and morals.

What the Popes did has no bearing on your claim of erroneous teaching. This is really off topic so it should be discussed in another thread, as it has been nearly continuously on this forum. Use the search function to find other threads discussing this.

OK; ignoring science and the church, what about indulgences? Where do those fit in here? And, ignoring any relationships between the papacy and teaching, I said in my previous post that popes have committed grievous sins before. I cannot see how that could have occurred if God protects them from error.

 

[InsanityChild]

i love doin it

 

[davidv]

It seems like this specifies that God wants us to procreate. I wouldn’t disagree with that. But I don’t see much basis for the sex-without-procreating-is-always-wrong mode of thought. God wants us to procreate, but I don’t see how that would logically mean he wants us to always do so.

If you don’t see it, I cannot make you see it.

To me this may reflect that you have an erroneous view of who God is. Who is God to you?

OK; ignoring science and the church, what about indulgences? Where do those fit in here? And, ignoring any relationships between the papacy and teaching, I said in my previous post that popes have committed grievous sins before. I cannot see how that could have occurred if God protects them from error.

Off topic. You may start another thread to discuss it if you wish.

 

[aperture]

If you don’t see it, I cannot make you see it.

Well, when I see these verses, I get:

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Nothing really controversial there. Now for the key one:

[28] And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it;

God blessed us; God asked us to procreate; God asked us to take care of the world. Nowhere in there does God condemn sex without procreation. I can’t even see how it’s implied.

 

[mdifrancesco]

“What does the Bible say about masturbation?”
To understand how God feels about this subject, we must examine other verses that deal with issues such as lust, self-control and purity.
Sex is God’s invention. He is the mastermind behind it—and His creation is worth far more to Him than it is to us. This beautiful expression of love was created out of His own heart, as a gift to be experienced between a husband and wife. It is only in marriage that this manifestation of intimacy can be fully enjoyed in the depth for which it was created.
“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and the sexually immoral” (Hebrews 13:4).
The more beautiful and unique something is (like sexual intercourse), the more power it holds over our lives, either for good or bad influence. That is why it is so easy for the devil to corrupt the most precious of God’s gifts. When we become more in love with the gifts than the One who endowed them, the things that were designed to bless us begin to destroy us instead. Yes, God cares about what we do with our bodies, in public or in private. He doesn’t want us to abuse ourselves in any way. In fact, an older definition of masturbation is “self-abuse.”
1 Corinthians 6:18 further confirms this, saying that unlawful sexual relations defile our own bodies. “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.”
"Isn’t it still better to masturbate than to commit fornication? The easy answer to this question would be, “Yes, it is better to masturbate, because at best it corrupts only one person. It certainly is the lesser of two evils.” However, why would a loving, holy, all-powerful God abandon you to a situation in which you have to choose any evil, whether it be “lesser” or “greater?” To really answer this question, we must again go back to God’s original plan for sex. First of all, masturbation will not truly relieve the sexual pressure that one may feel. It may for a short moment, but in the long run it only creates a deeper desire and capacity for sex, which will lead to more masturbation. If you let yourself become enslaved to a sexual high, you will find that you need to go to increasingly extreme acts to maintain the same degree of excitement. This creates a vicious circle, like the junkie who craves a “fix,” but is only temporarily satisfied. The more he indulges in his dependency, the more ensnared by addiction he becomes. This is the nature of all sin. That is why Jesus declared that all who sin become a slave to sin (John 8:34). Furthermore, masturbation usually involves fantasy, visualization, and often pornography. The Bible is very clear as to what God expects of us in these areas of fantasy and lust. It teaches that we must not look lustfully at each other nor should we behave in such a manner as to entice others to lust after us.
Read Job 31:1-3. All sexual immorality begins with a thought. A lustful thought not taken captive, will eventually lead to other perversions, because sin reproduces itself in increasingly greater measures. If we do not deal with our evil thoughts, they will take root in our hearts. It is for this reason that God is so concerned with our thought life. Jesus came not only to deliver us from our “outward” sins, but also from wickedness that begins in the heart.
"Isn’t God unreasonable to demand sexual purity after giving us sexual drives that seem to overwhelm us? Our loving God never demands from us what is impossible for us to do. We are so weak within ourselves that it may seem impossible, but He will equip us with His holy power to overcome any sin, if we ask in faith. Of course, sexual urges in and of themselves are not wicked. They are natural. God created us that way. He desires that we get optimum pleasure out of them by using them the way they were created to be used. However, many desires for physical gratification (whether it be food, sex, etc.) stem from a deeper need that is unfilled deep inside us. Gorging our flesh can never fill a hunger that grows out of our spirit. Only intimacy with God can fill the deepest needs inside of us. No other created thing has that power.
Through the power of the Holy Spirit, we have the very ability that Jesus had to resist temptation. He depended completely upon the Father and so must we. Something you must know is that God is not the one who is tempting you in this area to “test” you. God is on your side and wants to set you free from these things, not lead you into them! “When tempted, no one should say “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (James 1:13,14).
Read also the following verses:
1 Corinthians 10:13 Romans 6:11-14 Hebrews 4:15-16 2 Corinthians 7:1
“Can I really be set free?”
"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1).
If you are in a real struggle with any form of sexual sin, I would like to share several things that you can do to break loose from this stronghold:
Confess this sin first to God, then ask God to lead you to someone that you can be accountable with, who will be faithful to pray with you and for you. This will take humility on your part, but it will lead to life. James 5:16 says: “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (You may not feel “righteous” but if you have admitted your sin to God and received His forgiveness, you are! That means your prayers are powerful and effective!)

 

[LilyM]

Well, when I see these verses, I get:

Nothing really controversial there. Now for the key one:

God blessed us; God asked us to procreate; God asked us to take care of the world. Nowhere in there does God condemn sex without procreation. I can’t even see how it’s implied.

Haven’t you ever heard of the story of Onan in Genesis? I’m surprised no-one’s brought that one up before now.

God punished him for disobeying His command to take his brother’s widow as his wife *and *beget a child with her. To be specific, during the act Onan withdrew and spilled his seed on the ground. It’s not just an implicit condemnation of non-procreative sex, it’s an EXPLICIT one.

Yes, I know it’s a case of one individual, but then the case of Simon Magus was the also case of one individual. Simon Magus was condemned for trying to obtain the gift of the Holy Spirit by paying for it. And we don’t assume that HIS case is limited just to himself alone. Instead, since scripture was written for the instruction of all of us, we learn from it that it’s ALWAYS wrong to attempt to buy or sell what is sacred, which is named the sin of simony after Simon Magus. Even though Jesus doesn’t say in so many words ‘don’t buy or sell what is sacred’.

 

[aperture]

Haven’t you ever heard of the story of Onan in Genesis? I’m surprised no-one’s brought that one up before now.

God punished him for disobeying His command to take his brother’s widow as his wife *and *beget a child with her. To be specific, during the act Onan withdrew and spilled his seed on the ground. It’s not just an implicit condemnation of non-procreative sex, it’s an EXPLICIT one.

I have heard of the story of Onan. However, I don’t interpret it the same way that the Catholic Church seems to. Here, as best as I know, is the story:

8
Then Judah said to Onan, “Unite with your brother’s widow, in fulfillment of your duty as brother-in-law, and thus preserve your brother’s line.”
9
Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
10
What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too.

It seems to me that Onan angers God because Onan disobeys God’s request out of selfishness; he doesn’t want Shua to bear his children without receiving the credit, so he pulls out. The sin isn’t so much that he has sex without procreating, but that he disobeys [and even attempts to trick, in a way] God’s command. I can’t see how this logically extends to “all sex without procreation is bad.”

That seems overzealous to me. In fact, if literal interpretation were to be encouraged, wouldn’t brothers still be encouraged to “continue the line” with the widow if their brother passed away? This can’t be the biggest scriptural piece of evidence.

 

[LilyM]

I
It seems to me that Onan angers God because Onan disobeys God’s request out of selfishness; he doesn’t want Shua to bear his children without receiving the credit, so he pulls out. The sin isn’t so much that he has sex without procreating, but that he disobeys [and even attempts to trick, in a way] God’s command. I can’t see how this logically extends to “all sex without procreation is bad.”

Of course the sin is that Onan disobeys God’s command. Of course he disobeys out of selfishness. EVERY sin is motivated by selfishness at least in part - the selfishness being that the sinner puts his or her own wishes and will above that of God. Nothing new in what you’re saying there.

WHAT exactly is this command of God that he sinfully disobeys? The command to procreate. So the sin is very much that he has sex without allowing it to be procreative - the selfishness is a given, part and parcel of his sin as it is of every sin. And what is the command that EVERYONE who masturbates disobeys? That they have sex without allowing it to be procreative.

That seems overzealous to me. In fact, if literal interpretation were to be encouraged, wouldn’t brothers still be encouraged to “continue the line” with the widow if their brother passed away? This can’t be the biggest scriptural piece of evidence.

If it’s overzealous then obedience to the Ten Commandments must also be overzealous. Just because Christ did away with SOME OT commands doesn’t mean to say that the whole of the Levitical or pre-Christian law is to be thrown out lock stock and barrel.

Jesus SAID He didn’t come to abolish the law, so we must act on the basis that those laws which are neither fulfilled by Christ (eg the feast of Passover being fulfilled by the events of Easter) nor addressed in the NT by Him (like the dietary laws or the laws on divorce) are still binding. And sexual codes are precisely one of those areas that is still binding.

Put it this way - what is it about Christ’s coming that you think changed the SEXUAL moral code? Where is there any hint in the NT that His attitudes about sex were more liberal than those of the OT? If anything He’s even stricter about sexual morality (for example, by putting a lustful look on the same moral level as adultery).

So tell me, what is your reason for thinking that God’s attitude to sex is any different now to what it was in the time of Onan?

 

[aperture]

Of course the sin is that Onan disobeys God’s command. Of course he disobeys out of selfishness. EVERY sin is motivated by selfishness at least in part - the selfishness being that the sinner puts his or her own wishes and will above that of God. Nothing new in what you’re saying there.

WHAT exactly is this command of God that he sinfully disobeys? The command to procreate. So the sin is very much that he has sex without allowing it to be procreative - the selfishness is a given, part and parcel of his sin as it is of every sin. And what is the command that EVERYONE who masturbates disobeys? That they have sex without allowing it to be procreative.

…snip…

So tell me, what is your reason for thinking that God’s attitude to sex is any different now to what it was in the time of Onan?

I don’t think the attitude has changed; I think it was different [from your/the Church’s interpretation] to begin with. God commanded Onan to procreate; Onan had sex and deliberately avoided procreation; God punished Onan. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense to me is the idea that this somehow means that God prohibits sex without procreation for everyone all the time. This isn’t exactly the Commandment - this is one example of God speaking to one person. How can it be applied so broadly, as the Church does? If every one of God’s OT commands must be followed all the time, then that’s a whole new can of worms.