Masturbation & Contraception Part 1

[fix]

The etiology of scrupulosity is not the moral law revealed by Christ and transmitted through His Church. Those who suffer from this need spiritual, and perhaps medical, help.

Why place the blame on the truth of the moral law?

 

[The_Theotokos]

The etiology of scrupulosity is not the moral law revealed by Christ and transmitted through His Church. Those who suffer from this need spiritual, and perhaps medical, help.

Why place the blame on the truth of the moral law?

I place the blame of such acts on the person who tells someone they are in mortal sin for commiting the acts of either masturbation or contraception use and for depriving one from reception of the Eucharist for commiting one of those two acts. While my personal feelings are that the Church should revise the interpretations of moral law in these two areas because of the essence of their very nature, how harmful these approaches can be to a weakened spirit, and focus more on the transformative powers of Christ.

I really do not understand why so many people would fight me on this when it is obvious from the scriptures that Christ prefered the average sinners of his time to the supposed Law abiding Jewish representatives condeming such practices as healing the sick on the Sabbath.

To you, what is more Chirst-like? Telling someone who asks if masturbation is a sin, that it is not only a sin, but it is a mortal sin and because you are in mortal sin, you cannot receive Jesus in the sacrament? Or redirecting them toward the healing, forgiving, and transformative nature of Jesus Christ and then let Jesus and the person work out the nature of the issue together?

Perhaps I have too much faith in prayer, but I choose the latter.

 

[Sina]

I totally agree with you Theotokos, but isn’t that what the sacrament of reconciliation is all about?

Although I find that due to the repetitive nature of these sins in the discussion, some will find themselves returning to the confessional week after week in order to receive Christ in the eucharist.

But the sacraments ( both the eucharist and reconciliation ) are supposed to HELP the person who is troubled with sin… right?

So on the one hand, there are sacramental aids, and on the other hand, these sins are pushing us away from these sacraments.

 

[fix]

I place the blame of such acts on the person who tells someone they are in mortal sin for commiting the acts of either masturbation or contraception use and for depriving one from reception of the Eucharist for commiting one of those two acts.

You mean a priest in the confessional? No one knows the state of anyone’s soul before God. What we can know is if a certain act is morally wrong, not how culpable one is.

While my personal feelings are that the Church should revise the interpretations of moral law in these two areas because of the essence of their very nature, how harmful these approaches can be to a weakened spirit, and focus more on the transformative powers of Christ.

There is no “revision” possible. The moral law exists.

I really do not understand why so many people would fight me on this when it is obvious from the scriptures that Christ prefered the average sinners of his time to the supposed Law abiding Jewish representatives condeming such practices as healing the sick on the Sabbath.

Actually, Christ said of the Pharisees that people are to do exactly as they say to do, but do not act as they do because they were hypocrites. So, it is obvious they had the seat of authority. No where did Christ lessen the moral law, in fact, He amplified it.

To you, what is more Chirst-like? Telling someone who asks if masturbation is a sin, that it is not only a sin, but it is a mortal sin and because you are in mortal sin, you cannot receive Jesus in the sacrament? Or redirecting them toward the healing, forgiving, and transformative nature of Jesus Christ and then let Jesus and the person work out the nature of the issue together?

I bind myself to the Church so it is not a matter of mere opinion you seek. The Church tells us what is asked of us. The truth ought to be conveyed with love, but never minimized.

Perhaps I have too much faith in prayer, but I choose the latter.

It seems you raise a false dichotomy. The choice is not to condemn some person or to love them. Love seeks to share the truth with others. To help them up and give them support. Love does not lie or mask what is true because we think the truth is a burden.

 

[Scottgun]

We are still having difficulties because of confusion of terms in spite of the fact that some have indicated they understand the difference. There are grave wrongs and then there is mortal sin. If one is arguing that masturbation and contraception need to be redefined by the Church as something other than grave wrongs, good luck–but you’ll never make a valid argument. If one is saying that one shouldn’t say x person is in mortal sin because he did y, then there is no argument because this is rash judgement, which is also wrong and adequetly covered in Church teaching.

 

[The_Theotokos]

I totally agree with you Theotokos, but isn’t that what the sacrament of reconciliation is all about?

Although I find that due to the repetitive nature of these sins in the discussion, some will find themselves returning to the confessional week after week in order to receive Christ in the eucharist.

But the sacraments ( both the eucharist and reconciliation ) are supposed to HELP the person who is troubled with sin… right?

So on the one hand, there are sacramental aids, and on the other hand, these sins are pushing us away from these sacraments.

Sina,

I think you make an excellent point here and perhaps you are stating it better than I am. As you indicated, my problem is really with the incongruent nature of these sins based upon the fact that they are both pervasive, almost societally based sins. They are almost impossible to avoid for some people and with good reason.

I am troubled with how so quickly and easily people on this board shoot words of condemnation when they should be focusing their attention on the Truth of Christ and their own spiritual development. I fail to see how classifying one as being in “mortal sin” helps anyone spiritually and that is the single most important (if not the only) purpose of the Church.

 

[The_Theotokos]

We are still having difficulties because of confusion of terms in spite of the fact that some have indicated they understand the difference. There are grave wrongs and then there is mortal sin. If one is arguing that masturbation and contraception need to be redefined by the Church as something other than grave wrongs, good luck–but you’ll never make a valid argument. If one is saying that one shouldn’t say x person is in mortal sin because he did y, then there is no argument because this is rash judgement, which is also wrong and adequetly covered in Church teaching.

I could not agree more, Scottgun. And I think this is what I have been trying to say from the beginning. I am not necessarily suggesting a revision of theology, but a revision of interpretation. It has been my understanding that the Church has always done this.

 

[fix]

As one example the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically wrong. To reverse that understanding would mean She taught error. How can we reconcile a reverse in teaching?

 

[The_Theotokos]

You mean a priest in the confessional? No one knows the state of anyone’s soul before God. What we can know is if a certain act is morally wrong, not how culpable one is.

I wish everyone on this board knew this as well.

There is no “revision” possible. The moral law exists.

Moral Law is still interpreted and as such all laws need revision in interpretation as the world changes in order to remain viable.

Actually, Christ said of the Pharisees that people are to do exactly as they say to do, but do not act as they do because they were hypocrites. So, it is obvious they had the seat of authority. No where did Christ lessen the moral law, in fact, He amplified it.

I am not asking the Church to lesson it, just reinterpret its understanding of it.

It seems you raise a false dichotomy. The choice is not to condemn some person or to love them. Love seeks to share the truth with others. To help them up and give them support. Love does not lie or mask what is true because we think the truth is a burden.

I think you misunderstand my intentions.

 

[The_Theotokos]

As one example the Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically wrong. To reverse that understanding would mean She taught error. How can we reconcile a reverse in teaching?

It has taught error in the past. It once taught heliocentrism. The revision could happen the same way the Church removed the excommunication (just a few years ago) of Galileo for proving the Church wrong. Don’t underestimate the power of science to discover spiritual truths that have been erroneously taught by the Church out of a spirit of tradition rather than fact. And in the case of masturbation, the Catechism admits its position on this is traditional rather than scientific.

 

[zemi]

Theotokos,

I am very open to your views. But let’s not forget what Jesus said, you know. If you even look at a woman with lust… Can men and women perform masturbation and have no sinful thoughts? Can you just do it without being lustful? I think the problem would be then Jesus and his words:

“Hey Jesus, come on! Please, do understand us. Why are you saying something like that? We’re just human, we’re are just made like that!”

You know… I believe what Freud said: “Sex begins between the ears”. It begins with your decision to do so.

Sin begins before you steal, lie, murder, rape or masturbate. It all actually starts between the ears. I think this discussion rests on whether Jesus was wrong on this one or not. I choose to believe him. And not only that. I think it makes sense. Just like every Catholic teaching.

JP II and his Theology of the body is amazing.

 

[TraceCub]

If one is saying that one shouldn’t say x person is in mortal sin because he did y, then there is no argument because this is rash judgement, which is also wrong and adequetly covered in Church teaching.

That is exactly what started this thread. An apologist answered a question that someone asked about masturbation. The answer was one who masturbates is in mortal sin.

That’s the point.

 

[bilop]

I fail to see how classifying one as being in “mortal sin” helps anyone spiritually and that is the single most important (if not the only) purpose of the Church.

It helps them by pointing out the need for confession and reform in their life. Objectively, someone who masturbates or uses contraception is probably in mortal sin. There are exceptions, but to point out the exceptions only increases the likelihood that they will persist in the sin.

God Bless

 

[Scottgun]

It has taught error in the past. It once taught heliocentrism. The revision could happen the same way the Church removed the excommunication (just a few years ago) of Galileo for proving the Church wrong. Don’t underestimate the power of science to discover spiritual truths that have been erroneously taught by the Church out of a spirit of tradition rather than fact. And in the case of masturbation, the Catechism admits its position on this is traditional rather than scientific.

No. The Church never bound the faithful to accept heliocentricism, it has bound the faithful that masturbation and contraception are grave wrongs. Apples and oranges.

See: The Galileo Controversy

Scott

 

[FLCathMom]

From the CCC on masturbation:

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.

and

on contraception:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality…

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

What about these teachings would you like to see the Church change?

 

[The_Theotokos]

No. The Church never bound the faithful to accept heliocentricism, it has bound the faithful that masturbation and contraception are grave wrongs. Apples and oranges.

See: The Galileo Controversy

Scott

Then why excommunicate someone for something they are not bound to believe? By the way, I meant to say that the Church taught AGAINST heliocentricism.

 

[Scottgun]

Then why excommunicate someone for something they are not bound to believe?

Did you read the article? Excommunication can occur for any number of reasons. Bottom line is that heliocentricism or geocentism do not not fall under infallibility whereas the teaching on contraception and masturbation do.

Also, it is a good thing (as the article pointed out) that the CHurch didn’t sign on to Gallileo because he was wrong because he thought the sun was static.

 

[The_Theotokos]

From the CCC on masturbation:

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.

and

on contraception:

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality…

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.

What about these teachings would you like to see the Church change?

These are not the sections in question.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Did you read the article? Excommunication can occur for any number of reasons. Bottom line is that heliocentricism or geocentism do not not fall under infallibility whereas the teaching on contraception and masturbation do.

Also, it is a good thing (as the article pointed out) that the CHurch didn’t sign on to Gallileo because he was wrong because he thought the sun was static.

Yes, I read the entire article, but I have also read other neutral sources that would disagree with its historical account. By the fact that this article emphasizes anti-Catholic reasons for its argument, tells me that it is not 100% unbiased and it has an agenda.

 

[Scottgun]

Yes, I read the entire article, but I have also read other neutral sources that would disagree with its historical account. By the fact that this article emphasizes anti-Catholic reasons for its argument, tells me that it is not 100% unbiased and it has an agenda.

This is irrelevant. Their argument is either valid or invalid. If they are biased, that only means we might look at the arguments that much closer, but at the end of the day we have to show why it’s invalid and not just cry bias and agenda.

Bottom line and the only point that matters in this discussion: Heliocentricism/geocentricism is not, and never was infallible teaching, and the teachings on masturbation and contraception are, so it is useless to compare the two. If one wants to argue about whether the Church is infallible, that is another thread.

Scott