Masturbation a Sin ? :confused:

[Cimachol]

Perhaps the tension relief is not real for you. If that’s so, you should contact a scientific journal to help record this rare biological event. The “tension”, if one wishes to use that word instead of “libido”, is a completely natural biological mechanism whose function is to encourage us to reproduce. Then tension relief is a signal that the body is ready to rest from reproductive functions.

I’m not saying people who don’t masturbate don’t have a sex drive, just that habitual masturbation can create a reward cycle in the mind that leave one feeling strained until any kind of trigger or arousal is acted upon, where without this cycle in place, I find I can walk away and get over it. As an example, the other day, a beautiful woman in my neighborhood was walking her dog at the same time I was walking mine. Our dogs kind of mingled, and I couldn’t help but be aware of how gorgeous the owner was as we briefly conversed. Previously, I would have felt compelled to act on this in some way, and since pursuing her wouldn’t be an option for me as a married man, that would have meant going home and fantasizing. Now I didn’t feel the need to necessarily act on the impulse – I could just let it go.

The issue would seem to be, what sexual behaviors should be defined as immoral, as sin?

Indeed, and for that, I trust the moral teachers chosen by Jesus and their successors.

The personal pleasure you refer to was designed by God. It is God that made this joy available to us. And God’s design of the human body surely doesn’t discourage it, because we don’t have to stand on our head or do a yoga contortion to get there. There are our hands, exactly where they are most convenient for such an activity. Not my opinion my friends, but God’s design of the human body which you can observe for yourself.

So your criteria for assessing whether something is moral is whether or not it’s easy to do?

There is nothing that can damage our relationship with God, there is nothing that closes us off to His grace. Read that again perhaps.

I should have said “sanctifying grace,” which mortal sin, by definition, closes us off to. But yes, serious sin, committed deliberately and with full knowledge, does damage our relationship with God. Thankfully God is forgiving, and through the Sacrament of Confession, we can be opened up to that grace again. If you would like to know more about mortal and venial sin and how the Church knows that these exist, I’m sure we can point you to resources on the Catholic Answers website. If you have decided that’s something you won’t believe in no matter how much evidence there is for it, there is no point in further discussion.

 

[goout]

I believe I’ve made a reasonable case that compassion for the entirely innocent can quite reasonably be labeled an admirable Catholic value. Or we could call it an admirable human value if you prefer, I don’t really care what we call it, just as I don’t care whether I am labeled a Catholic or something else.

Let’s fully flesh that out.
The Catholic Church proclaims God’s compassion for all people, not just “the entirely innocent”.

Tension relief is not a value, it’s an escape which may or may not be involved in virtue.
Tension relief is an end which has various means to attain it.
If one can exercise to relieve tension, isn’t that preferable to self absorbed means?
(Your response will be: we’re talking about sexual tension, and sex is an obsession which must be dealt with by sexual action )

If I am obsessed with food and have tension over it, must I eat?
Or can I exercise, or work, or do some music?
Eating is ordered to the health and flourishing of the human being, not to satisfying tension.
(I know, so is masturbating…it’s the only solution to tension )

 

[Wesrock]

So in God’s eyes there is no difference between a child rapist and a teenager who “plays” with his genitals after having been warned by his priest. Whether you consider a rape more repugnant is of no relevance. If the punishment meted out by God is the same, then God considers both equally “repugnant”.

The Church does not teach that all actions on grave matter are mortal sins. Habitation can undermine the ability to consent. That doesn’t make the act less evil, but it does affect whether the action is a rejection of God or not.

Also, the Church does not teach that all unrepentamt sinners get the same punishment, so that’s just false.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The Church does not teach that all actions on grave matter are mortal sins. Habitation can undermine the ability to consent. That doesn’t make the act less evil, but it does affect whether the action is a rejection of God or not.

Also, the Church does not teach that all unrepentamt sinners get the same punishment, so that’s just false.

As far as I know the church does not teach the opposite either. Of course I can be wrong, but I don’t think that the church has more reliable information about the different kinds of eternal punishments.

 

[LilyM]

As far as I know the church does not teach the opposite either. Of course I can be wrong, but I don’t think that the church has more reliable information about the different kinds of eternal punishments.

Of course the Church teaches something very different - to be mortal sin, something must be grave matter, understood by the sinner to be such, and also committed with full consent.

Thus, if someone is forced to do something like rape or murder by having a gun held to their own head, it is probably not something they do with full consent (being under duress) and therefore probably not a mortal sin for them.

 

[Wesrock]

As far as I know the church does not teach the opposite either. Of course I can be wrong, but I don’t think that the church has more reliable information about the different kinds of eternal punishments.

The Church teaches that the punishments of hell will be worse for those whose sins are worse and unrepented. This could vary from simply not getting to participate in God with no further punishment to something worse.

And again, the Church does not teach that all evil actioms result in mortal sin or eternal punishment. It depends on ability to consent and knowledge.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And again, the Church does not teach that all evil actioms result in mortal sin or eternal punishment. It depends on ability to consent and knowledge.

I am aware of that. I was asking if there is a difference in the eternal torment for two people, who commit two different mortal sins. I chose two examples, masturbation and child rape, both assuming that the prerequisites are met in both cases.

The Church teaches that the punishments of hell will be worse for those whose sins are worse and unrepented. This could vary from simply not getting to participate in God with no further punishment to something worse.

OK. Do you have an official church document - preferably inerrant - which says this? And if there is, what evidence can the church produce to substantiate it? I have this sneaky suspicion that there is no one who would have actual information about hell - notwithstanding the numerous references in the Bible. All you can do is speculate.

 

[Ormond]

Indeed, and for that, I trust the moral teachers chosen by Jesus and their successors.

This does seem to be the heart of the issue. I have no complaint with your choice, and wish you luck with it.

My take is that the vast majority of Church leaders were chosen by far lesser men than Jesus. On some occasions these leaders have been very wise, and on other occasions they have been ruthless monsters. In our own time the Church is burdened by various scandals brought on by some of these leaders. Thus I am unable to blindly believe whatever such leaders might say on whatever subject they might address. From my perspective, God gave me a brain so that I should use it.

I’m happy to agree that Church leaders deserve a hearing. It would be equally poor judgment in my opinion to blindly discard what they have to offer as well.

So your criteria for assessing whether something is moral is whether or not it’s easy to do?

I seem to have expressed that point poorly, as no seems to understand what I was saying. Ok, no problem, not that important.

I should have said “sanctifying grace,” which mortal sin, by definition, closes us off to. But yes, serious sin, committed deliberately and with full knowledge, does damage our relationship with God.

I’ll explain my perspective with this analogy.

Go outside. Stand in the Sun. Observe that it shines down on everyone without judgment or preference. It shines equally on the holiest saint and the most depraved sinner.

Now if my mind is clogged with obsession about myself (as it often is) then I might not notice the sun shining on my face, this is true. But the Sun is still shining on me, whether I notice it or not. The Sun is still shining on me, on everyone, whatever the circumstances of our personal situation.

Thus, when I choose to focus on the very small matter of myself, instead of turning my gaze skyward to bask in the glorious enormity of the Sun, I am not being sinful, I am being stupid. I don’t need forgiveness, I need assistance in seeing what is in my own best interest.

This whole business about “me and my sin, me and my situation, me and the grace I receive or don’t, me and my salvation etc” is just more obsession with ourselves. Jesus suggested that we “die to be reborn” and dying would seem to include dying to “me and my situation” as well. Me and my situation, you and your situation, not important. What’s important is the situation of those in need, for they are the doorway through which we might die and be reborn.

Thankfully God is forgiving, and through the Sacrament of Confession, we can be opened up to that grace again.

Or, I can just stop being stupid, and return my focus to the Sun already shining on my face.

If you would like to know more about mortal and venial sin and how the Church knows that these exist, I’m sure we can point you to resources on the Catholic Answers website.

Thanks. I have a Catholic upbringing so I know the gist of the theory.

If you have decided that’s something you won’t believe in no matter how much evidence there is for it, there is no point in further discussion.

Ah, I see, there is no point in discussion unless it leads to me agreeing with you and obeying the self appointed leaders that you choose to obey. This is the kind of stuff many learn from the self appointed leaders.

I offer you another vision of Catholic dialog. I will discuss with you all day long whether you agree or not.

 

[Cimachol]

Ah, I see, there is no point in discussion unless it leads to me agreeing with you and obeying the self appointed leaders that you choose to obey.

It’s more that I have only so much time, and if you’ve made up your mind that the Church’s leaders are self-appointed, as opposed to Jesus-appointed, and you’ve made up your mind that they can’t possibly be right about the need for confession or the immorality of various actions, I don’t see this discussion being a productive use of anyone’s time.

Incidentally, your stance reminds me of where I once stood – I couldn’t believe the Church could possibly be right about contraception or divorce and remarriage, and that issue stood in my way. Yet, somewhere deep inside I knew I was missing out on something by not being part of the Church, so it really irritated me that they taught this thing I was sure couldn’t possibly be right. And of course, to reject those two teachings, I had to reject the Church’s moral authority

I only became open to changing my mind when I asked myself, “IF the Church were right and contraception and divorce were really not part of God’s plan, would I be willing to live with that, or would I prefer to not have the Church?” Realizing that if the Church were right, I would want to accept this truth, I became more open and honest about investigating whether it actually was right – thoroughly reading up on these subjects etc. Until then, my heart and mind were closed, and there was nothing anyone else could have done about it other than pray for me.

 

[goout]

Ah, I see, there is no point in discussion unless it leads to me agreeing with you and obeying the self appointed leaders that you choose to obey. This is the kind of stuff many learn from the self appointed leaders.

All hail anti-authoritarian chaos. :nope:

Words of wisdom from Bob Dylan

You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

You might be a rock ‘n’ roll addict prancing on the stage
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage
You may be a business man or some high-degree thief
They may call you doctor or they may call you chief

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
etc…

 

[Wesrock]

OK. Do you have an official church document - preferably inerrant - which says this? And if there is, what evidence can the church produce to substantiate it? I have this sneaky suspicion that there is no one who would have actual information about hell - notwithstanding the numerous references in the Bible. All you can do is speculate.

I do not know if there’s one definitive document that states this. That’s not how doctrine always works. But it is a consistent teaching of Church theologians. I will keep an eye out for more, but from Catholic Encyclopedia:

Characteristics of the pains of hell

(1) The pains of hell differ in degree according to demerit. This holds true not only of the pain of sense, but also of the pain of loss. A more intense hatred of God, a more vivid consciousness of utter abandonment by Divine goodness, a more restless craving to satisfy the natural desire for beatitude with things external to God, a more acute sense of shame and confusion at the folly of having sought happiness in earthly enjoyment — all this implies as its correlation a more complete and more painful separation from God.

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[Wesrock]

Here is something else from the Council of Florence - Session 6

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

 

[Ormond]

It’s more that I have only so much time, and if you’ve made up your mind that the Church’s leaders are self-appointed, as opposed to Jesus-appointed, and you’ve made up your mind that they can’t possibly be right about the need for confession or the immorality of various actions, I don’t see this discussion being a productive use of anyone’s time.

Discussion is pointless unless one of us is converted?

If the Church’s leaders are Jesus appointed, does that mean that Jesus is cool with the Crusades, public executions of heretics, and sweeping child rape under the rug etc? If Jesus is appointing such people, the responsibility for all of that is his. I don’t get how you’re respecting Jesus by laying all that mess at his feet.

I think what you meant to say is that discussion is pointless when some of your perspectives are systematically dismantled in public, and you’re revealed to be more loyal to the Church than you are to Jesus.

Ok, your turn, go ahead, bury this in a bunch of memorized dogma chanting.

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

Sure. Matthew 5.

And there is verse 30, right there where he is teaching on sins pertaining to sex… Quite clear. That’s why Catholics are taught to get the true meaning of a verse, read the ten verses before, and the ten after.

I think that your reference is very obtuse, especially when the issue involves eternal damnation. I don’t contest the churches teaching on this issue, merely what you claim is part of the justification.

 

[Vonsalza]

Discussion is pointless unless one of us is converted?

To be fair, we are talking about repentance of a sin. That’s not a particularly pertinent subject if you don’t believe sin exists.

If the Church’s leaders are Jesus appointed, does that mean that Jesus is cool with the Crusades, public executions of heretics, and sweeping child rape under the rug etc?

Well, Jesus appointed the originals who were also granted the power to choose successors. So “they’re all picked by Jesus” might be a misunderstanding.

Moreover, no man in the Church is perfect. There has always been a disparity between “the idea” and “the adherent”. The idea is perfect. People never are. That means these people will sin; and sometimes it’s awful.

So no, Jesus certainly isn’t “cool with it” as he is the very embodiment of the perfect idea.

Ok, your turn, go ahead, bury this in a bunch of memorized dogma chanting.

Is it fair to interpret this as “I don’t care what you say, you won’t change my mind”?

 

[NM505StKate]

Did a little research but pleasuring oneself isn’t looked proudly upon from various religions. It is not based on any form of evidence just belief. Personally I find it a bit silly that enjoying ones body is harmful, especially supernaturally.

 

[Rau]

Did a little research but pleasuring oneself isn’t looked proudly upon from various religions. It is not based on any form of evidence just belief. Personally I find it a bit silly that enjoying ones body is harmful, especially supernaturally.

What reasoning was offered by the various religions you researched?

 

[Ormond]

Ok, I figured it out. What we need to do is create an entire forum about Catholic masturbation. Catholic-Masturbation.org I’ll check and see if the domain name is available. Yup, it’s available, we’re all set! Who wants to be the lead jerker, sorry, I mean, forum administrator?

 

[NM505StKate]

What reasoning was offered by the various religions you researched?

Abrahamic is an affront to Yahweh/Allah/ect. Others was more for “purity” kind of thing.

 

[NM505StKate]

Ok, I figured it out. What we need to do is create an entire forum about Catholic masturbation. Catholic-Masturbation.org I’ll check and see if the domain name is available. Yup, it’s available, we’re all set! Who wants to be the lead jerker, sorry, I mean, forum administrator?