Masterbation uncertainty

[fix]

Dear Fix,

In your latest post in sighting the caveats of the church you leave off two very important portions. You say…

The Church says much more than this. It also says “conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” These anxiety conditions and psychological factors can be significant.

I said the Church states certain factors minimize culpability. She does not say it is no longer not evil. Certain acts are intrinsically wrong as the CCC says about this act. It is never licit, never. Subjective culpability varies. That distinction is critical.

And, I believe the anxiety refers to the build up of sexual energy to such an extent that it has a damaging affect on ones well being and damages ones ability to be loving with self, other and God.

That is your opinion but not stated in Church teaching. Regardless of the reason one is suffering the moral law cannot be dispensed with. It seems you are trying to set up a situation where one would be justified before God by masturbating? Intrinsically evil acts are always wrong. One may be less quilty or not quilty at all, but the act itself is still evil.

Your initial posting did contain the full caveat of the Catechism, yet your next paragraph says…

“Always?” really? To me the Catechism is clearly saying this is not always a mortal sin.

Note my words carefully. I said always objectively mortal. I use the traditional moral theology use of those terms. It is always an objective mortal sin. A mortal sin on the books so to speak even if it is not always a subjective mortal sin.

The CCC used the terms grave matter.

And, that the conditions of anxiety may reduce to a minimum moral culpability, even IF the person is fully aware of the long standing teaching of the church that it is a gravely disordered act. In other words this is above and beyond the standard criteria of mortal sin: 1. The matter must be grave. 2. The sin must be committed with full knowledge. 3. The sin must be committed deliberately. I believe the church is saying in it’s caveat that even with the full knowledge of the first portion of the Catechism there are times when this action may still have minimum moral culpability.

No, there is nothing here that obviates what She always teaches on mortal sin. If one is in a habit, or addiction, one may not be able to give full consent. That is nothing new.

 

[wornwheel]

PM,

I don’t think this is supposed to be this strict and rigorous. I think the intense feelings of guilt that you are experiencing are less a sign that your actions are misguided than that your perceptions of the teaching of the church and your internal judgments are out of alignment. I’m not sure that the Catechism will help with all of that but prayer and some person to person assistance might.

I have gone through phenominal counseling in this area which has freed me. I think it is difficult to find such guidance, but it is not hopeless.

I hear your distress about all of this and I pray that you will find a way out.

Love, peace and prayers to you… WornWheel

 

[PennitentMan]

As a Catholic, you have another choice. It is the sacrament of reconciliation. Through it you can be freed from the bondage of sin throught the grace that is available from it.

Not exactly-if I engage in masturbation now, it would be presuming God’s mercy and that is also a sin, so by willingly engaging in it, knowing that I’ll be forgiven, is accumilating more sin.

Point number 4 on my examination of conscience:
4. Did I despair of or presume on God’s mercy?

 

[ElizabethAnne]

PM,

I don’t think this is supposed to be this strict and rigorous. I think the intense feelings of guilt that you are experiencing are less a sign that your actions are misguided than that your perceptions of the teaching of the church and your internal judgments are out of alignment. I’m not sure that the Catechism will help with all of that but prayer and some person to person assistance might.

I have gone through phenominal counseling in this area which has freed me. I think it is difficult to find such guidance, but it is not hopeless.

I hear your distress about all of this and I pray that you will find a way out.

Love, peace and prayers to you… WornWheel

Guilt should and does accompany sin. Then, we are called to pick ourselves up and “go and sin no more.” That means, of course, going to confession and leaving our guilt behind.

Now if someone struggles with inordinate amount of guilt to the sin or cannot stop feeling guilty even after being forgiven, they may certainly want to seek counceling. But that doesn’t mean that guilt in general is bad. In fact, it can help us to amend our actions and guard against sin in the future.

 

[wornwheel]

Dear Fix,

I do agree that the Church teaches that in masturbation there are times and circumstances when one may be less guilty or not guilty at all due to mitigating factors such as stress.

I also see that the church holds that the act itself is a disordered act. And, we are called to use our sexuality for higher purposes.

That said, one can not ignore the caveats of the church. There are times and situations when there is minimum moral culpability in this act. And it is left up to the individual with guidance from their priest to determine what that culpability is. I have been told by more than one priest that my appraoch is sound.

In your final sentence you state:

No, there is nothing here that obviates what She always teaches on mortal sin. If one is in a habit, or addiction, one may not be able to give full consent. That is nothing new.

Again you exclude Stress from your statement. I wonder if this is because this factor simply doesn’t fit into your construct. Stress does not necessarily imply addiction. My interpretation of the Catechism is not the same as yours. And, I would argue that both are opinions, unless you’re the Pope… I’m not.

When the stress levels become unbearable for me, I rest securely in the arms of the Church knowing that I am not condemned by Her teachings in the Catechism, though there seems to be members of Her body who may think otherwise.

Peace and Love, WornWheel

 

[wornwheel]

ElizabethAnn,

I agree, not all guilt is bad. It is a signal that our actions are not in line with our values.

It is inordinate guilt that I am speaking of. I believe much of the guilt around masturbation is inordinate to the sin. It used to be for me and I believe it is for many others.

 

[fix]

I do agree that the Church teaches that in masturbation there are times and circumstances when one may be less guilty or not guilty at all due to mitigating factors such as stress.

I also see that the church holds that the act itself is a disordered act. And, we are called to use our sexuality for higher purposes.

That said, one can not ignore the caveats of the church. There are times and situations when there is minimum moral culpability in this act. And it is left up to the individual with guidance from their priest to determine what that culpability is. I have been told by more than one priest that my appraoch is sound.

I am sorry but you seem to dance around the issue. When is there a time when one may commit an intrinsically evil act?

There is a difference bewteen less culpabilty because one cannot consent fully and claiming such an act is morally licit.

Have you read:

The primary and decisive element for moral judgment is the object of the human act, which establishes whether it is *capable of being ordered to the good and to the ultimate end, which is God…

• Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances.

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Again you exclude Stress from your statement. I wonder if this is because this factor simply doesn’t fit into your construct. Stress does not necessarily imply addiction. My interpretation of the Catechism is not the same as yours. And, I would argue that both are opinions, unless you’re the Pope… I’m not.

I would not exclude stress. Stress may intefer with consent.

When the stress levels become unbearable for me, I rest securely in the arms of the Church knowing that I am not condemned by Her teachings in the Catechism, though there seems to be members of Her body who may think otherwise.

No one is condemning you or anyone. What I question is your novel idea that intrinsically evil acts may be licit.

 

[marybee]

When you are tempted, just tape a pic of your mother to your hands! Nothing could kill the mood more!

 

[wornwheel]

I did not say that masturbation is a pure act. I am saying that the church takes into account stress when measuring the culpability. That does not make the act itself pure or licit. But it does keep the act and consequences in a proper perspective.

 

[valient_Lucy]

No, it doesn’t make sense completely. You could argue that married people are selfish because they get all the pleasure of sex without any fear of being admonished for it.

How exactly is the married couple being selfish?

 

[gvogt4]

I did not say that masturbation is a pure act. I am saying that the church takes into account stress when measuring the culpability. That does not make the act itself pure or licit. But it does keep the act and consequences in a proper perspective.

Dear wornwheel,

I think what Fix is getting at is there is no other (Church) perspective on the act but that it is morally wrong. (This is why it should not be presented as anything less than wrong.) The individual consequences are just that and with many varying factors, but the facotrs have no effect on the act itself. Also, “professional help” will not always equal spiritual help and prayer. (This has been my experience.)

 

[gvogt4]

When you are tempted, just tape a pic of your mother to your hands! Nothing could kill the mood more!

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :hypno: :hypno:

 

[blessedtoo]

It’s not like I’m an addict trying to find excuses for his addiction. I am not addicted to masturbation.

PM, at the risk of being accused again of not being understanding, I am compelled to point out that all of your posts are about this topic. Not just on this thread but on nearly all your threads. In addition, posts such as these:

I’m caught between a rock and a hard place, (as you will see from my previous posts on other threads) with no where to go, except to sin, or stay put with my mouth shut.

Can they really not see that there may be some good that may come of this for the many frustrated sould out there?

And really, they could trust people enough to allow this…just like they trust people with alchohol, too muchis a sin, but under the right conditions, it’s permissable…why don’t they outline that for us, it would be welcomed with open arms.

I do think that there is a window for very frustrated and hopeless people to use this facility to save themselves from falling really badly and yes we can be trusted not to misuse it.

Would this not keep them from the great evils of pornography or adultery?

I have been faithfully following the latter, and I cannot tell you the amount of frustration, sadness and depression I have had to repress because I am denying myself this.

How can I be the best Catholic/Husband/Father I can be if I’m walking around with this all bundled up inside of me?

it’s purely for the sake of releif.

indicate that you are very attached to this sin, whether you are actually engaging in the activity it or not. You have somehow glorified masturbation as an activity that will solve all your personal problems and if it wasn’t for the big bad Church, you would be a happier, more loving and more well adjusted person. Do you not see the addictive qualities in your reasoning? Your insistence that you somehow “need” this for “relief” and that by “repressing and denying” yourself you are doomed to a life of unhappiness sounds curiously like the arguments I used to make against quitting drinking. If your attempts to remain chaste are nothing more than “white-knuckling”, you will of course resent the Church’s wisdom on this issue and the beauty of living a life that is free of this compulsion.

 

[larry85704]

To say that a married man, or woman, can go to their spouse every time they get horny for satisfaction would greatly increase attendance at Church if that is what the Church taught.

Shucks.

I’d bet that there are those among us who believe that a spouse should drop everything to go service their spouse. That is not a good expectation.

Any “sin”, if you think about it in a logical way, is wrong. Why? Because there is something better. In the case of sex, getting a sacramental marriage is the best way to fix sexual needs. God wants the best for us.

More specifically, God wants us to have 1 sexual partner in our lives. That is His plan. Anything else is sinful. So you sin when you masturbate. There is no one to condemn you. If you could stop it would be better for you. Go make a sacramental marriage and have alot of sex, that would be good.

But you and I are broken, we are trying to be better, but we are broken. Seeking God is the way to be healed. Seeking God is not worrying about sin. If you fill your days, and nights, with seeking and doing God’s will you will find the need, or desire, to sin to be less and less.

Our Church has many rules, and they all make sense. Not every rule is easy to follow but we should try to follow them.

I like the idea of the early Church about sin, or Scripture for that matter… Sin was a big deal, but as Paul said to Cornith, it is going to happen, just don’t brag about it. Jesus came to forgive our sins, they are forgiven. You are forgiven.

Now go, and explore the love that God has for you…

 

[wornwheel]

Dear gvogt4,

I think what Fix is getting at is there is no other (Church) perspective on the act but that it is morally wrong. (This is why it should not be presented as anything less than wrong.) The individual consequences are just that and with many varying factors, but the facotrs have no effect on the act itself. Also, “professional help” will not always equal spiritual help and prayer. (This has been my experience.)

I do understand what Fix is saying very clearly. Thanks for summarizing it again though. And, I do understand the teachings of the Catechism. I have indicated that I do in my posts.

I’m curious though whether you or Fix really understand what I am saying. If you like you can really try to grapple with the underlying issues of the excessive guilt that young teens face when they are not taught the full Catechism.

Rest assured I understand what you are saying. I understand what the Catechism says about the nature of the act. I also understand what the Church in her wisdom says about factors which “must” be taken into account and which “lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability”.

 

[blessedtoo]

Dear gvogt4,

I’m curious though whether you or Fix really understand what I am saying. If you like you can really try to grapple with the underlying issues of the excessive guilt that young teens face when they are not taught the full Catechism.

Rest assured I understand what you are saying. I understand what the Catechism says about the nature of the act. I also understand what the Church in her wisdom says about factors which “must” be taken into account and which “lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability”.

May I take a crack at it?
Since you keep referring to teens, are you saying that in the case of the youngin’/adolescent whose spirituality is just being formed, simply reiterating that masturbation is wrong, and a sin, will not be helpful. If this is your position, I agree completely. I need only reflect back to my childhood to remember how painful it was to fall again and again into this sin and feel the tremendous guilt and isolation. My mother’s constant reminder of my sin was no help and niether was Father’s admonition in the Confessional to stop the dirty thoughts. But I think Church teaching can be presented in it’s fullness without allowing kids to think there might be a loophole through which they can slip.

However, when one reaches adulthood the spirituality and conscience should be formed enough to understand that this activity is selfish and harmful and that, with God’s grace, can be overcome.

 

[wornwheel]

Hi Blessedtoo,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I do think that reiterating that masturbation is a sin without reference to the full teaching on masturbation is wrong. I’m sorry to hear of your painful childhood experience. I think this is common and destructive.

I agree that Church teaching can be presented in it’s fullness without allowing kids to think there is a loophole. They should understand that the church considers the act itself sinful and they should also understand that they are not necessarily condemned to hell by committing the act. Depending on several factors, there may even be a minimum moral culpability.

That’s not a loophole. It is the teaching of the Church. It doesn’t make the act licit, but it puts the Church’s judgment of that act into proper perspective.

Teens should also be instructed and helped to understand the Loving purpose of the church’s on chastity. To only deliver a message of sin is apprehensible.

With full understanding teens are then able to appreciate the beautiful message of chastity without wallowing in a pit of self hatred for repeated failures.

I have called out teens in my arguments because I think that is where most damage is done. When the Catechism is taught in partial form without proper guidance great psychological and spiritual damage can be done. Unfortunately, many leave the church, not because they do not agree with the teachings of the church, but because they have been improperly instructed in Her teachings.

I think both teens and adults can understand that the act is selfish and harmful. The issue, as I see it, is about ones inherent ability to manage that energy. The church takes this into account when it lists factors that lessen moral culpability.

I think adults are better able to sublimate those sexual energies into energy for spiritual growth. Most teens are not equipped to do that and will ultimately release those sexual energies in some way. If they are given partial church teaching they will then turn against themselves, creating repression and self hate.

There are many teens and adults who struggle to manage their sexual energy. The church doesn’t distinguish between teens and adults in listing mitigating factors affecting judgment and neither do I. But, I see that the damage of incomplete teaching is greatest in the teen years when sexuality is just developing.

Ultimately the Church’s teaching that the act is disordered, applies to all. Her teaching that there are factors which lessen moral culpability also apply to all.

Peace and love, WornWheel

 

[blessedtoo]

With full understanding teens are then able to appreciate the beautiful message of chastity without wallowing in a pit of self hatred for repeated failures.

Yes, I agree with this completely. And it applies to teens and adults. Chastity and the Church’s teaching are a gift and I believe that those who fully understand what God has intended for us are not only more capable of achieving chastity but find it enormously fulfilling. Those who fail to understand the richness of this gift tend to become resentful and angry that the Church “represses” what is “normal” sexual expression.
I think it is essential to point out that SELF-hatred is not what the Church intends, but rather to hate the sin and see it for what it is. And that goes for ALL sin, not just this one.

 

[wornwheel]

Dear Blessedtoo,

:Amen:



Peace… WornWheel

 

[fix]

Dear gvogt4,

I do understand what Fix is saying very clearly. Thanks for summarizing it again though. And, I do understand the teachings of the Catechism. I have indicated that I do in my posts.

I’m curious though whether you or Fix really understand what I am saying. If you like you can really try to grapple with the underlying issues of the excessive guilt that young teens face when they are not taught the full Catechism.

Rest assured I understand what you are saying. I understand what the Catechism says about the nature of the act. I also understand what the Church in her wisdom says about factors which “must” be taken into account and which “lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability”.

I am all for explaining and emphasizing complete teachings, not just one apect of any teaching. What the CCC says about this topic is true of many acts. I agree they should be taught as fully and completely as possible. In that light it is no service to the truth to emphasize only the sinful nature of that act as is wrong to only emphasize that sometimes factors may reduce culpability. Both aspects must be taught.

I think this priest has some excellent thoughts:
Overcoming the Masturbation Habit