Masturbation & Contraception Part 1

[The_Theotokos]

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

I cannot find any source that indicates that the Church’s teaching on masturbation and contraception are De Fide, thus if this is true, they are not infallible teachings.

 

[Scottgun]

I cannot find any source that indicates that the Church’s teaching on masturbation and contraception are De Fide, thus if this is true, they are not infallible teachings.

They are infallible by virtue of of the ordinary magisterium and I don’t think anyone seriously contends otherwise.

 

[The_Theotokos]

They are infallible by virtue of of the ordinary magisterium and I don’t think anyone seriously contends otherwise.

I totally disagree. It is very rare for a Pope to speak ex cathedra. Which is the only clear justification of infallibility. Masturbation and Contraception are not, in my opinion, to be equated to the importance of believing in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Crusader1095]

Doesn’t matter whether they are infallible. You must obey all teachings to which the Pope binds you. I am not aware of the teaching on masturbation being a binding teaching (the CCC is not authoritative in the sense that you must follow it to be orthodox, but it is more of a suggestion piece for local catechisms), but if you go against it, make sure you have a good reason, and don’t just delude yourself.

 

[The_Theotokos]

Doesn’t matter whether they are infallible. You must obey all teachings to which the Pope binds you. I am not aware of the teaching on masturbation being a binding teaching (the CCC is not authoritative in the sense that you must follow it to be orthodox, but it is more of a suggestion piece for local catechisms), but if you go against it, make sure you have a good reason, and don’t just delude yourself.

I think Crusader makes a very strong point here. To expand on this, one could disagree with a non-infallible teaching, but still be bound to follow it out of a respect for morality. I am not suggesting Catholics everywhere violate the teaching (notice how I still refer to masturbation and contraception as sins throughout this tread), I am merely considering the value of a reinterpretation of the Moral Law that is more consistent with the modern world. If the Church chooses not to, that is fine and I will obey the decision. I never have to agree with it though and that doesn’t make me a bad Catholic, heretic, or a liberal.

 

[FLCathMom]

The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was clearly and explicitly taught by Pius XII and by the Second Vatican Council. Here is what Pius XII wrote in his 1950 encyclical Humanae generis: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not itself command consent, on the pretext that in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say, ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’ … But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” from www.catholic.net “what is papal infallibility”

 

[The_Theotokos]

The infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium was clearly and explicitly taught by Pius XII and by the Second Vatican Council. Here is what Pius XII wrote in his 1950 encyclical Humanae generis: “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not itself command consent, on the pretext that in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say, ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’ … But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” from www.catholic.net “what is papal infallibility”

I stand by what I said before. The teaching on masturbation and birth control were not issued by any pope speaking under ex cathedra.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Romans 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.

In other words, as human beings, it is natural for us to sin, meaning that although infants and animals might masturabate almost unconsciously, does not mean that it is not sinful. After all, our natural state before baptism is an entirely sinful one, in which we cannot gain Heaven. Au naturel isn’t always best for a person’s soul.

But let’s go a step farther:

In response to the initial argument of masturbation as a means of sexual venting, and thereby preventing casual sex, I ought to remind everyone that Freudian catharsis has been largely discounted by the modern psychological community. Put it this way–would you chew tobacco once in a while trying to give up cigarettes to “get it out of your system?” It would only make you crave tobacco even more. Far better to be weened off, and then fight all later cravings.

 

[wbarquez]

Let me focus on artificial contraception.

Based on the natural law, sex is God’s means—using human beings as instruments—to create life. God desires to create human life and he designed the human body for the fulfillment of his will to create human life. To interfere with the natural process of the body to procreate through contraception or masturbation is to thwart the desire and design of God to create human life. No doubt God slew Onan. Sin is essentially going against the will of God. If artificial contraception is not going against the will of God to create human life, and therefore a sin, then I do not know what is.

The very fact that it is artificial means that it is against nature and the natural law, and the very fact that it is a contraception means that it is against conception and the will of God to create life. Evil is evil, whether we know/like it or not, and couples are guilty of a greater sin if they obstinately persist in practicing it after having been informed of its objective and intrinsic evil.

NFP fosters the natural function of sex, which is for procreation, precisely because it is natural and there is no artificial interference introduced into the body that would frustrate procreation. It is also open to the possibility of procreation because God could always step into the process and make conception possible, which must be welcomed by the couple as a gift of God and not disdained as an unwanted pregnancy. Hence, the method and the motive of the couple should not frustrate the function of sex for the transmission of life. NFP is perfectly within the natural process and does not do anything that would interfere with that process and therefore retains its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

On the other hand, in artificial contraception, the method and the motive of the couple ensures or is supposed to ensure the impossibility of transmitting life, especially when sexual contact is done during the time when the woman is fertile, which is sinful simply because the creation of human life is willed by God (cf. Gen 1:28). In other words, the substantial disparity is based on the fact that one is natural leading to non-conception, while the other is unnatural leading to anti-conception.

NFP, which constitutes both marital continence and coition, for achieving or avoiding pregnancy, is not natural contraception, which is a contradiction of terms. Contraception cannot be caused by the natural method of birth regulation. Abstention during the wife’s fertile period cannot cause contraception because there is no sexual intercourse in the first place. Likewise, sexual contact during the wife’s infertile period cannot cause contraception because her natural condition is not conducive to conception in the first place. Hence, there could be no contraception when marital continence or coition is carried out within ambit of the natural order of things ordained by God since there would be no conception to contradict.

Abstinence is the key to NFP. Of course, it does not follow that those couples who do it artificially cannot practice abstinence. The point is that marital celibacy, which is actually sexual abstinence, is better expressed, as subjugating one’s passions for a higher good or justifiable reason, when the couples refrain from sexual contact, especially when the woman is fertile. If the couple wants to express their love through sexual union then they should do it! But, they should not interfere with the natural course of things or shun the consequences. Otherwise, they should abstain. Moreover, marital celibacy is considered the greater good than artificial contraception or sexual intercourse that would kill the mother and/or the child because in this case, the couple is called to a higher vocation for the sake of the Kingdom of God (cf. I Cor. 7:29).

Reason enlightened by revelation understands that when married couples have sex, they are instruments of God in the creation of life. They facilitate the transmission of life with the aid of God or they aid God in his desire to create life (cf. Gen. 4:1). The couple does not create life, they procreate life; that is, they cooperate with God in the creation of life. We mirror God in all the things that we do because we are made in his image (cf. Gen. 1:26), and all the more in the act of procreation, which is a sacred act because God is involved in the process and that is why it cannot be done for recreation but only in the context of life and love. This love is also unitive because it brings couples together and unifies their persons, which is symbolized by their conjugal union. This is the design of God for man and woman in sexual love, which he blessed by instituting the Sacrament of Marriage (cf. Gen. 2:24) to sanctify human sexual activity because of its function as the instrument for the creation of human life.

 

[fix]

1. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.33
   ***VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS ***

No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.
HUMANAE VITAE

A teaching does not have to be ex cathedra to be infallible or binding.

 

[fix]

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.

This is just not true. You need to provide some sources to prove your point.

 

[The_Theotokos]

This is just not true. You need to provide some sources to prove your point.

What part is not true?

The part about the Church teaching against heliocentricism?

The part about the Church excommunicating Galileo?

The part about the Church removing the excommunication?

Or the part about the Catechism admitting that the teaching on masturbation is traditionally based?

 

[The_Theotokos]

A teaching does not have to be ex cathedra to be infallible or binding.

I disagree.

 

[fix]

… the question of the infallibility of the Magisterium is often confused with the question of the truth of a doctrine, by assuming that infallibility is the pre-qualification for the truth and irreformability of the doctrine, and by making the truth and definitive nature of the doctrine depend on whether or not it has been infallibly defined by the Magisterium. In fact, the truth and irreformability of a doctrine depends on the ), transmitted by Scripture and Tradition, while infallibility refers only to the degree of certitude of an act of magisterial teaching. In the various critical stances towards the recent documents of the Magisterium it is often forgotten that the infallible character of a teaching and the definitive and irrevocable character of the assent owed it is not a prerogative belonging solely to what has been solemnly “defined” by the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council. Whenever the Bishops dispersed in their individual Dioceses in communion with the Successor of Peter teach a truth to be held in a definitive way (cf. , n. 25, 2), they enjoy the same infallibility as the Pope’s Magisterium or that of a Council…

… the Magisterium can proclaim a doctrine as definitive, and thus to be believed with divine faith or to be held in a definitive way, through a solemn pronouncement of the Pope or an Ecumenical Council. However, the ordinary papal Magisterium can teach a doctrine as because it has been constantly maintained and held by Tradition and transmitted by the ordinary, universal Magisterium. This latter exercise of the charism of infallibility does not take the form of a papal act of definition, but pertains to the ordinary, universal Magisterium which the Pope again sets forth with his formal pronouncement of and (generally in an Encyclical or Apostolic Letter). If we were to hold that the Pope must necessarily make an definition whenever he intends to declare a doctrine as definitive because it belongs to the deposit of faith, it would imply an underestimation of the ordinary, universal Magisterium, and infallibility would be limited to the solemn definitions of the Pope or a Council, in a way that differs from the teaching of Vatican I and Vatican II, which attribute an infallible character to the teachings of the ordinary, universal Magisterium.

The particular of a teaching of the papal Magisterium that is meant merely to confirm or repropose a certitude of faith already lived consciously by the Church or affirmed by the universal teaching of the entire Episcopate can be seen not in the teaching of the doctrine <per se,> but in the fact that the Roman Pontiff formally declares that this doctrine already belongs to the faith of the Church and is infallibly taught by the ordinary, universal Magisterium as divinely revealed or to be held in a definitive way…

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Here is a quote worth considering:

**

"The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure an aim independent of it."

**

And who wrote this?

Psychiatrist Sigmund Freud

**(**Source: Christopher West, Good News About Sex & Marriage, Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Charis Servant Publications, 2000), p.119)

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Of course, in terms of contraception, this discussion has not addressed (to my knowledge) all forms of contraception, such as “the pill” which is also abortifacient.

Other factors to be considered are the effects of masturbation on the bonding between husbands and wives. It appears that the misuse of the sexual faculty may undermine the natural, biochemical bonding effect that sex has when expressed between a man and woman. In effect, the individual learns to bond with himself. He is both the creator and recipient. I find this to be very likely and logical.

Masturbation is intrinsically disordered in large part because it takes what is designed by God for man to be an outward expression of creative self-giving and love perverts it into a sterile, inwardly directed action. The fact that so many do it is no more suggestive of God’s approbation than any other of man’s disordered proclivities to selfishness are, since the fall of Adam and Eve.

That said, as others have pointed out, one must be careful to keep in balance other well-established Catholic moral principles. The cuplability for such sin is known by God alone. There may be exculpating factors such as habit/addiction, etc. And for those caught up in it, harsh reminders of damnation etc. may only serve to increase some of the underlying factors that have led to the practice in the first place. So, I do understand some of Theotokos’ concerns. But I believe some of his other points pass beyond the proper understanding and use of Catholic moral theology and ecclesiology, even if emanating from a praiseworthy desire to ease the suffering of others.

 

[Michael_Forrest]

Masturbation is intrinsically disordered in large part because it takes what is designed by God for man to be an outward expression of creative self-giving and love perverts it into a sterile, inwardly directed action.

That was supposed to be:

Masturbation is intrinsically disordered in large part because it takes what is designed by God for man to be an outward expression of creative self-giving love AND perverts it into a sterile, inwardly directed action.

Sorry. Important positioning of that conjunction.

Also, again, here is that interesting quote from, of all people, Sigmund Freud:

"The abandonment of the reproductive function is the common feature of all perversions. We actually describe a sexual activity as perverse if it has given up the aim of reproduction and pursues the attainment of pleasure an aim independent of it."

**(**Source: Christopher West, Good News About Sex & Marriage, Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Charis Servant Publications, 2000), p.119)

 

[davidv]

I disagree.

Disagree all you want, but that doesn’t make it false. Please read this article on what infallibility means.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[The_Theotokos]

Disagree all you want, but that doesn’t make it false. Please read this article on what infallibility means.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

I think we are getting a bit off subject here. I understand the arguments on both sides of the fence; God knows I have heard them for the past 15 years. My pastor actually once told me that the faithful had the right to believe in abortion because the teaching on abortion is not de fide. So, certainly, I have seen the abuses and I am quite familiar with them. The question here is not so much about infallibility, even though I contributed to letting the conversation deteriorate into such an argument. We all obviously have very different opinions on how to interpret the Church’s teaching on infallibility, let alone masturbation and contraception. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the viability of interpretation of moral law in context to the current societal condition. I believe there is room for the Church to reinterpret moral law on these two issues. Others do not and that is fine. It is also obvious to me that the sample population of posters in this forum is not very representative of the average Catholic. Having done much parish work as a seminarian, I have been exposed to a great multitude of opinions on a great many subjects, most of which come directly from the clergy, including canon lawyers. The overwhelming majority would not agree with the overwhelming majority here. I would say that neither population is a better Catholic than the other.

So, what I am trying to stress is that my post has been and is now an opinion as to how the Church should proceed. It obviously doesn’t have to proceed this way, but I think it makes logical sense, in my mind, based upon what I have witnessed as a Catholic in the world today. I will always strongly defend my position that being a good Catholic and being a good Christian depends exclusively upon the ability in one’s own heart to believe, through the truest center of one’s own being, the Nicene Creed and all that is contained there. Everything else is just guidance to assist with attaining the perfection that we so tragically lost at the hands of evil.

 

[fix]

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?