Masturbation a Sin ? :confused:

[josh987654321]

It was not you who made the mistake, it was Lewis.

I really don’t consider it much of a deal considering the very good arguments made.

However the church’s teaching is that sex is also “unitive”, not just procreating.

Yes.

So why is it a “mortal sin” to concentrate on the unitive part, when the procreative part becomes relevant only a few times in a whole lifetime?

Masturbation is not unitive either. You could make a case in regards to contraception here, but not masturbation, and in regards to contraception, it’s like saying, why not focus on the taste rather then the actual nourishment of food? food can taste good but it also nourishes. Christ came that we may have life, and have it in it’s fullest. That’s why it’s sin, as the enemy takes what is good and corrupts it.

The problem is that neither you, nor Lewis nor the “Pontifex Maximus” can present a rational argument for your side.

I can provide many, it’s quite logical when one looks at it objectively. Passion is the enemy of reason.

There is an old saying: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

I have heard of that comment before, it’s clearly wrong though, because I could use that same argument to really justify any sexual perversion or any desire. Just because we desire something doesn’t make it right and if one follows their every desire, they will ruin their life and cause lots of harm to themselves and others. Obviously no matter who it is there will need to be a denial of desire which we know to be wrong.

In fact, I wonder of those who have ever used that saying have ever actually tried chastity before? lol I’m guessing none.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

Hi Josh Lewis is wrong. He says: “The biological purpose of sex is children.” He should have said: “ONE OF THE biological purposes of sex is children.”

One might debate the meaning of biological I suppose. Procreation is unequivocally biological.

 

[Faithdancer]

One might debate the meaning of biological I suppose. Procreation is unequivocally biological.

You are quite right, Rau.

 

[Rau]

…However the church’s teaching is that sex is also “unitive”, not just procreating. So why is it a “mortal sin” to concentrate on the unitive part, when the procreative part becomes relevant only a few times in a whole lifetime?.

The Church teaches that the procreative and unitive aspects aren’t to be separated - both must be present - and that the only proper “venue” for sexual acts is marriage.

Thus, if this teaching is accepted, the only good and proper use of the sexual faculty is natural sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

 

[Faithdancer]

All these arguments trying to persuade that sin is no longer sin sound to me like echoes of the serpent in Genesis 3:1–
Surely God did not say…

 

[goout]

Maybe you find Lewis logical. That is your prerogative. The problem is that neither you, nor Lewis nor the “Pontifex Maximus” can present a rational argument for your side. There is an old saying: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

A rational argument address truth, not straw man.
Let me help you object to the real Catholicism, not the Catholicism straw man you have set up.
What is morality?
The evaluation of human acts in reference to the good. Moral evaluations only make sense if you have a reference to the good.
What morality is not:
A list of prohibitions. In Christian morality the prohibitions do not serve themselves, they serve the good of the human being.

If you are going to object to Christian morality, you will have to attack the good it is oriented towards, not some fundamentalist caricature of morality.
The good of Christian morality is a wide and profound good. It is the flourishing of the human person in relationship to God and others.
It is not about mere denial for denial’s sake. The word “relationship” is key to understanding Christian morality, most especially Christian sexual morality. So to attack Christian sexual morality, you need to devalue “relationship” at some level.

What is chastity?

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

What Chastity is not:
Chastity is not the same thing as abstinence.
Abstinence might be part of a chaste life, and it might not be, depending on your state of life.

Hope this helps in your search for Catholicism.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I really don’t consider it much of a deal considering the very good arguments made.

Sorry, I don’t share your opinion.

Masturbation is not unitive either. You could make a case in regards to contraception here, but not masturbation, and in regards to contraception, it’s like saying, why not focus on the taste rather then the actual nourishment of food? food can taste good but it also nourishes.

Masturbation is not just pleasurable, but also a learning process, especially if it is done with a partner. You learn what pleases you and your partner. And there is nothing wrong with enjoying the taste, the texture and the presentation of a good dish, even if it has no nutritional value. Check out the beautiful creations of master chefs. Are you also against drinking zero-calorie Coke, only to enjoy the taste?

Christ came that we may have life, and have it in it’s fullest. That’s why it’s sin, as the enemy takes what is good and corrupts it.

Irrelevant. Can you present strictly rational arguments against it? Besides how can one live life to “its fullest” if one does not practice one of the most pleasurable aspects of it?

I can provide many, it’s quite logical when one looks at it objectively. Passion is the enemy of reason.

I have never seen any rational arguments. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide some. But don’t forget, “logical” is not necessarily “rational”.

I have heard of that comment before, it’s clearly wrong though, because I could use that same argument to really justify any sexual perversion or any desire.

No. you cannot. If all the affected (directly or indirectly affected) parties agree, then it is only their business. Of course if one wishes to lead a chaste life, it is his or her business, too. He or she just misses out on one of life’s greatest pleasures.

In fact, I wonder of those who have ever used that saying have ever actually tried chastity before? lol I’m guessing none.

Actually everyone conducts a chaste life before the first sexual encounter or first masturbation. And no one likes it… for obvious reasons.

 

[goout]

Actually everyone conducts a chaste life before the first sexual encounter or first masturbation. And no one likes it… for obvious reasons.

You don’t know what chastity is. See my post above.
Let’s form a substantial argument against Catholicism, not a straw man.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The good of Christian morality is a wide and profound good. It is the flourishing of the human person in relationship to God and others.

If you can prove without any doubt that God exists and he agrees with your analysis, I will gladly concede defeat.

 

[goout]

If you can prove without any doubt that God exists and he agrees with your analysis, I will gladly concede defeat.

Can you simply assemble a rational argument to the Catholic position? You don’t have to believe in God to assemble a rational argument.
You have not come close yet.

You do not understand Catholic morality or the concept of chastity, so how can you have a rational objection?
A rational argument addresses truth, not straw man.
Let me help you object to the real Catholicism, not the Catholicism straw man you have set up.
What is morality?
The evaluation of human acts in reference to the good. Moral evaluations only make sense if you have a reference to the good.
What morality is not:
A list of prohibitions. In Christian morality the prohibitions do not serve themselves, they serve the good of the human being.

If you are going to object to Christian morality, you will have to attack the good it is oriented towards, not some fundamentalist caricature of morality.
The good of Christian morality is a wide and profound good. It is the flourishing of the human person in relationship to God and others.
It is not about mere denial for denial’s sake. The word “relationship” is key to understanding Christian morality, most especially Christian sexual morality. So to attack Christian sexual morality, you need to devalue “relationship” at some level.

What is chastity?

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

What Chastity is not:
Chastity is not the same thing as abstinence.
Abstinence might be part of a chaste life, and it might not be, depending on your state of life.

Rational objections to the real thing please.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Church teaches that the procreative and unitive aspects aren’t to be separated - both must be present - and that the only proper “venue” for sexual acts is marriage.

Thus, if this teaching is accepted, the only good and proper use of the sexual faculty is natural sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

But why should any non-Catholic accept it? There is no rational reason why they should. Having children is not a prerequisite to a good, loving, successful relationship. Having a mutually satisfying sexual relationship is much more important - though it is not necessarily sufficient. Actually there is a growing number of Catholics, who reject your premise. And you cannot convince even them.

 

[goout]

But why should any non-Catholic accept it? There is no rational reason why they should. Having children is not a prerequisite to a good, loving, successful relationship. Having a mutually satisfying sexual relationship is much more important - though it is not necessarily sufficient. Actually there is a growing number of Catholics, who reject your premise. And you cannot convince even them.

The Christian life is not a matter of* convincing* unbelievers, it’s a matter of witnessing to reality in a rational way such that others might see and hear, and believe if they are so disposed by grace.

For instance, in regards to sexuality:
the sexual faculty is designed towards the existence of human beings. Only an insane person would dispute that.
The objection amounts to “Oh yeah? I can water flowers with my semen”.
Or “my sexual faculty makes me feel good”, which is true but does not address the obvious design of it.
(all the best lies contain an element of truth that are twisted to derail rational thinking )

 

[Ormond]

In Christian morality the prohibitions do not serve themselves, they serve the good of the human being.

I suggest a shift of focus to the good of others. Moral prohibitions which are designed to protect others from harmful acts seem entirely reasonable. If those acts are serious enough then the threat of punishment seems appropriate too. What makes this case different is that there are no others involved.

I suggest a reasonable approach might be as follows.

I’m sure there are Catholic writings that suggest fasting from food can in some circumstances be an aid to spiritual development. Thus, those with more experience may suggest fasting to others in a manner which is designed to be supportive and helpful. So far, so good, no problem.

I’m also pretty sure there are no Catholic writings which suggest that to ever eat food is to commit a grave sin. This would obviously be an absurd exaggeration of a suggestion which was once constructive in moderation. That’s what I see happening with this doctrine. Somebody got carried away, the doctrine was encased in concrete, and now it must be maintained so as to not undermine tradition, the foundation of the authority of the Church.

It would be reasonable for anyone to offer the suggestion that abstaining from a particular natural bodily function for some period of time may have spiritual benefit. I might or might not agree, but I would not object. The solution here is for the individual to experiment and learn from the experience whether they can benefit from the suggestion.

In this particular case, there’s a huge difference between offering a helpful suggestion, and threatening the most dire form of punishment if a command is not obeyed. The first builds credibility for the Church, the later undermines it.

 

[goout]

I suggest a shift of focus to the good of others. Moral prohibitions which are designed to protect others from harmful acts seem entirely reasonable. If those acts are serious enough then the threat of punishment seems appropriate too. What makes this case different is that there are no others involved.

You misunderstand human dignity and flourishing and the goodness that we are drawn towards.

Human dignity and flourishing are never had in individualist isolation. They can only be had in reference to, and in community with, others.

And so every action affects others, whether done in the middle of the woods at midnight or on 5th Avenue at rush hour. Whether or not you can explicitly see this communion with others is beside the point.

The acts you perform have value, as they contribute to your own good and the good of others, which good is one and the same.

 

[goout]

In this particular case, there’s a huge difference between offering a helpful suggestion, and threatening the most dire form of punishment if a command is not obeyed. The first builds credibility for the Church, the later undermines it.

And this addresses a fundamentalist caricature, not a Catholic point of view.
Why don’t you address the Catholic point of view?

 

[Faithdancer]

Some here are completely missing the point. It’s not just the act itself–it is the lust (and often pornography, or pornographic thought) that accompanies it. Lust is a deadly sin. One of seven in fact. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is.

 

[Ormond]

You misunderstand human dignity and flourishing and the goodness that we are drawn towards.

Human dignity and flourishing are never had in individualist isolation. They can only be had in reference to, and in community with, others.

And so every action affects others, whether done in the middle of the woods at midnight or on 5th Avenue at rush hour. Whether or not you can explicitly see this communion with others is beside the point.

The acts you perform have value, as they contribute to your own good and the good of others, which good is one and the same.

Your relevant point is what? Masturbating somehow hurts other people? Or not? Yes or no please.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Christian life is not a matter of* convincing* unbelievers, it’s a matter of witnessing to reality in a rational way such that others might see and hear, and believe if they are so disposed by grace.

Hmm, I was under the impression that Christians are supposed to spread the good news, to evangelize everyone else. And you can only do that if you are able to argue rationally.

For instance, in regards to sexuality:
the sexual faculty is designed towards the existence of human beings. Only an insane person would dispute that.

Well, then I am an insane person, because I dispute the existence of any “design”. As I said before, if you can prove the existence of God, and can prove that God agrees with you, you will be in good shape. Why don’t you try it?

Some here are completely missing the point. It’s not just the act itself–it is the lust (and often pornography, or pornographic thought) that accompanies it. Lust is a deadly sin. One of seven in fact. You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is.

Lust - which is strong sexual desire - is perfectly normal, the result of our hormones. “You don’t have to like it, but that’s the way it is.”

 

[Faithdancer]

Any act of selfishness “somehow hurts other people.” 'Nuff said.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Any act of selfishness “somehow hurts other people.” 'Nuff said.

Somehow?