Masterbation uncertainty

[fix]

What we want to know is the absolute…seems like it just depends on whom you talk or confess to. CCC says disordered and grave in itself…but it’s that 3rd bullet point that puts the wrinkle in it…what makes one not have the ‘full intent’ that lessens or eliminates the severity? We need some examples from the Vat to help interpret this better. I think they do provide age and force of habit, but how does that apply to somebody? I’m guessing if a young teen happens upon it, it’s not sinful…how does one describe ‘force of habit?’ I was addicted to it years ago, but since I was, and I slip up, does ‘force of habit’ apply? I kind of have an issue similar to the Pen. Man, and it’s been very tough. I’ve been pure in that regard for a couple of years now. It can be done, but man…the temptation drives me insane…I know, eliminate all sources of temptation, but I can’t remove my wife!

I am perplexed why this is so confusing to some? It is no different than any other serious sin. Factors such as ingrained habit, immaturity, psychological disorders, ect affect our ability to give consent at times. The Church is simply stating what She always taught.

 

[fix]

Exactly, well said.

I’m meeting with another priest tonight, to discuss this exact topic.

There seems to be a lot of “grey area” in this particular teaching, and that is why I quoted that other website.

No matter if it’s left leaning or not, they are still the facts.

The facts are that site is a propaganda site that presents much false information. The authentic authority on the Church is the Church. She is the custodian. She transmits what is given to us By God. Anything that contradicts Her teachings is false.

I get the feeling that most people (lay people and clergy) just want to ignore the topic without even addressing this, or if they do it’s “No, it’s always the worst of the worst sin”, with no thought of that grey area…hence so many of us on here…

I fail to se your point. It is addressed very well. It is a grave sin. If one does it with knowledge and consent one is culpable. If one does not do it with knowledge or consent one is less, or non, culpable.

Specific situations should be discussed with your confessor. In any event no one is given permission to sin.

 

[PennitentMan]

In the case of teens who just “happen upon it”, I would question whether they fully understand the conditions that must be met for a mortal sin to occur and if they can comprehend the gravity of the offense. I also think it might be difficult for teens to fully understand the purpose of their sexuality when they are overwhelmed by hormones and cultural influences.

For adults who have formed their conciences and understand the purpose of our sexual faculties, I think it would be very difficult to minimize the culpability of engaging in this behavior. How could one embark on this practice with this knowledge and not be held accountable? The guilt factor alone would be a huge tip-off for me. I can’t imagine myself 'accidentally" or “automatically” slipping into this sin, knowing all that I know, without first assenting to it’s inherent sinfullness.

To a degree that is true, but what about that second paragraph:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

If we take into considerations the “conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors” then there certainly leaves some room in this teaching.
Anxienty can be caused by factors described by “ForwardProgress” and others here.
the same can be said for psychological factors…do you think that your wife denying herslef to you does not work on your psyche? Same can be said for social factors…being in this frustrated state of being denied and all the thoughts of rejection that some with that, and being faced with well-dressed females in tight fitting clothers in the office, sould add to the psychological and social factors here.

I’m only pointing out that the second paragraph here is very often overlooked ([edit] or not properly understood) when I think it should be brought into more serious consideration when clergy are dealing with pennitents (in confession) or in spiritual direction. It’s not as cut and dry as people maybe make it out to be.

Of course we should always strive to remain chaste, as much as possible And no, I have not stumbled yet.
But I do want to be sure of exactly what the Church teaches.

PM

 

[fix]

This is from the old CE:

… For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason…

… The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin…

it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices…

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

My point is the Church has always said factors may diminsh culpability. That does not mean we are free to sin or should be encouraged to sin.

 

[PennitentMan]

This is from the old CE:

My point is the Church has always said factors may diminsh culpability. That does not mean we are free to sin or should be encouraged to sin.

Thanks for posting that.

I agree that no one is free to sin nor should they be encouraged to sin.
I’m merely trying to understand this specific teaching on masturbation better. To me it’s confusing and unclear. All sorts of factors can be applied. Ref my previous post.

PM

 

[ForwardProgress]

It’s just aggravating…one priest I knew had porn at his camp getaway, another gives me the impression that mb is selfish, but hardly mortally sinful…the lay people here are the harshes interpreters of the law.

Who are we to believe?

If I didn’t stumble upon CA forums, I’d be listening to what the priests have said.

Who’s right?? Surely priests are given instruction for when people come to them with this question…where does the basis of that instruction come from?

Since I can’t get the same answer for anyone, do I make up my own mind? If so, I would say mb is mortally sinful if you are:

-not married
-married and choose mb over your wife who has plenty of desire for that sort of affection
-for any reason that involves pornography or thoughts of sex with someone/something that is not your wife

non sinful only for married people who have a non-willing spouse be it a physical impairment, or a lack of desire (not lack of love). And I don’t mean a wife who doesn’t want to make love every single day…there’s a reasonable middle here somewhere.

How would I never know if I’m right or wrong? I think many priests would agree with number 2 as not being mortally sinful, if not sinful at all. Selfish, maybe, but sinful? Who knows? I sound protestant…there’s no final authority…

The major problem I could see arising out of permitting #2, even though it applies only to married men and women would be that people would use it to get mb okayed for non married, gay ‘sex’, non procreative style acts between husband and wife, which could open up the contraception can of worms, etc…

Maybe this teaching of mb=mortal sin 99% of the time is the correct thing, as maybe it is a cornerstone to keep the rest of those from happening…but if their were a strict allowance for the reason #2, you’d have lots of happy husbands and happy low-libido wives that wouldn’t have to do that chore anymore.

 

[PennitentMan]

It’s just aggravating…one priest I knew had porn at his camp getaway, another gives me the impression that mb is selfish, but hardly mortally sinful…the lay people here are the harshes interpreters of the law.

Who are we to believe?

If I didn’t stumble upon CA forums, I’d be listening to what the priests have said.

Who’s right?? Surely priests are given instruction for when people come to them with this question…where does the basis of that instruction come from?

Since I can’t get the same answer for anyone, do I make up my own mind? If so, I would say mb is mortally sinful if you are:

-not married
-married and choose mb over your wife who has plenty of desire for that sort of affection
-for any reason that involves pornography or thoughts of sex with someone/something that is not your wife

non sinful only for married people who have a non-willing spouse be it a physical impairment, or a lack of desire (not lack of love). And I don’t mean a wife who doesn’t want to make love every single day…there’s a reasonable middle here somewhere.

How would I never know if I’m right or wrong? I think many priests would agree with number 2 as not being mortally sinful, if not sinful at all. Selfish, maybe, but sinful? Who knows? I sound protestant…there’s no final authority…

The major problem I could see arising out of permitting #2, even though it applies only to married men and women would be that people would use it to get mb okayed for non married, gay ‘sex’, non procreative style acts between husband and wife, which could open up the contraception can of worms, etc…

Maybe this teaching of mb=mortal sin 99% of the time is the correct thing, as maybe it is a cornerstone to keep the rest of those from happening…but if their were a strict allowance for the reason #2, you’d have lots of happy husbands and happy low-libido wives that wouldn’t have to do that chore anymore.

Excellent post.

And I agree to the above since I have had similar experiences with priests.
They were much more lenient than the lay people. Who do we follow?

Thanks for posting your thoughts.

 

[fix]

Q.Would you comment on how “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability” (CCC #2352) relates to the gravity of the sin of masturbation?
-Anonymous

A.Two things must be said. First of all masturbation is objectively a grave sin. A person’s guilt in masturbating is always conditioned on the mental awareness of what he is doing and the emotional factors may also lessen the subjective guilt. This principle applies to all moral actions that are inherently grave sins. Secondly, the literal English translation of the original French text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply says that various factors can lessen the moral culpability of masturbation without removing its guilt.
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/0102-97/question.html

 

[fix]

I found this interesting too:

On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people’s moral capacity.

In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual’s practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual’s care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue.

Persona Humana

Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
December 29, 1975

 

[PennitentMan]

Q.Would you comment on how “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability” (CCC #2352) relates to the gravity of the sin of masturbation?
-Anonymous

A.Two things must be said. First of all masturbation is objectively a grave sin. A person’s guilt in masturbating is always conditioned on the mental awareness of what he is doing and the emotional factors may also lessen the subjective guilt. This principle applies to all moral actions that are inherently grave sins. Secondly, the literal English translation of the original French text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church simply says that various factors can lessen the moral culpability of masturbation without removing its guilt.
catholic.net/RCC/Periodic…/question.html

Thanks for trying to clarify this for us, I appreciate that.

The person still did not address the “Emotional factors” that we are searching to analize here. It’s still kept as vague as it is noted in the Catechism.

No one is arguing that it’s not a sin, if you do it, it would still remain a sin, but with lessening of moral culpability, it could very well fall into a venail sin under certin circumstances. We should, however remain sin free as much as possible. We cant just lie saying that it’s venial so it’s okay, we should strive to be sin-free.

What we are trying to establish is the amount of cuplability in certain circumstances, and more specific, trying to analize and define said circumstances.

Since there are quite a few of us here with the same maritial dilemma, we are searching for the answers pertaining to our martial situation.

PM

 

[fix]

Thanks for trying to clarify this for us, I appreciate that.

The person still did not address the “Emotional factors” that we are searching to analize here. It’s still kept as vague as it is noted in the Catechism.

No one is arguing that it’s not a sin, if you do it, it would still remain a sin, but with lessening of moral culpability, it could very well fall into a venail sin under certin circumstances. We should, however remain sin free as much as possible. We cant just lie saying that it’s venial so it’s okay, we should strive to be sin-free.

What we are trying to establish is the amount of cuplability in certain circumstances, and more specific, trying to analize and define said circumstances.

Since there are quite a few of us here with the same maritial dilemma, we are searching for the answers pertaining to our martial situation.

PM

That seems to be a case by case issue to be determined with the help of one’s confessor.

 

[PennitentMan]

That seems to be a case by case issue to be determined with the help of one’s confessor.

I understand that…I’ll be talking to a third priest on this topic tonight. (Actually fourth, but with the first priest, we didn’t get into all the details.)
The previous two priests’ answers were as different as sun and moon.
That is what ForwardProgress was getting at.

 

[ForwardProgress]

That’s what sucks…how many opinions do you have to get before you have a majority decision?

When you are sick with a serious illness, how many docs do you go and see…usually one makes the diag, then another confirms it…if he denies it, then maybe you go see a 3rd…but what if he’s wrong, etc…

HELP!

I just keep playing better safe than sorry on this issue.

The definition of lust is also troubling. I know what the ‘legal’ def is, but it’s so non-concrete that I just go with my own concience when it rears its ugly head…but what if I’m wrong?

 

[fix]

I understand that…I’ll be talking to a third priest on this topic tonight. (Actually fourth, but with the first priest, we didn’t get into all the details.)
The previous two priests’ answers were as different as sun and moon.
That is what ForwardProgress was getting at.

If they contradict each other they both cannot be right. I do not wish to pry or ask specifics, but what is the differing counsel being given? If you said before I must have missed it.

 

[PennitentMan]

If they contradict each other they both cannot be right. I do not wish to pry or ask specifics, but what is the differing counsel being given? If you said before I must have missed it.

No, you are not prying

Well, the first priest told me that it’s all in my head, said I should look up “scruples” and pretty much just dismissed the question based on that.

The next priest told me that under my circumstances it would be okay and the culpability would be very much diminished to the point of a venial sin, if I stumble.
I have to say that he took much more time with me and listened and tried to understand as much as possible and asked some good questions to understand this.

So, now I have one saying yes and one saying no…where the one who said yes did all of his due dilligence.

So, who am I to believe? Hence the third opinion. What a lot of trouble to go through! But my soul is worth it.

The other priest I mentioned seemed to go easy on me too, but the topic was only somewhat related, so I didn’t bring that conversation into consideration.

I hope I answered your question?

PM

 

[fix]

No, you are not prying

Well, the first priest told me that it’s all in my head, said I should look up “scruples” and pretty much just dismissed the question based on that.

The next priest told me that under my circumstances it would be okay and the culpability would be very much diminished to the point of a venial sin, if I stumble.
I have to say that he took much more time with me and listened and tried to understand as much as possible and asked some good questions to understand this.

So, now I have one saying yes and one saying no…where the one who said yes did all of his due dilligence.

So, who am I to believe? Hence the third opinion. What a lot of trouble to go through! But my soul is worth it.

The other priest I mentioned seemed to go easy on me too, but the topic was only somewhat related, so I didn’t bring that conversation into consideration.

I hope I answered your question?

PM

Yes, thank you. I commend you for having a tender conscience and striving to do God’s will.

I have wanted to ask a priest how they offer pastoral counsel to cases like yours or cases where the person fails to see why something like contraception is wrong. My question is along the lines such as is it acceptable for a priest to instruct someone struggling to continue to commit an objective sin if the priest believes the person is non culpable for some particular reason?

I do not know enough moral theology to answer this.

What got me thinking was this:

…In general, it is not necessary for the confessor to investigate concerning sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, however, to be an evil and a disorder. This also holds for the objective evil of contraception, which introduces a pernicious habit into the conjugal life of the couple. It is therefore necessary to strive in the most suitable way to free the moral conscience from those errors42 which contradict the nature of conjugal life as a total gift.

The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin. Nonetheless, in these cases, the confessor must try to bring such penitents ever closer to accepting God’s plan in their own lives, even in these demands, by means of prayer, admonition and exhorting them to form their consciences, and by the teaching of the Church.

1. The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a *progressive path *towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands.43

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS

 

[PennitentMan]

Yes, thank you. I commend you for having a tender conscience and striving to do God’s will.

I have wanted to ask a priest how they offer pastoral counsel to cases like yours or cases where the person fails to see why something like contraception is wrong. My question is along the lines such as is it acceptable for a priest to instruct someone struggling to continue to commit an objective sin if the priest believes the person is non culpable for some particular reason?

I do not know enough moral theology to answer this.

What got me thinking was this:

All I can say is that I’m glad I’m not a priest to try and discern all these little technicalities!

I looked up invincible ignorance:
Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory.
from newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

I guess this could apply to us fellows here who find their wives “less agreeable” for long periods of time?

Like I said, it’s tough!
PM

 

[gam197]

.

…I know, eliminate all sources of temptation, but I can’t remove my wife!

Are you dealing with feminism?

I knew from my catholic faith that it was a** sin to not be submissive** but I had a tough time submitting. At least I thought it was a sin? I really wasn’t that interested but that wasn’t the problem because I loved my husband. My husband could not understand it at all. He’d be like “it’s five minutes” but it would take me hours mentally to adjust. Then I’d be back at submitting again and have to adjust again.

Submissive did not mean that I had to agree with him on issues. He could care less. It meant I had to be available as a wife. Using NFP, you have at least 7 or more days when she cannot get pregnant if that is the issue. Why is she not fully available for all those days?

She is lacking in faith. Getting involved in the Charismatic Renewal helped me. Let her attend while you stay home and clean the house.

I read the book by Mary Pride - The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality but I am not sure how the modern feminists would take it.

Both of you could go talk with the priest.

 

[PennitentMan]

That’s what sucks…how many opinions do you have to get before you have a majority decision?

When you are sick with a serious illness, how many docs do you go and see…usually one makes the diag, then another confirms it…if he denies it, then maybe you go see a 3rd…but what if he’s wrong, etc…

HELP!

I just keep playing better safe than sorry on this issue.

I know what you mean…I also try to play it better dafe than sorry…but I just got to the point where I felt that I’m going to buckle under the pressure of all this second guessing of myself…I would unfairly be grumpy at home, or on the road or something similar, but I realised that I needed to seek pastoral help. I was second guessing myself too much and made myself hopelessly confused.

The definition of lust is also troubling. I know what the ‘legal’ def is, but it’s so non-concrete that I just go with my own concience when it rears its ugly head…but what if I’m wrong?

With lust, I think you are okay, since you honestly are trying and steer clear as much as possible.

I use the rule of thumb that these images can pop into my head as much as possible, or I can see many gorgeous women on the street, or driving or in the mall, or wherever, but as soon as I, willingly, as in, I’m exploring the thought and leading my thoughts in *that *direction, think about putting my hands on them, or kissing them, I know that I have done wrong.

The thoughts I cannot control, since you cannot get away from these things.

The problem is that we are much more susseptible to these images or people, since we are already so frustrated at home, so the images are much more intense and frequent.

So , I’d much rahter explore with a priest some way to get rid of the frustration, rather than to walk around “comitting adultery” (so to speak) all day in the mall.

The fact that priests and consecrated celebates are not struggling with this so much is because they have made that vow. Us married men and women (This goes both ways) are entitled to intimacy, to the marital embrace and we end up yearning for it all the more if we are intimate so infrequently.

This all stems from that yearning to be intimate with your spouse, but if they are unable/unwilling to recipricate, as you said, not every day, but within reason, there has to be a way out?
Right?

 

[ForwardProgress]

.

Are you dealing with feminism?

I knew from my catholic faith that it was a** sin to not be submissive** but I had a tough time submitting. At least I thought it was a sin? I really wasn’t that interested but that wasn’t the problem because I loved my husband. My husband could not understand it at all. He’d be like “it’s five minutes” but it would take me hours mentally to adjust. Then I’d be back at submitting again and have to adjust again.

Submissive did not mean that I had to agree with him on issues. He could care less. It meant I had to be available as a wife. Using NFP, you have at least 7 or more days when she cannot get pregnant if that is the issue. Why is she not fully available for all those days?

She is lacking in faith. Getting involved in the Charismatic Renewal helped me. Let her attend while you stay home and clean the house.

I read the book by Mary Pride - The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality but I am not sure how the modern feminists would take it.

Both of you could go talk with the priest.

She won’t do much submitting, that’s for sure. There is a touch of feminist in her, but I can’t do anything but pray about that. I do WAY more in the way of serving her than all of my guy friends do for their wives, so I know that’s not the problem. She’s had lots of partners in the past before we got married, so maybe there is something there…who knows. She did try once to get an apt with a psych, but the one she got a referral for was not taking new patients, so it ended there. She knows that something is wrong with her libido, but that’s as far as it goes. Relations for her is just not something she looks forward to, even though I make sure I, uh, make it nice for her…I’ll ask her as we get closer to post ovulation time if she’s excited, and she’ll just flat out say ‘not really, or kind of, etc…’ I’ve tried all of the romance stuff, and every kind of tip in and out of the book, but nothing.

So with all this said, this is what PM and I struggle with. You live with a beautiful woman who you love very much; you sleep with her, you hug and kiss her, you see her in the buff, but you can’t touch. You feel rejected and lower than a snail. It’s just like in middle school when you ask a girl to dance and she tells you no, except it hurts so much more because she is your wife. It’s just tough…I would never leave her ever for anything, so there is no out…just tough tough tough.