Is there a particular reason why whenever I make a strong point which you cannot respond to, you immediately log off and then don’t return until the next day, and then don’t respond to me at all? I think this is the fourth time.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.
Don’t scare her off! She almost has me convinced…Is there a particular reason why whenever I make a strong point which you cannot respond to, you immediately log off and then don’t return until the next day, and then don’t respond to me at all? I think this is the fourth time.
What?? lolDon’t scare her off! She almost has me convinced…
Ok, why does normal = right ?Are going to answer the question on why “normal” = “right”?
Normal is determined based on how frequently something occurs. It say nothing at all about what is right.Ok, why does normal = right ?
CCC said:2352 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
That’s quite a strained logic. How did you get to masturbation is wrong?Normal is determined based on how frequently something occurs. It say nothing at all about what is right.
Normal =/= right.
Thus, no matter how many people do it (even if it were 100%), masturbation is still wrong.
How so? It was not present as an argument. It was to answer the question you wouldn’t.That’s quite a strained logic.
From a clear headed study of what the human person is and what that means for the proper use of ones sexuality.How did you get to masturbation is wrong?
Yes, I think we’re in agreement to this point.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 agree that “we” cannot say one way or the other and it’s inappropriate for “us” to advise anyone that their sin probably wasn’t mortal so don’t worry about it.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.
There is generally no harm in going to confession. But I would suggest there are a number of reasons why a confessor may choose to advise someone not to consider their ongoing struggles as mortal sins: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?
That kind of advice is strictly the territory of the priesthood, not the laity, and further it is the territory of particular confessors when dealing with particular situations. Ordinarily, the sin mandates confession, and the sinner should assume that he/she should bring the matter to the confessional.For someone who struggles with this and fails very frequently, they may end up in such a state of fear concerning whether they are constantly in mortal sin and thus immediate danger of damnation. Such is not helpful. Such may make them doubt the capacity for God to love and forgive them.
For someone who fails frequently, it may be impractical to get to confession as frequently as they fail.
And this ^ completely opposes what the Church teaches about confession.Also, it may be unhelpful for a person who fails very often to confess equally as often, since the act of confession may become rote and no longer afford them the peace and advice that they need
That kind of advice is strictly the territory of the priesthood, not the laity, and further it is the territory of particular confessors when dealing with particular situations. Ordinarily, the sin mandates confession, and the sinner should assume that he/she should bring the matter to the confessional.
Indeed. I have been very careful to state exactly this (my bolding above). That it is the role of the confessor alone. My advice, back on page one of this thread, was precisely that the OP should discuss this with his confessor.We are to bring all grave matter into the confessional. Let individual priests discern if a particular case is such an outlier that it falls outside of the normal and ordinary category of this sin, repeated or not
CCC sources for this opinion please?Ordinarily, the sin mandates confession, and the sinner should assume that he/she should bring the matter to the confessional.
AF how about engaging re the response given you on one of the other interminable masturbation threads (at which point you stopped contributing) that you invriably trawl saying the same old things? I will repeat it here for you.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.
AF I suppose it keeps coming back to what a previous poster quoted from CS Lewis - the danger of Solipsism.
The most meaningful human acts seem to involve a higher social layering/trajector that goes beyond the mere anatomical, physiological “elements” integrated by these meaningful interactions and symbolisations.
Sexuality, of all human activities, appears to be the most manifestly relational. When that relational reality is lost sight of in the way we pursue sexual “action” … we become so individualistic and fragmented in the social order that healthy social cohesion and order becomes increasingly impossible for us as individuals and communities. Happiness and eventually life itself becomes increasingly tenuous as it becomes increasingly difficult for large numbers of sollipsistic individuals to live together and “get along.”
The Solipsistic mentality is a danger of course not limited to the normalisers of masturbation. The same can be said of any pleasure, material or spiritual, that is excessively sought regardless of others.
Your repeated inability to see masturbation as anything more than a mechanical act that provides immediate pleasure without adverse physical health consequences appears at first pass to exhibit exactly the isolating, anti-socialising sollipsism implied by CS lewis.Yes, restraint may be very difficult. No-one said life could be lived without difficulty. But some difficulties it seems are like the Hydra, others are not.
Well done dshix. Your desire to unite despite the heat I respect :bowdown2:.Blue Horizon, Elizabeth, and underacloud,
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.”