Masturbation: natural law and a sudden lack of faith in the Church

[Think_About_It]

Ironically, my real “falling away” began after I joined this forum. I was a “cradle Catholic” but was, as they say around these parts, “poorly catechised”. I had always felt pretty comfortable in the faith, even though I hadn’t practiced it (i.e. didn’t attend mass or receive the sacraments) since my early teens, and was in fact quite ignorant of many of its important tenets.

I recently became more interested in the faith and hoped to renew my practice of it, and this forum is one of the places I found to learn more about it. But I was so taken aback by what I saw in so many postings here - the uncharitable judgmentalism, the “one true church” triumphalism, the intense legalism, the traditionalist rants about Vatican II - that it actually drove me further from the faith. In addition, I found that some of the harsher Church doctrines, which I assumed had moderated over the years, were still in full force. In the end, I just couldn’t call myself a Catholic any longer - a fact that was pointed out to me by a forum member, ever enthusiastic to fulfill his duty of “defending the faith”.

Interesting! My falling away has resulted from things I learned while participating on this forum as well (under a different username). However, my beliefs didn’t degenerate into watered-down Christianity (because what would be the point in believing something only somewhat), but rather militant atheism–a leap not many people make as quickly and definitely as myself, perhaps. The teachings on sex, in particular (as you might have guessed), are a point of soreness for me in contemplating religious teachings. When the only reason backing up a dogmatic staple is “God said so” (and of course some wishy-washy rationalizations from the forum apologicians), I have to wonder seriously if God doesn’t love confounding our reason.

Whatever our similarities and differences, cheers to free thinking.

 

[Abu]

Of course it had to come down to attacking Christ and His Church. The railing against " the ‘one true church’ triumphalism, the intense legalism, the traditionalist rants about Vatican II" exemplify the dissent stirred at, during and after Vatican II, and the dissenters who tried to impose a false “spirit of Vatican II” on the faithful.

Obviously they have succeeded with some, who have been unable to withstand the onslaught.

It is obvious that the truths of faith and morality need to be better known, and this forum will assist greatly. Fr Thomas Dubay puts it succinctly: “They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mte10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than an indifference to reality and to the Author of reality. The problem here is not simply that the indifferent person does not expend energy to find truth. The problem is also that his very indifference is evil. His wickedness prevents his seeing the truth even when it is placed squarely before him.
One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.”

 

[NeoScotist]

And here is the begging of the question that slips by so many people. You cannot prove by reason alone the purpose of this act as you see it. (*See all my previous posts for context)

The reason as to why we see masturbation as bad is evolutionary in origin. I won’t get into the details behind the changes that take place after masturbation (decrease in semen and testosterone, increase of serotonin etc.) but, the bottom line is this:

The more you masturbate the less interested you will be in having sex, and the less likely you will be of having children. Natural selection has no place for that, which is why we feel guilty and repulsed by the idea of masturbation.

BTW, most cultures through history condemned or had taboos against masturbation; it is not just a “Christian thing.”

 

[Glynis_00]

Hey everyone, i stumbled across this forum and wanted to add my opinion. I’m a Christian, a southern baptist and op god loves you man, as long as you love him back and accept hi
u will be fine youngman don’t worry about it. Go with Christ

 

[Abu]

Microevolution has no bearing on moral evils such as masturbation, nor on natural law philosophy; the theory of natural selection has no understanding of the natural law.

Masturbation is knowable as a serious evil on the basis of the natural law and apart from any divinely revealed teaching. It clearly goes against the design of nature itself, according to which marital genital activity between husband and wife is by design both life-giving and love-giving. In light of this design that is knowable by reason alone, one can clearly understand why masturbation is a serious evil every bit as much as contraception - why both are opposed to the natural law.

Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.” (A Psychospiritual View, 39-45). [Referenced and quoted by Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., *The Truth About Homosexuality, Ignatius 1996, p 162).
All other sexual sinning is at its root masturbatory.

 

[TedDC]

Microevolution has no bearing on moral evils such as masturbation, nor on natural law philosophy; the theory of natural selection has no understanding of the natural law.

Masturbation is knowable as a serious evil on the basis of the natural law and apart from any divinely revealed teaching. It clearly goes against the design of nature itself, according to which marital genital activity between husband and wife is by design both life-giving and love-giving. In light of this design that is knowable by reason alone, one can clearly understand why masturbation is a serious evil every bit as much as contraception - why both are opposed to the natural law.

Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.” (A Psychospiritual View, 39-45). [Referenced and quoted by Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., *The Truth About Homosexuality

, Ignatius 1996, p 162).
All other sexual sinning is at its root masturbatory.

How can the “design of nature” encompass the concepts of “marital” and “husband and wife”? Those are man-made social structures.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Masturbation is knowable as a serious evil on the basis of the natural law and apart from any divinely revealed teaching. It clearly goes against the design of nature itself, according to which marital genital activity between husband and wife is by design both life-giving and love-giving. In light of this design that is knowable by reason alone, one can clearly understand why masturbation is a serious evil every bit as much as contraception - why both are opposed to the natural law.

Dr William Kraft asserts that the habit of masturbation carries the message that the person has not integrated his social, spiritual, emotional and physical life.

Yep. And once again, this is just one of the many examples on this thread (let alone on many other threads) of reasons offered why it’s an offense against our full humanness, which in turn is the basis for all sin to begin with. It’s not based on “God said so,” which is what deniers on this thread keep trying to assert. It’s based on what is evident by the act itself. But no matter how many times and in how many contexts this is said, the opposers who want to rationalze all pleasure for pleasure’s sake refuse to look at such statements, and instead revert to “it feels good,” “it’s natural,” etc. It’s natural only in a very short-sighted and immature way. Babies pleasure themselves (in all kinds of ways) unconsciously, as a natural evolution of their immature selves, and as part of the very young phase of self-discovery.

“But now that I am a man, I have put away childish things.” 1 Corinthians 13:11. That may be biblical, but it’s also ordinary life-advice as well.

The adult stage of psychosexual development is oriented toward relating to others, not to self.

 

[Abu]

Very well said, Elizabeth502.

TedDC
How can the “design of nature” encompass the concepts of “marital” and “husband and wife”? Those are man-made social structures.

Simply because we did not make ourselves but were created by God male and female with a human nature possessing the natural law. The purpose of sexual intercourse is for loving and procreation between man and woman through which we receive pleasure. Nothing about the natural law is “man-made” nor is marriage. Dr Geraghty, professor of philosophy, gives the facts.

Getting to know the Natural Law

**Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006 (EWTN): **
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honor God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbors and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The second way that God is the source of morality is, as you suggested, because he laid down the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai stating what man should already know by reason but are intent on forgetting. God is reminding them not to forget because he is his power and wisdom will hold all men to account when they die. Basic morality, then, comes from human reason with its knowledge of the natural law and from God, who personally reveals to man how he should live, teachings found in the Old and New Testament.

The third source of morality is from Christ who, supporting both the natural law and the Ten Commandments, declares that men are to believe in him as both God and man if they are to be saved. I mention this just to round off the treatment. Speaking about Christ would be a paper on theology, not philosophy. You will have your hands full enough dealing with ethics or morality on the basis of natural law. So search around on Catholic web sites for discussions of natural law morality and good luck.

 

[Think_About_It]

It clearly goes against the design of nature itself, according to which marital genital activity between husband and wife is by design both life-giving and love-giving.

More question begging. Everytime someone puts this argument forward, they fail to explain how it goes against design and nature. That it goes against design and nature is the very think you’re trying to prove - you can’t just smuggle it in with your premises!

 

[Think_About_It]

It’s based on what is evident by the act itself.

How so? This is what all of you fail to prove: how it is evident.

The adult stage of psychosexual development is oriented toward relating to others, not to self.

Haha this is your claim to reason? Freud’s age-old, unsupported psychosexual stages? Do you believe that all boys and girls go through a phase of being attracted to their opposite sex parental figure? No? This is what’s called reification of a construct. Later theories taught that stages culminate; one does not necessarily wipe out the other (not that Freud was even close to explaining development with his Psychosexual Theory).

 

[Josh128]

How can the “design of nature” encompass the concepts of “marital” and “husband and wife”? Those are man-made social structures.

Hi Ted, while the “concept” of marriage and the designation "husband and wife"may well be a “man made” social structure and terminology respectively, the concept, basis and history of both are certainly not. The human race could not have survived unless man and woman were monogamous as a whole from the beginning, this was infused in us as part of our creation.

If man, dating back to Adam & Eve, had only “hit it and quit it” the human race would have died off at exactly that point. As a race, without the luxuries of social structure, security, and order in place today, it is basically impossible for “women” to simply get pregnant, then be expected to birth and rear a child ALONE, with no help from the man to provide food, shelter, and protection to the woman and child as she cares for it. Extremely rare anomalies aside, where the woman and child could have survived without the support of the man, the human race would have ceased to exist.

This is why since the beginning, as humans, man and woman have been monogamous, for survival. This is how the “design of nature” can encompass both the concepts of “marriage” and “husband and wife”.

 

[Josh128]

One need not look further than the Bible to find the answer that masturbation is a sin.

Exodus 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery."

Matt. 5:28 “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Read the above two passages. Now ask yourself the question-- how many times do you masturbate WITHOUT lustful thoughts or images (in the case of pornography) of women (or men, depending on your gender / sexual orientation!) entering your mind or eyes?

I would venture to say 0. Perhaps it is possible if you consciously WILL that you not think lustful/sexual thoughts while doing it, but if thats the case, why are you doing it in the first place?? For the relief of pain of vasocongestion? In almost all cases you dont get that unless you are aroused by something to begin with.

Perhaps in the teaching set forth in the CCC about masturbation, one might argue that it is not a sin if done only to relieve vasocongestion AND can honestly say lust hasnt anything to do with the suppressed arousals that caused the vasocongestion in the first place, AND no lustful thoughts or images are used/occur as the act takes place, but I would venture to guess the probability of all three of those things being true is just about 0.

Disagree?

 

[LittleDavid]

I read somewhere that the Jewish Law considered a man to be unclean for 24 hours after he masturbated…similar to a woman under Jewish Law being unclean during her menstral cycle. Can anyone verify that?

 

[Josh128]

I read somewhere that the Jewish Law considered a man to be unclean for 24 hours after he masturbated…similar to a woman under Jewish Law being unclean during her menstral cycle. Can anyone verify that?

Its true, read Leviticus chapters 11-18 which deal with a woman being unclean after bleeding or even giving birth, and I’m almost positive there are passages dealing with men having “emissions” elsewhere in the OT. Being deemed “unclean” normally required a period of time to pass and then to undergo the prescribed cleansing ritual.

Read more at this link: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/niddah.html

 

[Josh128]

Its true, read Leviticus chapters 11-18 which deal with a woman being unclean after bleeding or even giving birth, and I’m almost positive there are passages dealing with men having “emissions” elsewhere in the OT. Being deemed “unclean” normally required a period of time to pass and then to undergo the prescribed cleansing ritual.

Read more at this link: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/niddah.html

Clarification about the above reference to Leviticus. Specifically, the following passages deal both with men and women, most from Leviticus and one from Deuteronomy –

Leviticus 15:16 "When a man has an emission of seed, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening."

Deut. 23:10-13 **" When you are in camp during an expedition against your enemies, you shall keep yourselves from everything offensive. If one of you becomes unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he shall go outside the camp, and not return until, toward evening, he has bathed in water; then, when the sun has set, he may come back into the camp. Outside the camp you shall have a place set aside to be used as a latrine." **

Leviticus 15:19-28 ** " When a woman has her menstrual flow, she shall be in a state of impurity for seven days. Anyone who touches her shall be unclean until evening. Anything on which she lies or sits during her impurity shall be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Whoever touches any article of furniture on which she was sitting, shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. But if she is on the bed or on the seat when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. If a man dares to lie with her, he contracts her impurity and shall be unclean for seven days; every bed on which he then lies also becomes unclean. "When a woman is afflicted with a flow of blood for several days outside her menstrual period, or when her flow continues beyond the ordinary period, as long as she suffers this unclean flow she shall be unclean, just as during her menstrual period. Any bed on which she lies during such a flow becomes unclean, as it would during her menstruation, and any article of furniture on which she sits becomes unclean just as during her menstruation. Anyone who touches them becomes unclean; he shall wash his garments, bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. “If she becomes freed from her affliction, she shall wait seven days, and only then is she to be purified.”**

Now, Leviticus is the book that usually gets severe criticism and ridicule from atheists and agnostics, moreso than just about any other book in the Bible, because of its many strange requirements/restrictions. Deuteronomy is also similar in many places in that regard. Its not really clear whether “unclean acts” described in both books = “sinful acts”, and because of the fact that menstruation, giving birth, and unconscious nocturnal emissions are all said to make one unclean, it can be safely concluded that at the very least, at least some unclean acts/actions described in those books cannot be equated with sin.

 

[Davy1412]

hey this is like the story of my life i lovve this websie its perfect…
this is the exact situation i ALWAYS fall into but through the grace of God i have seen the issues with my actions and have arrived at this website… i dont really think i can answer your questions for i struggle with the same thing but i do attend catholic schools and have taken quite a few classes on the part about the effect on God’s plan for us…
as you probably no God wants nothing but good for us but he gives us what we want even if it hurts us… He loves us that much… which is why God has hell because by choosing to disobey God we choose to turn away from Him and he gives us eternal separation from Him through hell. I hope this helps

 

[peary]

hello again…

a few months ago i posted a thread entitled ‘a new spin on a common question’ which dealt with masturbation, and many of you gave me wonderful answers. anyways since then i’ve been attempting to break the habit, but as can be expected i’ve fallen several times.

so, through reflection, i have come to realize that in my moments when i fall i have a sudden loss of faith; in short, nothing i have heard in the past is enough to convince me that it is a sin.

the two areas which i really doubt are as follows: how masturbation is contratry to natural law and how involved the Holy Spirit was in the Church when the Magisterium has proclaimed it to be a sin.

so please, help me with this…tell me the reasoning behind this teaching or your own personal reasons for rejecting it.

on a side note: how does mortal sin, such as masturbation, effect God’s plan for a person? does every mortal act somehow make our future more and more mutated from what God originally intended, or through a true confession and convergeance of heart will it be as though it never happened?

thank you!!

God did not design sex to be a solitary experience. It is supposed to be shared with another, and only in marriage. Sexuality is intended to be part of the complementary interaction of self-giving love between a man and a woman who are committed to one another for life. (See 1 Cor. 7:4 where the Bible states that husband and wife are to give up the right to their own bodies to one another in marriage). Within marriage the dynamic interplay between opposites can bring healing and wholeness for both the man and his wife. Sexual expression in any other context is destructive to wholeness. The Bible certainly shows that God is not against pleasure, but He wants us to say “no” to things that hurt us.

Sexual desires are most intense biologically speaking when we are young and not yet able to marry. The spiritual victory to be gained (with the help of the Lord Jesus) is one of self-control (1 Thess. 4:1-8) and an inner purity that constantly vitalizes one’s intimate personal relationship with Jesus the Bridegroom of the church. The Song of Solomon gives us a good picture not only of marriage but also of our individual relationship with Jesus Christ seen as a discipleship of love (Ref 2). God is working in us to produce wholeness and well-roundedness, a self-giving life style not a self-centered one. Previous generations of Christian leaders taught that instinctual energies could be sublimated and rechanneled into productive and creative actions in the world. This concept has largely disappeared in our time when the focus is on self, self-realization, and self-fulfillment.

So, to understand better, the Magisterium didn’t decide masturbation isinful; the Bible shows us that sex is never meant to be a solitary experience, but shared with wife or husband.

 

[Abu]

Since Jesus of Nazareth established His Church on Peter with primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility in teaching on faith and morals, the Holy Spirit is forever ensuring that no error can be taught by His Church on faith and morals. So there is no possibility of error in the doctrine against masturbation which supports reason. (CCC #2352).

We may refer:
Pope Pius XII, in Humani generis, spoke also of “that sound philosophy,” which, “acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind’s ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth. … Never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic.”(#29, 30)