D
dshix
Guest
I’m sorry you think so. Hopefully someday you’ll open your closed mind and see the truth.
- Status
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Homosexuals deserve better and kinder treatment. The words you use sound like something from Nazi Germany. My mind is always open and not closed by Catholicism
D
dshix
Guest
Why do you jump to such conclusions? I said nothing about homosexual people not getting good treatment. I only said that the acts which they do are intrinsically evil. Their homosexual attraction itself is not evil, they themselves are not evil, but their acts are, and put them into a state of sin.
Homosexual acts and masturbation are intrinsically evil.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
You are just being clever with language, to disguise discrimination, it,s like saying French people are not evil but speaking French is.
D
dshix
Guest
Actually, you are being very close minded. So, as soon as I state that I don’t hate people with same sex attraction, you retort that I should?! Stop being so bigoted and hateful and politically incorrect; social justice must be served!
(That last sentence was a sarcastic phrase to show you just how ugly you sound when you depart from reason in a debate and resort to namecalling.)
U
underacloud
Guest
Ah, the old Reductio ad Hitlerum.
dshix, you knew where this was going…so why chase april around the mulberry bush as usual?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
DSHix,
the above sterile, mathematical approach to moral issues could show more pastoral common sense and appreciation than seems to be exhibited. May I ask how old you are?
Otherwise holy young men, do not fall in and out of mortal sin every couple of weeks because they have a difficult habit of masturbation. Neither do such young men need to go to confession after every such act so long as they go regularly and are not aware of openly indulging.
People in mortal sin do not tend to keep battling, and going to mass and generally acting like committed lovers of God in every other spect of their lives.
The whole concept of mortal sin is that the love of God in a person had died.
Once that truly happens a person generally starts not to care about avoiding grave private sins unless there are temporal consequences they are afraid of.
Is this the case here? It could not be reasonably presumed.
It is presumptuous for another to judge that anyone other than themselves has committed a mortal sin - especially over such a thin comms channel as the written word. No outsider can possibly know all the interior in and outs of a situation that would enable such a judgement.
By all means advise someone that what they are doing involves grave matter and is against God’s law.
By all means advise them that when indulged with full consent and understanding it would be a mortal sin that kills friendship with God in a single act.
But to tell someone that they have committed a mortal sin - please, no :bigyikes:.
This would be offensive to God and Catholicism. It is not your judgement to make.
Please, how on earth would you know what I mean by “free will” - you are over-working the 2nd guesssing a tad here.
Lack of deliberate consent of the will does not always mean it has to be mortal-sin (with reduced culpability). It can, and often does, reduce the act from mortal to venial sin. You have no way of knowing which do you?
Why on earth would you want to counsell the poster it has to be mortal when moral theology is also open to venial sin in these cases
.I think this link may be helpful for you.
D
dshix
Guest
No, you may not ask how old I am, because that is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Please don’t be so immature to think that your way of thinking is the only way of thinking.
Otherwise holy? So, you think that a person that commits grave sins is holy? They might appear holy, or might be outwardly holy, but the presence of mortal sin has cast out the presence of the Holy Spirit. I support people who struggle in sin, and pray for their ability to overcome sin.
To claim that a person does not need to go to confession after committing a grave sin is an unfounded statement. The Church commands that we do so.
Your definition of “mortal sin” is flawed. Please provide support for your claim.
I agree.
I still agree. I’m not sure who you are arguing with.
The original statement I made, which you disagreed with, was to say that “If you give in to the temptation and begin masturbating, that is when the Mortal Sin is committed.”
Consider the context of the situation. This person knows it is mortal, and he is sitting in his room, thinking about the temptation to masturbate. Here, his will is directly choosing to do it or not to do it. If he chooses to do it, having given himself ample time to decide, we can say with a good degree of certainty that he committed a mortal sin, because we know, from his own words, that he both knew it was a sin, and gave in to it when the opportunity arose.
I did not “judge” I made a logical conclusion based on what I was told.
Now, I don’t see why you are bent on arguing with me, because this is really a fruitless conversation which is making us both look like pedantic fools, so cease and desist, please.
D
davidv
Guest
Are going to answer the question on why “normal” = “right”?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
This is a somewhat sarcastic response given I clearly did not presume mortal sin
As above, your terminology is not really that of the Catholic Church if you speak of masturbation. However if you really mean a “mortal sin” in this context then of course one would be wise to go to confession immediately for fear of damnation.
I am saying that your statement here could be better phrased and is ambiguous.
“Giving in to temptation” can mean a lot of things ranging from battling after hrs of rolling through the snow or going with the flow right from the start an making no effort at all to fight.
If the OP is saying that he gives in right away without a fight, and only attempts to unsuccessfully halt things close to ejaculation then I totally agree with you. That the OP feels the need to sincerely? ask such a question suggests some lack of insight in to what he is doing which still allows room for veniality in practice.
However from this point forward it should be crystal that this “excuse” no longer applies.
The definition of masturbation does not need to include ejaculation and so it must be battled as strongly as is possible from the getgo if mortal sinning is to be avoided. That doesn’t mean one will always win, but if one fails after putting up a strong fight (including prayer) from the start then it would appear veniality may be presumed given other positive factors mentioned.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Sorry, but you seriously do not understand the principle of involvement of the will. Involvement of the will is engaged as soon as the first moment of cooperation begins. The first moment. Not the last moment. Only a schizophrenic can be included in your above explanation. IOW, when you are describing even the need to (supposedly) put up some kind of valiant struggle-to-the-end, you are actually illustrating someone who has proceeded fully into the act of his or her will. Because such a struggle would be difficult to resist only after the will is fully engaged in the act.
Either one is accidentally being pleasured (such as in one’s sleep or through involuntary physical contact) or one is deliberately aiding in the pleasuring for a sufficient length of time to warrant being descirbed as “putting up a strong fight.”
Now a person could engage in a kind of “automatic” gesture which is so momentary/reflexive as to be, for all intents and purposes, not fully engaging the will. (For example, little children often do so.) That doesn’t seem to be what you are describing, though. Most normal adolescents and adults know what the heck they’re doing, so to put it in some kind of context that seems as if some people beyond the age of reason might not really be “consenting,” stretches believability.
U
underacloud
Guest
To those who think that any act of masturbation (other than say in one’s sleep) necessarily involves sufficient consent of the will for it to be personal moral sin need to review Church teaching from the catechism:
“2352 …
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.”
The Church recognises that even though one may be touching themself in an inapprioriate way, and yes seemingly doing so deliberately, that there are factors that may mitigate the personal choice involved. The level of consent required for mortal sin is not automatically assumed, and any Catholic man struggling with this sin needs to seek advice and regular confession. This is the point of the statement above - that the confessor is the apprioriate person to assess whether mortal sin is assumed, and thus whether each occasion requires a specific and immediate return to the sacrament of reconciliation, or whether venial sin may be assumed and thus the person may a) not be compelled to seek immediate confession under fear of damnation, and b) still receive the Eucharist in the meantime.
“2352 …
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.”
The Church recognises that even though one may be touching themself in an inapprioriate way, and yes seemingly doing so deliberately, that there are factors that may mitigate the personal choice involved. The level of consent required for mortal sin is not automatically assumed, and any Catholic man struggling with this sin needs to seek advice and regular confession. This is the point of the statement above - that the confessor is the apprioriate person to assess whether mortal sin is assumed, and thus whether each occasion requires a specific and immediate return to the sacrament of reconciliation, or whether venial sin may be assumed and thus the person may a) not be compelled to seek immediate confession under fear of damnation, and b) still receive the Eucharist in the meantime.
Q
quiet52
Guest
for April
Straight Talk on the Catholic Teaching on Masturbation
beginningcatholic.com/catholic-teaching-on-masturbation.html
Straight Talk on the Catholic Teaching on Masturbation
beginningcatholic.com/catholic-teaching-on-masturbation.html
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I don’t need to review it.
The poster dshix doesn’t need to review it
We are both fully aware of the Catechism definition of grave matter, categories of sexual sin, description of this sin in particular, and the principle of a consenting will.
Again, it stretches credibility to assume that in most cases, the person in question needs the confessor to tell him whether he has committed a mortal sin by deliberately engaging in the act. The only real exception to the mortal nature of it has to do explicitly with non-deliberate engagement of the will, which for all practical purposes is only true psychosis, or neurosis (i.e., compulsion, which is also often a by-product of what the Catechism calls “affective immaturity.”)
Compulsion may mitigate or even eradicate the mortal degree of it; unconsciousness and involuntariness (such as being acted upon) both negate culpability. Anything else is categorically mortal, because the will is engaged.
This whole issue has been talked about on other threads. (See stickies about “an old subject” – and how). Rationalization is the Devil’s playgound. Some people ratioalize that “it might not really be a sin in all circumstances” when they themselves are not under the spells of :
compulsion
unconsciousness
involuntariness
They look at the theoretical exception in the Catechism and jump at the opportunity to drive a Mack truck through it because they themselves do not want to own up to the need to confess it (or the need to detach from it).
Very few people qualify for the above 3 exceptions, and I think most people know that deep down.
U
underacloud
Guest
This is only your interpretation and is not supported.
Your mistake is in assuming an engaged will automatically makes it mortal. It does not. The terms used are “full consent”, “sufficient reflection” etc…not any level of engagement of the will.
The point isn’t for someone who masturbates to rationalise the sin. The point is for their confessor to help them deal with the issue, the guilt of it, and the critical issue of whether a person who struggles with masturbation may have diminished culpability so that they can, and should, receive the Eucharist even before their next confession…which I have said should be regular regardless.
Please consider that none of you assumptions allow for what the catechism refers to as “force of acquired habit”. One can be fully conscious, under no psychosis or neurosis, but still have diminished moral capacity in this regard due to the “force of aquired habit”. One wants to break this habit…but scaring the person by saying any slip-up may send them to hell is unhelpful.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Elizabeth, as usual you are entitled to your own unique black and white application of Catholic moral principles to complex human realities no matter how non-sequitorial and ill-fitting that may be.
From previous experience of your contributions I do not think an intuitive understanding of human weakness is your strong suit so I do not expect you to “click” where I am coming from - even though my application also accords with Catholic moral theology as UnderaCloud has ably elucidated further.
This being the case I believe the OP (and other listeners), as usual, have the freedom to apply the various principles we both expose in the manner best according with the personal coal-face reality they alone understand best.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Very well put UnderACloud, you also have intuitively emphasised the same point I was attempting to elucidate.
Yes the difference between the “acts of a man” and “human acts” is a grey continuum, not the black and white theoretical examples of sleep-walking or wide-awake. In varying ways and in varying degrees most of us “sleep” even while awake
. What complex creatures we are.And good pastoral insight on your part also. Well done
.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
The best counsel I ever received from my confessor on this issue is that it turns one’s desire inward, and one of the best ways to fight it is to spend more time with other people. C.S. Lewis says it better than I can:
C.S. Lewis:
C.S. Lewis:
Understanding this, how can one possibly say that masturbation is good?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
Could some one explain to me how the Catholic Church managed to set itself up to have some kind of authority on masturbation - Old celibate (?) men giving advice on masturbation - something so innocuous - is absurd and ‘creepy’ to use the vernacular.
D
dshix
Guest
Blue Horizon, Elizabeth, and underacloud,
As I am reading this string of posts, I’m realizing a few things.
We are all on the same page as to what constitutes a mortal sin. There is no misunderstanding there.
The discussion in progress is about whether or not the person in question has committed a mortal sin. I concede that there is no way to know for sure, from our viewpoint, whether the sin committed was mortal or not. That is not for us to judge. However, we do know, for a fact, that the sin committed is grave, because of what the sin is.
I contend that we cannot tell a person, “Oh, since you didn’t really have FULL consent of the will, you don’t have to go to confession.” There were times in my past, when I spent a long time debating with myself whether or not I really had the full consent necessary for it to be mortal, to determine whether or not I had to confess it. It was fruitless, because there really is no way to know 100% for sure whether or not at the moment of the sin you had enough consent. It’s pointless.
Therefore, I think I can say without being unorthodox, “If you commit a grave sin, you should take it to confession.”
This eliminates doubt and confusion, and eliminates the chance that a person may end up not confessing a mortal sin or committing sacrileges by withholding it in confession or receive communion, simply because they are in denial about it being mortal.
Encouraging a person to discern whether it is mortal or not is fruitless, because depending on their personality they may end up rationalizing it into something it isn’t (which I have done before).
I make no comment in this post of this personal case of the OP, I am simply saying as a general statement that to tell a person that they don’t need to confess a grave sin because you don’t think it was with full consent is both fruitless and dangerous. After all, what harm is there in confession?
As I am reading this string of posts, I’m realizing a few things.
We are all on the same page as to what constitutes a mortal sin. There is no misunderstanding there.
The discussion in progress is about whether or not the person in question has committed a mortal sin. I concede that there is no way to know for sure, from our viewpoint, whether the sin committed was mortal or not. That is not for us to judge. However, we do know, for a fact, that the sin committed is grave, because of what the sin is.
I contend that we cannot tell a person, “Oh, since you didn’t really have FULL consent of the will, you don’t have to go to confession.” There were times in my past, when I spent a long time debating with myself whether or not I really had the full consent necessary for it to be mortal, to determine whether or not I had to confess it. It was fruitless, because there really is no way to know 100% for sure whether or not at the moment of the sin you had enough consent. It’s pointless.
Therefore, I think I can say without being unorthodox, “If you commit a grave sin, you should take it to confession.”
This eliminates doubt and confusion, and eliminates the chance that a person may end up not confessing a mortal sin or committing sacrileges by withholding it in confession or receive communion, simply because they are in denial about it being mortal.
Encouraging a person to discern whether it is mortal or not is fruitless, because depending on their personality they may end up rationalizing it into something it isn’t (which I have done before).
I make no comment in this post of this personal case of the OP, I am simply saying as a general statement that to tell a person that they don’t need to confess a grave sin because you don’t think it was with full consent is both fruitless and dangerous. After all, what harm is there in confession?
- Status