Masterbation is or isn't a sin?

[davidv]

If masturbation is a sin because it separates the function of sex [to procreate within marriage] from the pleasure, then isn’t a lot of mundane stuff sinful? For example: wouldn’t chewing gum be sinful? Eating is for nutrition, but by chewing gum, we are essentially getting the pleasure of eating [from the gum’s taste] without the function [maintaining a healthy body.]

Perhaps this sounds troll-ish, but I’m asking an honest question here. I’ve been abstaining for 2 months, and as an 18-year-old male, this is getting very frustrating. I still cannot determine if masturbation’s truly sinful.

Please do not simply quote the catechism here as a response. I know what the Church says. I know what the Church has said on many things, and that’s what leads me to seek other answers.

If you cannot trust the Church for an answer to your question in this area of faith and morals, who can you trust?

 

[aperture]

The Church has been wrong before.

I’m not saying that I won’t listen to their arguments, but when someone tosses up a quote from the Catechesis simply saying that something is a “grave matter” and refusing to elaborate…well, it’s not helpful.

 

[Lycorth]

The Church has been wrong before.

On what? The Church cannot teach error.

Masturbation is not the same as chewing gum. You don’t get the “pleasure of eating” from chewing gum; it is not a false version of eating for nutrition. A more accurate way to look at it is by comparing masturbation to gluttony, which is eating like a pig (to be blunt) and certainly not eating for nutritive reasons.

Masturbation also serves as a gateway to all sorts of sexual vices; it encourages lust since the person masturbating usually thinks of whatever excites him or her the most and this is usually the most salacious or titillating thing to that person at the moment. It encourages devaluing other people by looking at them not as creations of God but as object from which to derive pleasure and then dispose of. It can encourage interest in other perversions if the person masturbating should dwell on them to see how titillating they can be, such as exploring homosexuality or pedophilia or whatever.

Heck, even the temporary relief from sexual frustration one gets from masturbating is only temporary; in those of us with strong sex drives it can only be a few minutes and then, back to square one. It’s like pruning a tree in order to chop the tree down.

There are plenty of reasons to avoid masturbation and plenty of good reason to acknowledge the traditional Church position on it as being sinful.

 

[davidv]

The Church has been wrong before.

Prove it.

I’m not saying that I won’t listen to their arguments, but when someone tosses up a quote from the Catechesis simply saying that something is a “grave matter” and refusing to elaborate…well, it’s not helpful.

Then why are you here? This Catholic Answers. The anwsers we give are supposed to be Catholic.

When did you ask what “grave matter” means?

 

[TedDC]

Masturbation is a grave offense against chastitiy. It’s all hard to explain in one post, but if you look back on the thread you’ll see some good reasons given why it is grave matter.

Not really. Gandalf explicity asked why masturbation is a sin, and the closest any of the previous posts comes to answering is the citation of a Church teaching that “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

But that answer is simply a declaration, because it fails to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the sexual faculty is only intended for use within marriage. As best I can tell, a sex organ has no way of determining whether the person to whom it belongs is married, or whether it is being stimulated by its owner or someone else.

 

[stringbeanduck]

Not really. Gandalf explicity asked why masturbation is a sin, and the closest any of the previous posts comes to answering is the citation of a Church teaching that “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

But that answer is simply a declaration, because it fails to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the sexual faculty is only intended for use within marriage. As best I can tell, a sex organ has no way of determining whether the person to whom it belongs is married, or whether it is being stimulated by its owner or someone else.

Yeah I’ll let you have that one. I sometimes get the masturbation threads mixed. Hmm gee I wonder why. I will say that I answered his question why it’s a sin. Most certainly could have more depth, but I was really tired. How we determine something is a sin comes from the authority we trust.

 

[davidv]

Not really. Gandalf explicity asked why masturbation is a sin, and the closest any of the previous posts comes to answering is the citation of a Church teaching that “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”

But that answer is simply a declaration, because it fails to provide any evidence to support the assertion that the sexual faculty is only intended for use within marriage. As best I can tell, a sex organ has no way of determining whether the person to whom it belongs is married, or whether it is being stimulated by its owner or someone else.

The sex organ cannot act on its own, it obeys the will of the person to whom it is attached.

So, what do you suppose is the purpose of the sexual faculty?

 

[TedDC]

The sex organ cannot act on its own, it obeys the will of the person to whom it is attached.

So, what do you suppose is the purpose of the sexual faculty?

It would appear to have two purposes, which are not mutually exclusive: to facilitate procreation, and to give pleasure.

 

[davidv]

It would appear to have two purposes, which are not mutually exclusive: to facilitate procreation, and to give pleasure.

The Church teaches that it has two purposes, 1) procreation and 2) unity of the spouses.

Pleasure is not its purpose, it is a desireable side effect of the true purposes.

 

[TedDC]

The Church teaches that it has two purposes, 1) procreation and 2) unity of the spouses.

Pleasure is not its purpose, it is a desireable side effect of the true purposes.

Yes, that’s the Church teaching; I was stating the purposes which are apparent from an objective examination of the sexual facility.

What I (and I think others) would like to know is the foundation for that teaching; in other words, how did the Church determine the purpose of sexuality?

 

[davidv]

Yes, that’s the Church teaching; I was stating the purposes which are apparent from an objective examination of the sexual facility.

What I (and I think others) would like to know is the foundation for that teaching; in other words, how did the Church determine the purpose of sexuality?

From revelation and reason.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus states:

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife),8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.9 Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."10 (Mark (NAB) 10:8)

From within people, from their hearts, come evil thoughts, unchastity, theft, murder,22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, licentiousness, envy, blasphemy, arrogance, folly.23 All these evils come from within and they defile." (Mark (NAB) 7:22)

From these and many others, there are obviously misuses of the faculty. “Unchasitity” is the the one that declares that the use for pleasure only, is a sin.

 

[aperture]

Prove it.

Then why are you here? This Catholic Answers. The anwsers we give are supposed to be Catholic.

When did you ask what “grave matter” means?

Almost everything about the Church in the Middle Ages?

Again, though, I’m not saying that I won’t listen to an argument of the Catholic Church’s position. I’m saying “because the Catechism says so” isn’t an argument of a position. It’s a pronouncement, or fiat. I’m assuming there must be a series of logical arguments for why that conclusion was reached.

Also, Lycorth, can you elaborate on why the gum analogy doesn’t work? It seems that gluttony is not as good a parallel. You said that gluttony works because it is “not eating for nutritive purposes.” People generally don’t chew gum [or candy, or dessert, etc.] for nutritive purposes. They eat for pleasure. This seems to fit with the separation-of-function definition of masturbation.

 

[TedDC]

From revelation and reason.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus states:

From these and many others, there are obviously misuses of the faculty. “Unchasitity” is the the one that declares that the use for pleasure only, is a sin.

Every definition of chastity I’ve seen refers only to intercourse. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Chastity, therefore, is allied to abstinence and sobriety; for, as by these latter the pleasures of the nutritive functions are rightly regulated, so by chastity the procreative appetite is duly restricted.”

And even Persona Humana (section IX) acknowledges the lack of scriptural basis for the prohibition, instead relying on “tradition” and “understanding”: “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.”

So, what we’re really left with is the Church saying: “It’s wrong because we have determined that it’s wrong.”

 

[LilyM]

If masturbation is a sin because it separates the function of sex [to procreate within marriage] from the pleasure, then isn’t a lot of mundane stuff sinful? For example: wouldn’t chewing gum be sinful? Eating is for nutrition, but by chewing gum, we are essentially getting the pleasure of eating [from the gum’s taste] without the function [maintaining a healthy body.]

Nope. Sex is in a category all on its own. It is much more significant and serious a matter than eating. We don’t share in God’s most magnificent act, that of creation of life, by eating, after all. So what we do in regards food is a lot less important than what we do in regards sex.

Please do not simply quote the catechism here as a response. I know what the Church says. I know what the Church has said on many things, and that’s what leads me to seek other answers.

But Christ gave the Church authority to speak in His name - ‘who hears you hears Me, and who rejects you rejects Me’. His authority, which He passed on to them is good enough.

Put it this way - when God taught the Israelites through Moses that it was forbidden to take the name of the Lord in vain, people didn’t go around saying ‘yes, I KNOW Moses says it’s God’s teaching, but I still don’t understand WHY swearing is so bad - it’s just a word, after all, I don’t mean it seriously, I don’t believe that God would really be upset by it …’

They simply accepted that it DID upset God to misuse His name and obeyed what Moses taught them. Most of us still do the same to this day, and do our best to avoid blasphemy, no? So why, when we recognise the authority of Moses and need no other arguments in regards swearing, or the other commandments, are we so het up about Church teaching on other matters?

 

[TedDC]

Also, Lycorth, can you elaborate on why the gum analogy doesn’t work? It seems that gluttony is not as good a parallel. You said that gluttony works because it is “not eating for nutritive purposes.” People generally don’t chew gum [or candy, or dessert, etc.] for nutritive purposes. They eat for pleasure. This seems to fit with the separation-of-function definition of masturbation.

I agree - and let me offer another question which addresses the same issue; I’ve posed it before but never received a cogent answer: if masturbation is a mortal sin because it’s a misuse of a bodily function, why isn’t cigarette smoking also considered a mortal sin? After all, the purpose of the lungs is clearly not to inhale toxic smoke for pleasure. And furthermore, smoking (unlike masturbation) has been proven to damage the body.

 

[LilyM]

I agree - and let me offer another question which addresses the same issue; I’ve posed it before but never received a cogent answer: if masturbation is a mortal sin because it’s a misuse of a bodily function, why isn’t cigarette smoking also considered a mortal sin? After all, the purpose of the lungs is clearly not to inhale toxic smoke for pleasure. And furthermore, smoking (unlike masturbation) has been proven to damage the body.

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.

 

[davidv]

Every definition of chastity I’ve seen refers only to intercourse.

You must not have seen this one:
"CCC 2395:

Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Chastity, therefore, is allied to abstinence and sobriety; for, as by these latter the pleasures of the nutritive functions are rightly regulated, so by chastity the procreative appetite is duly restricted.”

And even Persona Humana (section IX) acknowledges the lack of scriptural basis for the prohibition, instead relying on “tradition” and “understanding”: “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.”

I could not find this quote in the Vatican websites copy of Persons Humana. Here are the first two paragraph of section IX.

IX
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.

This means the exact opposite of the quote you listed.

So, what we’re really left with is the Church saying: “It’s wrong because we have determined that it’s wrong.”

See the real Person Humana quote above.

 

[davidv]

Almost everything about the Church in the Middle Ages?

How is this proof of anything?

Again, though, I’m not saying that I won’t listen to an argument of the Catholic Church’s position.

Actually you did. You said that the church was wrong in the past.

I’m saying “because the Catechism says so” isn’t an argument of a position. It’s a pronouncement, or fiat. I’m assuming there must be a series of logical arguments for why that conclusion was reached.

There is. The quotes from the CCC lay them out.

Also, Lycorth, can you elaborate on why the gum analogy doesn’t work? It seems that gluttony is not as good a parallel. You said that gluttony works because it is “not eating for nutritive purposes.” People generally don’t chew gum [or candy, or dessert, etc.] for nutritive purposes. They eat for pleasure. This seems to fit with the separation-of-function definition of masturbation.

 

[Lycorth]

Also, Lycorth, can you elaborate on why the gum analogy doesn’t work? It seems that gluttony is not as good a parallel. You said that gluttony works because it is “not eating for nutritive purposes.” People generally don’t chew gum [or candy, or dessert, etc.] for nutritive purposes. They eat for pleasure. This seems to fit with the separation-of-function definition of masturbation.

Gluttony is a fine parallel; there’s really no way I can make it any more simple than I did. Also, as has been said, sexuality is an entirely different thing all its own. 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.

Reconsider my explanation, perhaps pray on it - the Lord will help you to understand

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I google’d if it was a sin or not.

Google is a secular search engine, not a Catholic one. The answer to your question is within the links referenced in the Moral Theology subforum on CAF, as well as in the full Catechism of the Catholic Church, available I believe through CAF links but certainly also directly at the Vatican website.

(P.S. spelled with a “u,” not an “e”)