Masturbation....Or not?

[DrFloyd]

Breathing is a biological urge, but it’s death to breathe in the wrong context, such as under water. If sex is a biological urge, it’s death to the soul to indulge it outside of the proper context of marriage.

Eating is also a biological urge, but it’s death to eat McDonald’s food every day. However, in small portions every now and then, eating that stuff is fine. I submit that masturbation is like McDonald’s food: it’s not good to engage in it for the wrong reasons (i.e., eating too much McD’s), but it is okay every now and then to engage in it to relieve the natural biological urge – ESPECIALLY if medical problems result from not doing so.

This doesn’t happen to everyone.

But it DOES happen to some people. So those people are supposed to simply say “well, 6,000 years ago Eve ate the apple, so now I am to endure suffering this when a simple action that hurts no one every now and then would relieve me of it…sucks to be me”?

There are lots of medical problems that people have that come from genetics or other conditions beyond our control. God didn’t give us the problems, they came as a result of the Fall, the choice of our first parents to sin. Continuing to sin is not the answer.

Whoever said it was? The sex drive is a biological urge, and masturbation is a safe effective way to relieve it.

Absolutely not. For one thing, confession is invalid without true contrition and a firm purpose of amendment. For another thing, even when it is valid, sin is still sin - it’s not okay just because we confess it. Sinning, figuring we can just go to confession, is adding on the sin of presumption on God’s mercy.

Then every single person who has ever confessed is doomed, following this line of logic. EVERYONE, at some point or another, has done this.

I’m certainly more offended by number 2! But you are blurring the lines between the Church’s actions and disciplines - the way people in the Church respond to various types of sin - and Church teachings on morality, which are Truth, Sacred Tradition, unchangeable.

Ah, yes, I was waiting for this to come up. I’ve heard it before as “The Church is made of humans, who are fallible, weak, and sin-prone, yet it itself is inviolable.” If the Church is made up of such fallible, weak, and sin-prone humans, then, BY DEFINITION, it itself will be “fallible, weak, and sin-prone”, as will its teachings. That is a logical conclusion.

The Church may or may not discipline properly, may or may not apply things consistently. But that does not change the fact that Truth is Truth, and much more than just rules. The Church’s teaching that masturbation is sinful and that molestation is sinful - these aren’t just rules, they are Truth. What the Church does procedurally with people who engage in those sins is a matter of discipline and is changeable (and not always handled correctly, obviously).

Say what? “What the Church does…is changeable?” How can the Church change the Truth? You are making no sense at all.

 

[whm]

Of course not. But you evaded my question, which was:

I am not interested in debating in straw man arguments.

You appear to be searching for reasons to justify this activity and looking for affirmation from others. The Church teaching is clear on this matter and you seem to have acknowledged this, but turn around and point other’s clear errors and sins as a reason to ignore Church teachings. It is sort of like saying the so and so appointed to the US Treasury or similar position didn’t pay their taxes so I won’t either. Both of you would be wrong, the tax code was not changed, the fact that somebody got away with something does not invalidate the code.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Then, by extension, it is natural to relieve it. It is inherently UN-natural to deny oneself the ability to relieve it, an ability which is safe and alleviates potential medical problems.

Yes. It is natural to relieve it. Did you not read my entire post before responding?
If one reads the information from pro-chastity groups, they find medical advantages to abstinence. From what I have read, some people will develop negative side effects to abstinence. They are not the majority. In most cases the body will adapt and none will occur. As an extreme example, some people will develop joint problems from kneeling in church. Should we not kneel because of a potential medical problem?

Following your logic here, we should also immediately stop eating and breathing. If those are natural desires, and the way of Christ is about overcoming said desires, then we should all overcome the natural desires to eat and breathe, too.

Again, I suspect that you did not read my entire post before responding. Your illogical extension of my thought seems completely provocative.

God also gave us the ability to use chemicals and surgical equipment, which can be used to castrate certain body parts, thus resulting in the complete elimination of those sexual desires. Why aren’t we using them for this purpose? Wouldn’t that be the logical thing to do? If the church truly wants their clergy and believers to use sexual desires in the proper way, then it is sensible they should mandate the use of such God-given gifts. Why aren’t they?

Again, your response seems provocative and inflammatory. Obviously, the natural laws of the church teach against chemical or physical mutilation.

Agreed, and that is why masturbation is a much better and safer alternative to relieving the natural sexual urge than, for example, having pre-marital sex, or taking advantage of young people of whom one has charge.

I agree that masturbation is not as sinful as fornication outside of marriage or pedophilia. The choice is not between the lesser of evils. The choice is between right and wrong.

 

[Lycorth]

Masturbation is playing with one’s self for sexual pleasure, regardless of if you complete the act or no. Either way, therefore, it’s a mortal sin and must be confessed. I pray you can overcome this; it took me 12+ years and it’s not easy work. But with the Lord and total submission to His will and graces, you can overcome anything, including this

 

[Bbigam]

Eating is also a biological urge, but it’s death to eat McDonald’s food every day. However, in small portions every now and then, eating that stuff is fine. I submit that masturbation is like McDonald’s food: it’s not good to engage in it for the wrong reasons (i.e., eating too much McD’s), but it is okay every now and then to engage in it to relieve the natural biological urge – ESPECIALLY if medical problems result from not doing so.

But it DOES happen to some people. So those people are supposed to simply say “well, 6,000 years ago Eve ate the apple, so now I am to endure suffering this when a simple action that hurts no one every now and then would relieve me of it…sucks to be me”?

Whoever said it was? The sex drive is a biological urge, and masturbation is a safe effective way to relieve it.

No, the problem is that it is not safe. It is mortal sin, which kills the life of Christ in the soul and separates us from God’s sanctifying grace.

Then every single person who has ever confessed is doomed, following this line of logic. EVERYONE, at some point or another, has done this.

No, I never said that everyone was doomed as a result of this. Nor does validly confessing and then doing it again invalidate the previous confession. Confessing with no intent to change our ways invalidates the absolution. And absolution does not make sin okay - it removes the eternal punishment for sin. Big difference.

Ah, yes, I was waiting for this to come up. I’ve heard it before as “The Church is made of humans, who are fallible, weak, and sin-prone, yet it itself is inviolable.” If the Church is made up of such fallible, weak, and sin-prone humans, then, BY DEFINITION, it itself will be “fallible, weak, and sin-prone”, as will its teachings. That is a logical conclusion.

Christ told St. Peter that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. So the Church itself will not fall into error as far as dogmatic teaching on faith and morals.

Say what? “What the Church does…is changeable?” How can the Church change the Truth? You are making no sense at all.

You evidently did not read what I actually wrote. Here it is again for convenience:

But you are blurring the lines between the Church’s actions and disciplines - the way people in the Church respond to various types of sin - and Church teachings on morality, which are Truth, Sacred Tradition, unchangeable. The Church may or may not discipline properly, may or may not apply things consistently. But that does not change the fact that Truth is Truth, and much more than just rules. The Church’s teaching that masturbation is sinful and that molestation is sinful - these aren’t just rules, they are Truth. What the Church does procedurally with people who engage in those sins is a matter of discipline and is changeable (and not always handled correctly, obviously).

I said clearly here that the Church cannot change Truth. The Church can change discipline, including the details for how it deals with with sin and sinners. As an example, in case you’re still not following me:

1. Child molestation is sin. This is Truth Unchangeable, taught by the Church.
2. Child molesting priests should be dismissed from the clerical state (“defrocked”). This is discipline and changeable, and might not always be properly applied, but it doesn’t change the truth of 1.

 

[DrFloyd]

I am not interested in debating in straw man arguments.

Call it what you will. You raised a point, I asked a question about that point, and you ignored it. Why?

You appear to be searching for reasons to justify this activity and looking for affirmation from others.

Nope, not at all. I originally started discussing this to point out the ridiculous idea of how someone will be condemned to hell forever for relieving a biological urge in a relatively innocuous way. People may as well be condemned to hell for having dessert, too. After all, food is necessary; a brownie at the end of lunch is not.

I am also pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church not enforcing their own rules in one area (defrocking pedophile priests), but allowing other rules to stand. That is playing games. Either ALL the rules should be enforced, or none should. This playing around piecemeal idea is wrong when you’re talking about peoples’ spiritual states.

The Church teaching is clear on this matter and you seem to have acknowledged this, but turn around and point other’s clear errors and sins as a reason to ignore Church teachings.

And why not? The Church is not enforcing THEIR OWN RULES AND LAWS!!! That makes them hypocritical. Again, either they ALL should be enforced, or none should be. Piecemealing is playing games with peoples’ souls. Why should I be obligated to follow them all when the Church itself does not?

It is sort of like saying the so and so appointed to the US Treasury or similar position didn’t pay their taxes so I won’t either. Both of you would be wrong, the tax code was not changed, the fact that somebody got away with something does not invalidate the code.

The U.S. government doesn’t claim a spiritual mandate; the Catholic Church does. Your comparison is invalid.

 

[DrFloyd]

Yes. It is natural to relieve it. Did you not read my entire post before responding?

I did. And you just agreed with me it is natural to relieve it. So what should a single man, unmarried (with no desire to get married) do in order to relieve it? Nothing? Succumb to the potential medical problems that it brings about, and do nothing in response to them?

If one reads the information from pro-chastity groups, they find medical advantages to abstinence. From what I have read, some people will develop negative side effects to abstinence. They are not the majority. In most cases the body will adapt and none will occur.

If you say so. Do you have links to medical records to back up your supposition of this adaption?

As an extreme example, some people will develop joint problems from kneeling in church. Should we not kneel because of a potential medical problem?

Many older people do not, because they are frail and have trouble moving. Are you saying they should kneel anyway, even though it is very difficult for them to do so?

Again, I suspect that you did not read my entire post before responding. Your illogical extension of my thought seems completely provocative.

My thoughts are always logical. This is what you said, then what I said:

If the question is whether being natural makes it good, the answer is no. The desire for venereal pleasure stems from our lower faculties as do the desires for food, air, and almost all pleasure. The way of Christ is about overcoming the natural desires. That is what separates us from animals.

"DrFloyd:

Following your logic here, we should also immediately stop eating and breathing. If those are natural desires, and the way of Christ is about overcoming said desires, then we should all overcome the natural desires to eat and breathe, too.

You specifically said “the way of Christ is about overcoming the natural desires”. I read what YOU typed. Eating and breathing are natural desires. So, obviously, following your logic, eating and breathing should also be overcome. I am simply following that thought to its logical conclusion. Why do you term it illogical? What about it is?

Again, your response seems provocative and inflammatory.

“Provocative and imflammatory” would be calling people names. I am not doing that.

Obviously, the natural laws of the church teach against chemical or physical mutilation.

Is this in Canon Law? If so, where?

It seems reasonable that God granted us the gifts of surgical equipment and chemical manipulation, and we should use those gifts to eliminate the natural sexual urge that he also gave us. Is that not using the tools at our disposal to ensure that sexual misdeeds do not occur?

I agree that masturbation is not as sinful as fornication outside of marriage or pedophilia. The choice is not between the lesser of evils. The choice is between right and wrong.

So why does the Church not follow their own rules to the letter, but expect me to do so? That is piecemealing, and playing games with peoples’ souls. That isn’t right; it’s wrong.

 

[DrFloyd]

No, the problem is that it is not safe. It is mortal sin, which kills the life of Christ in the soul and separates us from God’s sanctifying grace.

Did Christ himself say this? Are we 100% positive on this? Can you prove it?

No, I never said that everyone was doomed as a result of this. Nor does validly confessing and then doing it again invalidate the previous confession. Confessing with no intent to change our ways invalidates the absolution. And absolution does not make sin okay - it removes the eternal punishment for sin. Big difference.

What or who determines what a sin is? God? The Church? If the latter, where is the Master List of Sins I can consult? Virtually ANYTHING can be a sin. Thus, everyone is ALWAYS in a state of sin, and can NEVER absolve themselves of all of them. Now, if there is a neat Master List of Sins to consult, then we would know what they are so that we don’t commit them.

Christ told St. Peter that the Gates of Hades will not prevail against the Church. So the Church itself will not fall into error as far as dogmatic teaching on faith and morals.

There have been times in history when the Church committed murder in the name of Christ. That was morally righteous?

You evidently did not read what I actually wrote. Here it is again for convenience:

But you are blurring the lines between the Church’s actions and disciplines - the way people in the Church respond to various types of sin - and Church teachings on morality, which are Truth, Sacred Tradition, unchangeable. The Church may or may not discipline properly, may or may not apply things consistently. But that does not change the fact that Truth is Truth, and much more than just rules. The Church’s teaching that masturbation is sinful and that molestation is sinful - these aren’t just rules, they are Truth. What the Church does procedurally with people who engage in those sins is a matter of discipline and is changeable (and not always handled correctly, obviously).

I said clearly here that the Church cannot change Truth. The Church can change discipline, including the details for how it deals with with sin and sinners. As an example, in case you’re still not following me:

1. Child molestation is sin. This is Truth Unchangeable, taught by the Church.
2. Child molesting priests should be dismissed from the clerical state (“defrocked”). This is discipline and changeable, and might not always be properly applied, but it doesn’t change the truth of 1.

Fine, but the Church is clearly violating its own laws and rules. Why is it okay for the Church to do so, but not for me to? It is hypocritical for the Church to do one thing, then expect you to do another…especially since it claims a spiritual mandate directly from God.

 

[Lycorth]

Did Christ himself say this? Are we 100% positive on this? Can you prove it?

Through His Church, Christ said it.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
*
2352 By **masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
*
*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. *

Note that while there are of course factors that can lessen an individual’s moral guilt, masturbation itself is still a sin and still condemned.

What or who determines what a sin is? God? The Church? If the latter, where is the Master List of Sins I can consult? Virtually ANYTHING can be a sin. Thus, everyone is ALWAYS in a state of sin, and can NEVER absolve themselves of all of them. Now, if there is a neat Master List of Sins to consult, then we would know what they are so that we don’t commit them.

We have two thousand years of Church teaching; a Master List would be just as easily ignored.

Then again, there already were such Lists - look up the Seven Deadly Sins on Wikipedia. I’m not a huge fan of Wikipedia as a primary source, but the entries for that were sound the last time I referenced them and go into at least some detail concerning the history and formation of them.

However, there is no one, all-encompassing Master List of Sins; Christ requires faith, not mere readings of rules sheets, and faith requires us to heed what we are told and then believe. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has already dogmatically defined masturbation and condemned its sinfulness. This should be sufficient.

There have been times in history when the Church committed murder in the name of Christ. That was morally righteous?

No - no sin can be excused, not murder nor masturbation.

Fine, but the Church is clearly violating its own laws and rules. Why is it okay for the Church to do so, but not for me to? It is hypocritical for the Church to do one thing, then expect you to do another…especially since it claims a spiritual mandate directly from God.

No one is saying that churchmen get to violate the rules of the Church. Profligates have always been a problem in the ranks of the Church the same as they have been in the ranks of virtually every other institution in history.

The teachings of the Church must be adhered to, regardless of how much the shepherds themselves may fail. Those teachings come from the Lord and are free from error, binding upon all Catholics. Sin must be suppressed but that can never, ever excuse disobedience from established dogmatic teaching on our part. To do so only compounds the errors and sins of churchmen (the majority of whom do not engage in sexual abuse, the majority of cases of which happened decades ago) as well as our own.

 

[presidentjlh]

Masturbation is a grave matter, even if it doesn’t result in ejaculation. But your culpability can be reduced by youth, habit, anxiety, other things. Only your confessor can determine your culpability

About a year and a half ago, I was told by my confessor that it is a venial sin for me (due to youth, habit, and anxiety, actually) While I’ve continued to confess the sin, I am guessing by now that I have full culpability for the sin.

 

[DrFloyd]

Through His Church, Christ said it.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
*
2352* By *masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
*
*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. *

Note that while there are of course factors that can lessen an individual’s moral guilt, masturbation itself is still a sin and still condemned.

Tell me, when was rule #2352 promulgated? An approximate date?

We have two thousand years of Church teaching; a Master List would be just as easily ignored.

Why? It would be clear as to what is a sin and what is not. Without such a list, ambiguity exists.

Then again, there already were such Lists - look up the Seven Deadly Sins on Wikipedia. I’m not a huge fan of Wikipedia as a primary source, but the entries for that were sound the last time I referenced them and go into at least some detail concerning the history and formation of them.

So there’s only seven? That doesn’t seem too bad. But wait – how is gluttony defined? Is it gluttonous for me to eat a steak when I could get by with bread? If not, why not?

Years ago I went to a seminary open house and they had ALL of this food available, it was a huge banquet. I was disgusted by all of the food available; it clearly struck me as gluttonous. Why would the Church actively promote gluttony? The Diocese of Scranton did at their Vocations Weekend on Sunday, March 29, 1998. Is that not a sin? It certainly seemed sinful to me.

However, there is no one, all-encompassing Master List of Sins; Christ requires faith, not mere readings of rules sheets, and faith requires us to heed what we are told and then believe. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has already dogmatically defined masturbation and condemned its sinfulness. This should be sufficient.

What if my personal interpretation of faith is otherwise? I just outlined how in my personal interpretation, what I witnessed at the Vocations Weekend was gluttonous. In the view of others, it was not; in my view, it was. Why is it okay for there to be a different opinion of faith on gluttony, but not masturbation?

No - no sin can be excused, not murder nor masturbation.

So why did the Church engage in clearly sinful acts? Such as murdering people in Antioch during the Crusades? Didn’t the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, deem it okay to do so? Why has the moral righteousness on that now changed? I thought the Truth never did.

No one is saying that churchmen get to violate the rules of the Church. Profligates have always been a problem in the ranks of the Church the same as they have been in the ranks of virtually every other institution in history.

If the churchmen aren’t allowed to violate the rules of the Church, then why were they kept on when they clearly did immoral things which goes against the Catechism AND their personal vows of celibacy?

The teachings of the Church must be adhered to, regardless of how much the shepherds themselves may fail. Those teachings come from the Lord and are free from error, binding upon all Catholics. Sin must be suppressed but that can never, ever excuse disobedience from established dogmatic teaching on our part.

Again, I ask the question I did above – at what point in time did rule #2352 become the dogmatic teaching of the Church?

To do so only compounds the errors and sins of churchmen (the majority of whom do not engage in sexual abuse, the majority of cases of which happened decades ago) as well as our own.

Whether it was a small or large number and whether or not it happened decades ago is irrelevant. Why should the passage of time be a factor?

Here’s something which is going on right now: according to a number of surveys, anywhere from 15% to 50% of all current seminarians are homosexual. But, wait – the Church doesn’t allow homosexual men to become priests. What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Lycorth]

Masturbation is a grave matter, even if it doesn’t result in ejaculation. But your culpability can be reduced by youth, habit, anxiety, other things. Only your confessor can determine your culpability

About a year and a half ago, I was told by my confessor that it is a venial sin for me (due to youth, habit, and anxiety, actually) While I’ve continued to confess the sin, I am guessing by now that I have full culpability for the sin.

Well-said.

I masturbated like crazy in my youth. I imagine that the Lord would have considered my culpability next to nil since I did not know that it was a sinful act, was not taught by anyone that it was sinful (to the best of my recollection), and it never occurred to me to study Catholic teaching. But when I finally began taking my faith seriously and studying Church teaching, I learned the then-unpleasant truth and became more responsible for my own actions as I embarked (rather shoddily, I must say) upon the path to reform.

It still took over 12 years to finally get the monkey off my back; might have happened sooner had I not slipped into total apostasy for a few years, but my return to the faith has been marked, among other things, by this. I am still surprised at how easily I’ve given up masturbation since coming back and can only conclude that it’s the Lord at work; back then, it was all me. No wonder I failed at breaking the habit.

Definitely not an easy thing, but definitely a possible thing.

 

[MtnDwellar]

You specifically said “the way of Christ is about overcoming the natural desires”. I read what YOU typed. Eating and breathing are natural desires. So, obviously, following your logic, eating and breathing should also be overcome. I am simply following that thought to its logical conclusion. Why do you term it illogical? What about it is?

While I did make that statement, further in my post I said that we had to keep them in check. I clearly did not mean that we are to overcome breathing. You took one statement out of context and extrapolated it to an absurd point.

Clearly you are not trying to develop a better understanding and rather it seems that you want a debate. I am ok with debating, but not under these circumstances. I will no longer reply to you.

 

[Bbigam]

Tell me, when was rule #2352 promulgated? An approximate date?

The Catechism in which that appears as 2352 came out in 1994; however, it merely clearly states what has been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years.

Why? It would be clear as to what is a sin and what is not. Without such a list, ambiguity exists.

Because it’s just not that simple. According to Catechism 1849:

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

So there’s only seven? That doesn’t seem too bad. But wait – how is gluttony defined? Is it gluttonous for me to eat a steak when I could get by with bread? If not, why not?

Years ago I went to a seminary open house and they had ALL of this food available, it was a huge banquet. I was disgusted by all of the food available; it clearly struck me as gluttonous. Why would the Church actively promote gluttony? The Diocese of Scranton did at their Vocations Weekend on Sunday, March 29, 1998. Is that not a sin? It certainly seemed sinful to me.

What if my personal interpretation of faith is otherwise? I just outlined how in my personal interpretation, what I witnessed at the Vocations Weekend was gluttonous. In the view of others, it was not; in my view, it was. Why is it okay for there to be a different opinion of faith on gluttony, but not masturbation?

Well, gluttony is about ridiculous excesses, and the catechism doesn’t define exactly what the line is there. So there’s room for interpretation. But it does define exactly what masturbation is and that it’s a sin.

So why did the Church engage in clearly sinful acts? Such as murdering people in Antioch during the Crusades? Didn’t the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, deem it okay to do so? Why has the moral righteousness on that now changed? I thought the Truth never did.

If the churchmen aren’t allowed to violate the rules of the Church, then why were they kept on when they clearly did immoral things which goes against the Catechism AND their personal vows of celibacy?

Again, I ask the question I did above – at what point in time did rule #2352 become the dogmatic teaching of the Church?

Whether it was a small or large number and whether or not it happened decades ago is irrelevant. Why should the passage of time be a factor?

Here’s something which is going on right now: according to a number of surveys, anywhere from 15% to 50% of all current seminarians are homosexual. But, wait – the Church doesn’t allow homosexual men to become priests. What is wrong with this picture?

Truth never changes. People do change and people are fallible. The Church will never define as infallible teaching something that is false, but people in the Church do make bad decisions.

 

[aperture]

About a year and a half ago, I was told by my confessor that it is a venial sin for me (due to youth, habit, and anxiety, actually) While I’ve continued to confess the sin, I am guessing by now that I have full culpability for the sin.

What qualifies as youth? Age or maturity?

 

[Mamanurse]

I can’t imagine anyone actually bringing this up on a Catholic forum at all. Like being in church and sitting next to an old lady and asking her if she does “the deed” BLASPHEMY

I hope you are joking by saying this is blasphemy…where else can you go to get advise from other Cathlics like yourself without seeing a priest? I think its great that we are able to pose these kind of questions and get (name removed by moderator)ut from other catholic lay people…IDK where you are coming from I guess.

 

[KC91]

I have avoided it for quite a while through fear of the possible consequences (divine revenge, and the possibility of dying in a state of mortal sin - hell - if I suddenly got run over by a car or something)

 

[whm]

Call it what you will. You raised a point, I asked a question about that point, and you ignored it. Why?

2+2 = 4 , but 4 doesn’t mean it okay to masturbate. But I have though about it a bit(was the question does the urge ever completely go away?), if one has the proper perspective on the purpose their sexuality. (the ability to procreate in marriage) then the desire is well ordered and their is no desire or urge to masturbate, fornicate etc. This observation, I base on my experience. When I have “my mind right” (Cool Hand Luke reference) months or even years at a time without disordered desires/urges.

Nope, not at all. I originally started discussing this to point out the ridiculous idea of how someone will be condemned to hell forever for relieving a biological urge in a relatively innocuous way. People may as well be condemned to hell for having dessert, too. After all, food is necessary; a brownie at the end of lunch is not.

Fair enough, I take your word for it. It just came across like somebody trying to justify themselves, but forum posting can often give the wrong impression.

I would submit that the “biological urge” is not to masturbate, it is to reproduce. Masturbation is a perversion of that natural urge. The porn industry feeds on this perversion.

I am also pointing out the hypocrisy of the Church not enforcing their own rules in one area (defrocking pedophile priests), but allowing other rules to stand. That is playing games. Either ALL the rules should be enforced, or none should. This playing around piecemeal idea is wrong when you’re talking about peoples’ spiritual states.

Is defrocking priests a rule? It is a remedy, but is it an automatic requirement under canon law? I honestly don’t know and haven’t heard that. I do know it is something that is very reluctantly done. I also know that the Church doesn’t announce it to the world when it does do it. It is much more willing to restrict a priest of all public ministry. The difference between the two is a “red herring” for the media to froth over. That being said those who knowingly and willfully protect, hide or otherwise allow a child abuser to have access to abuse again, are gravely violating Church teachings. We are not called to be like that, we are all called to as heroic as Mother Teresa, all of us. This is the culmination of Church teachings. There are a lot of people in and out of the Church that aren’t living with that kind of selflessness and love for others and for God (me included).

And why not? The Church is not enforcing THEIR OWN RULES AND LAWS!!! That makes them hypocritical. Again, either they ALL should be enforced, or none should be. Piecemealing is playing games with peoples’ souls. Why should I be obligated to follow them all when the Church itself does not?

Masturbation is a moral issue, not a canon law issue. You asked about the origin of the teaching and quotes from the bible, here are a few to ponder:

Matt 5:28-30 (Jesus speaking) But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

Eph 5:3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

1Th 4:2-8 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God… For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.

1 Peter 4:1-2 Since, then, Christ suffered in the flesh, you also must arm yourselves with a determination to do the same–because he who has suffered in the flesh has done with sin–that in the future you may spend the rest of your earthly lives, governed not by human passions, but by the will of God.

The U.S. government doesn’t claim a spiritual mandate; the Catholic Church does. Your comparison is invalid.

“one nation under God” “In God we Trust”

 

[KC91]

Recently I felt tempted to do it but felt a voice within me telling me not to and I felt a pang of fear and didn’t do it. Evidence enough that God dosen’t like masturbation.

Also when thinking about it’s real nature masturbation loses it’s appeal; it is basically having sex with yourself.

 

[whm]

Also when thinking about it’s real nature masturbation loses it’s appeal; it is basically having sex with yourself.

Good point.