Masturbation & Contraception Part 1

[Sina]

Do you think it is possible for anyone except maybe the Pope, to know all the laws of the church and to abide by them ( or when not abiding, knowing one is sinning?)

 

[fix]

Do you think it is possible for anyone except maybe the Pope, to know all the laws of the church and to abide by them ( or when not abiding, knowing one is sinning?)

I think Catholics have a serious obligation to learn their faith and form their consciences as required.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[The_Theotokos]

The Church is very clear in Her teachings in this matter. One can pick up a copy of the CCC and see for themself. We will always have people in the Church who are mistaken, or dissent, or confused but they in no way make the case a Catholic cannot know and understand what the Church teaches.

In fact, those who claim these eternal teaching can change have yet to show proof. The bottom line is that if a lower authority contradicts a higher authority then the lower authority is wrong. The Pope has said contraception is intrinsically wrong. Who has authority to claim the Pope is wrong in this matter?

That is the problem, Fix, no one is claming the Pope is wrong! Nor is anyone saying the eternal teachings can change. Interpretation of moral law will never be infallible, constant, or relevant. Interpretation must remain open to new inspirations in order to remain viable. You can accuse me and others all you want of being “mistaken” or “confused” but that is the actual reality of all legal systems. While some choose to derive their spirituality from dogmatic rewards and punishments, I prefer to derive mine from God alone through the sacraments of the Church. It all depends on where you want to place your focus. One should not criticize another for taking either particular view. And one should not condemn another to mortal sin. Simple as that.

 

[fix]

That is the problem, Fix, no one is claming the Pope is wrong! Nor is anyone saying the eternal teachings can change. Interpretation of moral law will never be infallible, constant, or relevant.

The understanding of some truth may grow deeper, but how can it reverse itself?

Interpretation must remain open to new inspirations in order to remain viable. You can accuse me and others all you want of being “mistaken” or “confused” but that is the actual reality of all legal systems. While some choose to derive their spirituality from dogmatic rewards and punishments, I prefer to derive mine from God alone through the sacraments of the Church. It all depends on where you want to place your focus. One should not criticize another for taking either particular view. And one should not condemn another to mortal sin. Simple as that.

You have said in another post the Church has taught error in faith and morals. That is contrary to Church teaching and you have not provided proof. So, what you put forth as simply a differing view really seems to be an understanding that contradicts the faith.

Are you claiming the interpretation of the natural law regarding masturbation and contraception could change to mean they really are not intrinscially evil? If so please show us how that is possible.

The problem I have with your position is that taken to its conclusion one would have to claim the Church is not the authority or that She only has to be trusted when She speaks ex cathedra.

I do not accept the Church on my terms. I accept the Church on Her terms.

 

[The_Theotokos]

The understanding of some truth may grow deeper, but how can it reverse itself?

You have said in another post the Church has taught error in faith and morals. That is contrary to Church teaching and you have not provided proof. So, what you put forth as simply a differing view really seems to be an understanding that contradicts the faith.

I never said such a thing. I said the Church once taught something that was proven false by science and then later adopted the correct view.

Are you claiming the interpretation of the natural law regarding masturbation and contraception could change to mean they really are not intrinscially evil? If so please show us how that is possible.

First of all, a gravely disordered action is not necessarily “intrinsically evil”. The catechism indicates that there are sometimes other variables at work. But to answer your question, I believe they could be reinterpreted out of the basis for mortal sin.

The problem I have with your position is that taken to its conclusion one would have to claim the Church is not the authority or that She only has to be trusted when She speaks ex cathedra.

I believe there is a difference between what must be believed in and what should be believed in.

I do not accept the Church on my terms. I accept the Church on Her terms.

As do I.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

In reference to Galileo and Heliocentrism, Theotokos wrote:

I never said such a thing. I said the Church once taught something that was proven false by science and then later adopted the correct view.

Apples and Oranges. The Church does not claim infallibility in matters of science. The issues at hand (contraception and masturbation) are matters of faith/morality, in which the Church does speak with authority and infallibility.

And I think the case of Galileo is a little more complex than you are making it. Galileo did have some erroneous ideas which the Church resisted. In fact, even modern science, in light of Relativity, would have issues with Galileo and Copernicus. The “center” of anything is relative. Essentially, it depends upon one’s perspective. Therefore to state that either the sun, the earth or Jupiter is in fact the center would be inappropriate from perspective of Relativity.

I’m also interested in your reactions to the points I have made about Freud and the negative consquences of masturbation in regard to the bonding process between husbands and wives. I am not persuaded that this is a case of “no harm to anyone.”

Then you write:

First of all, a gravely disordered action is not necessarily “intrinsically evil”. The catechism indicates that there are sometimes other variables at work. But to answer your question, I believe they could be reinterpreted out of the basis for mortal sin.

You are misreading that. Mitigating factors certainly may exist which can diminish or even remove culpability, but that does not alter the fact that a gravely disordered action is still “intrinsically evil.” The only open issue is the culpability for the action.

CCC 2352:

Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition…have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action…

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective maturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability

Also, have you dropped the contraception issue?

 

[fix]

I never said such a thing. I said the Church once taught something that was proven false by science and then later adopted the correct view.

Even that I would quibble with, but at least you agree She has never taught error in faith and morals.

First of all, a gravely disordered action is not necessarily “intrinsically evil”.

HV states explicitly contraception is intrinsically wrong.

Masturbation is called intrinsically and seriously disordered act.

The point is they are wrong and always serious matter. They are never morally good or neutral.

The catechism indicates that there are sometimes other variables at work. But to answer your question, I believe they could be reinterpreted out of the basis for mortal sin.

Sure, one may not be fully cuplable but the acts are always wrong. I ask again how can they ever be intrepreted to be morally good or neutral when one is intrinsically wrong and the other is intrinsically disordered?

I believe there is a difference between what must be believed in and what should be believed in.

What must be believed is that the Church is the authority in these matters.

And I have seen proof these two acts are always wrong and will never be changed. I have seen no proof thay can be re-understood to no longer be gravely sinful.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Even that I would quibble with, but at least you agree She has never taught error in faith and morals.

HV states explicitly contraception is intrinsically wrong.

Masturbation is called intrinsically and seriously disordered act.

The point is they are wrong and always serious matter. They are never morally good or neutral.

Sure, one may not be fully cuplable but the acts are always wrong. I ask again how can they ever be intrepreted to be morally good or neutral when one is intrinsically wrong and the other is intrinsically disordered?

What must be believed is that the Church is the authority in these matters.

I am not suggesting that the Church interpret them as morally good or neutral. Just that they don’t have the power to severe one’s relationship with God through mortal sin.

I believe and have always believed that the Church has authority in these matters. If I didn’t, I would have said that the Church is wrong and I am right. Rather, I said that in my opinion, the Church should adopt a different interpretation. It’s still the choice of the Church. I have nothing to do with it.

I think you are all making me out to be short of evil because I disagree with an interpretation. That, in my opinion, seems much worse than masturbation, but should you go to hell for it?

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Theotokos writes:

I am not suggesting that the Church interpret them as morally good or neutral. Just that they don’t have the power to severe one’s relationship with God through mortal sin.

This is where you go too far. If a matter is grave, then when one engages it with full knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin (cutting off relationship with God).

Again, the grace you seek is already within the Church’s teaching on the matter. There is no need to alter it:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective maturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability. (CCC 2352)

 

[The_Theotokos]

Theotokos writes:

This is where you go too far. If a matter is grave, then when one engages it with full knowledge and consent, it is a mortal sin (cutting off relationship with God).

The grace you seek is already within the Church’s teaching on the matter. There is no need to alter it.

I know this, but for the third time, this post is a response to an apologist’s reaction that hardly took the time to explain the reality of the issue to the individual who was obviously struggling with it. In order to avoid such abuses, I have suggested that the interpretation be modified. Sins like masturbation have no place being ranked with sins like rape or murder. It isn’t logical and it isn’t helpful.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Theotokos,

Please understand that I’m not trying to be unfair or nit-picky with you. Sincerely. But while you say that you “know this”, your choice of words does not support that contention. What you wrote was problematic. What you intend may be acceptable, but the expression of it that I pointed out is not. While solitary impurity certainly ought not to be ranked with rape and murder, it is still a mortal sin when engaged with full knowledge and consent, and will cut one off from God under such conditions. We cannot avoid or gloss over that, either.

People other than you, me and a couple of others are reading and will continue to read this in the future. And the import of your words goes beyond the teaching of the Church.

I believe I understand your concerns and have counseled more than a few young men on this very issue. It can be very harmful if handled without compassion. But we have to be careful to entirely uphold the teaching of the Church while showing pastoral sensitivity. Fortunately, the Catechism itself gives us a clear direction in which to move so as to acheive that goal:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective maturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability. (CCC 2352)

Perhaps it would be helpful to spend more time reflecting on the meaning of the paragraph above and its extremely important, merciful ramifications to those who struggle with sins of solitary impurity rather than asking for modifications?

 

[The_Theotokos]

Theotokos,

Please understand that I’m not trying to be unfair or nit-picky with you. Sincerely. But while you say that you “know this”, your choice of words does not support that contention. What you wrote was problematic. What you intend may be acceptable, but the expression of it that I pointed out is not. While solitary impurity certainly ought not to be ranked with rape and murder, it is still a mortal sin when engaged with full knowledge and consent, and will cut one off from God under such conditions. We cannot avoid or gloss over that, either.

People other than you, me and a couple of others are reading and will continue to read this in the future. And the import of your words goes beyond the teaching of the Church.

I believe I understand your concerns and have counseled more than a few young men on this very issue. It can be very harmful if handled without compassion. But we have to be careful to entirely uphold the teaching of the Church while showing pastoral sensitivity. Fortunately, the Catechism itself gives us a clear direction in which to move so as to acheive that goal:

Perhaps it would be helpful to spend more time reflecting on the meaning of the paragraph above and its extremely important, merciful ramifications to those who struggle with sins of solitary impurity rather than asking for modifications?

If I could be 100% certain that what you have considered in your post would be considered by all who pass judgement, I wouldn’t have posted my opinion in the first place. But the truth is that most people just shoot their mouths off about mortal sin without considering the reality that it is probably very hard for a dedicated Catholic to commit through either contraception or masturbation. Asking for modifications that are not unreasonable does not strike me as a problem if done in a spirit of truth combined with logic.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

If I could be 100% certain that what you have considered in your post would be considered by all who pass judgement, I wouldn’t have posted my opinion in the first place. But the truth is that most people just shoot their mouths off about mortal sin without considering the reality that it is probably very hard for a dedicated Catholic to commit through either contraception or masturbation. Asking for modifications that are not unreasonable does not strike me as a problem if done in a spirit of truth combined with logic.

I understand the general thrust of your concern. These issues require sensitivity. Although, I don’t know as I would go so far as to say that “most people” shoot their mouths off about mortal sin. At least in my experience, one of the greatest problems we face today is the lack of the sense of sin, period. I find few people who even talk about it. It is often “pyschologized away” today, if I may coin a phrase.

In fact, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken about this problem:

Pope John Paul II acknowledged a “crisis of the sense of sin” and a “crisis of reconciliation” in the church.
jesuits.ca/orientations/shields.html

and

Pope Benedict spoke to a group of new bishops in September urging them to “address the loss of the sense of sin.”
catholic.net/the_pope_page/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=18

And I would also disagree with you when you lump contraception in with masturbation. If one is a “dedicated Catholic”, as you put it, then they have access to NFP. I do not easily conceive of as many exculpatory factors such as habit, addiction, etc. for contraceptive use, as I do for masturbation.

And this also raises the issue of “what kind of contraception”? Some forms of contraception are more morally objectionable than others. The Pill and all abortificients would seem to be far worse than, say, a condom (although I am not condoning any contraceptive, to be clear).

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Theotokos,

If you write back again, I may not be able to get to it for a few days due to a huge backlog of work. But I wanted to at least address this issue briefly because someone sent the thread to me and asked for some help understanding. So if I don’t respond, please don’t take it negatively. Thanks.

God bless,
Michael

 

[wbarquez]

If I am not mistaken, the only ex cathedra and infallible teaching that was ever made was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So, if infallibility and ex cathedra would be our parameters for determining what should be absolutely followed by every Catholic, there would be nothing much to hold on to in the Church, right?

 

[The_Theotokos]

Theotokos,

If you write back again, I may not be able to get to it for a few days due to a huge backlog of work. But I wanted to at least address this issue briefly because someone sent the thread to me and asked for some help understanding. So if I don’t respond, please don’t take it negatively. Thanks.

God bless,
Michael

Michael,

I respect your views and I appreciate your inclusions. I am going to step back now and let others share their thoughts and ideas on this subject. Thanks to all who participated.

 

[fix]

I am not suggesting that the Church interpret them as morally good or neutral. Just that they don’t have the power to severe one’s relationship with God through mortal sin.

But, that is changing the interpretation.

I believe and have always believed that the Church has authority in these matters. If I didn’t, I would have said that the Church is wrong and I am right. Rather, I said that in my opinion, the Church should adopt a different interpretation. It’s still the choice of the Church. I have nothing to do with it.

I see, but the Church has no authority to reinterpret truth.

**86 **“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

I think you are all making me out to be short of evil because I disagree with an interpretation.

Nope, I do not think that. We are having a discussion and hope to clarify things so we all may understand more deeply.

That, in my opinion, seems much worse than masturbation, but should you go to hell for it?

Go to hell for masturbation? Unfortunately, that is a radical possiblity.

 

[thegame]

Now that physicians can show that masturbation is actually healthy for human beings, both for various organs, and for various hormones, this entire thing is just ridiculous.

The way we (Catholics) handle sexual issues is our modern day “Galileo.” The church has so much to offer that is wonderful, to the world. . . and then we say something this ridiculous, and people tune us out. What a shame!

Anyone telling kids that masturbating is a mortal sin, is really foolish.

 

[Chancellare]

Now that physicians can show that masturbation is actually healthy for human beings, both for various organs, and for various hormones, this entire thing is just ridiculous.

The way we (Catholics) handle sexual issues is our modern day “Galileo.” The church has so much to offer that is wonderful, to the world. . . and then we say something this ridiculous, and people tune us out. What a shame!

Anyone telling kids that masturbating is a mortal sin, is really foolish.

Anyone telling kids that masturbating is not a sin should write his own catechism or join others with similar convenient teachings.

 

[fix]

Now that physicians can show that masturbation is actually healthy for human beings, both for various organs, and for various hormones, this entire thing is just ridiculous.

Not at all. What if a study shows cheating on one’s wife lowered blood pressure? Would you claim adultery was good?

The way we (Catholics) handle sexual issues is our modern day “Galileo.” The church has so much to offer that is wonderful, to the world. . . and then we say something this ridiculous, and people tune us out. What a shame!

Galileo affair is mostly misunderstood. The Church is right, as usual.

Anyone telling kids that masturbating is a mortal sin, is really foolish.

By what authority do you claim this?