Masturbation while deployed to Iraq.

[Mirror_Mirror]

I spoke with a priest in confession on the “mortal sin” parts and he was sitting there reading the Catechism himself when I walked in. Even he said it is not totally clear on exactly what is mortal and the things required to be declared mortal, as everyone so often quotes here.

It is the same as I have mentioned before - there are mutiple levels to this issue and it absolutely is NOT as black and white as everyone would like to quote. Especially for guys in Raider’s situation. DO NOT put a guilt trip on him or cause more confusion or emotional distress by insinuating it is always a mortal sin. He needs to go see a priest on the ground, not via CAF.

I’ve been there, done that. If you haven’t, please offer prayers not text and condemnation.

Let me emphasize that I am not placing a guilt trip on him, I am explaining the truth of the church, that is all. I am not discounting the fact that it is difficult. I have not been oversees, I have not fought for our country, but I have been away from my wife. I have been tempted by sexual sin. You can chose to give into that temptation or you can choose to not. All I am saying is that given the situation, does that really dismiss him or anyone from the sin being mortal? Let us call it what it is and not shy away from it. It is a mortal sin. Again, as has been stated, culpability can be minimized, but not eliminated.

I am not condemning anyone, however, Raider came to CAF looking for answers, what are we as fellow Catholics (fellow Christians) supposed to do. Put our arm around him and say that if you feel that it is okay then go ahead?

Again, it is up to each person to choose what path they want to walk on. I choose to error on the side of caution, seeing that God said masturbation is wrong, I follow. Same goes for any other sin. Now in my weakness I will fall into sin (not masturbation), but I am aware of that sin and know the consequences.

Please do not take my posts as pointing the finger or judging another person, that is not my reason for posting. I am not here to judge, I am here to provide information.

I agree that talking with your priest is a great way, but you must realize that you may get 10 different answers from 10 different priests. It is possible and that must be considered.

 

[searching06]

To be fair, I do not think anyone would claim to know who is or is not culpable for any mortal sin under any circumstance. That is God’s job.

But, some actions like the one discussed here are objectively wrong. That does not mean certain factors will not reduce culpablity. It also does not mean we should tell our neighbor they have a green light to continue to act as they are and not try to ask God for the grace to stop.

Can we agree the answer is to seek out a priest, but also can we agree the answer can never include to counsel one to continue on doing what one is doing?

Let’s also agree to stop being the ones who determine the interpretation of the definition of “mortal” (because even all priests do not agree), stop with the everything’s black and white answers, and agree that he needs to fight the good fight. God and a priest will take care of the rest.

 

[fix]

Let’s also agree to stop being the ones who determine the interpretation of the definition of “mortal” (because even all priests do not agree), stop with the everything’s black and white answers, and agree that he needs to fight the good fight. God and a priest will take care of the rest.

Perhaps I am not being clear? The act of masturbation is objectively evil. Personal culpability varies and I am not in charge of it.

Robbing a bank at gunpoint is always wrong. How culpable one is we do not know. Perhaps they have a brain tumor or some such thing. That means they probably are not culpable for that sin, but objectively the act is very wrong.

And I am using mortal sin in the traditional sense of objective versus subjective mortal sin.

 

[searching06]

Perhaps I am not being clear? The act of masturbation is objectively evil. Personal culpability varies and I am not in charge of it.

Robbing a bank at gunpoint is always wrong. How culpable one is we do not know. Perhaps they have a brain tumor or some such thing. That means they probably are not culpable for that sin, but objectively the act is very wrong.

And I am using mortal sin in the traditional sense of objective versus subjective mortal sin.

I guess this is my point on every one of the posts in any thread that keeps hammering “grave” and “disordered” and “evil”. Enough already, everyone gets it, and no one is arguing those parts. It is the application and interpretation within the context of a situation that makes all the difference in the world. Do you/anyone think it is of help to any individual already struggling with the question to get beaten over the head on line by people who have no idea what they’re going through, but quote the Catechism and suggest that everything not in line is evil and we’re all going to hell? It doesn’t help, lends no credibility to what is said, and causes confusion when someone goes to a priest (or two or three) and gets different answers anyway. State what the Catechism says, direct someone to where it is, leave out what amounts to personal interpretations (everyone in general, not just you specifically), and pray for them.

 

[TimOliv]

I agree that he should consult a priest, but how does that change the truth of the teachings of the church? When you say that “you may not be fully culpable” does that give him the right to go ahead and masturbate? Whether a priest says that culpability is dimished, it is not ever eliminated and the act is still a mortal sin, correct?

Just looking for clarification.

But of course, I will borrow a quotation used earlier by one of my boardmates here…

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (CCC)

The main issue here is deliberate consent. We cannot know exactly how deliberate the OP’s consent is, simply because, first of all, we only have a portion of the story, and second of all, we should not be making a spiritual diagnosis for another person unless we are that person’s confessor anyway.

The OP is in a war zone and, as such, could be in a mental state where masturbation has become a compulsion. This could be an adaptive measure as a way of coping with combat stress.

In this case, a mortal sin would not be committed because he commits the sin without deliberate consent.

However, I am certain that someone is going to repost the church’s teaching on masturbation being a disordered condition and go on a rant about how now we can classify everything as “compulsion” and feel justified.

To answer your question in short, diminished culpability could mean the sin is not mortal.

Incidentally, unless you are God, there is no way you can declare any sin to be a mortal sin, regardless of its nature. Even a priest runs the risk of mis diagnosis since he cannot get into the head of a person and determine their intent and knowledge at the time of the commission of sin. For this reason, we all need to get off the “Masturbation is a mortal sin” kick, opting instead for “masturbation can be a mortal sin, go talk to your priest.”

 

[setter]

Raider, keep in mind that these forums lean heavily towards the conservative side, so expect conservative answers which doesn’t necessarily make it always right.

I offer orthodox (name removed by moderator)ut, i.e., not personal opinion or my own subjective experience as gospel, but what the Church teaches as true and expected from a faithful follower of Jesus Christ.

I realize the hard liners will debate and quote catechisms all day long, but I’d really encourage everyone to stop and think about what type of situation this guy is in.

Your direct implication being that the Catechism of the Catholic Church need not apply …more of a situational ethics for code of conduct?

We all have no idea what kind of stress these soldiers are under, fighting for our country and faced with mortal peril on a daily basis. He’s been away from his wife for almost a year, and will only be able to come back home after 16 months! Cut him some slack. I’d have an extremely difficult time seeing how this guy is culpable of mortal sin in this case. I’d be interested to see what the priest has to say about the matter.

I do not see anyone acussing this Catholic soldier of mortal sin.

I think you’re making the best out of a bad situation.

God does not ask for our personal best, but our faithfulness and reliance on His grace to live the life of holiness that He calls each believer to …He has made all the provision to overcome any difficulty or situation by dying on the Cross for us.

God judges every man’s heart, and somehow, if you were to die tomorrow (God forbid!) I think Jesus would be very understanding of your situation. It sounds like you’re just trying your best to keep the relationship going under some very difficult circumstances. God bless you for what you’re doing and may He keep you safe.

This reeks of the sin of presumption. You offer a false gospel of compromise and self-reliance. Believers are called to walk the supernatural life, which is only possible through the grace of God.

“Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” Mark 10: 27

“For with God nothing will be impossible." Luke 1: 37

“And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,” Colossians 1: 9-11

 

[fix]

I guess this is my point on every one of the posts in any thread that keeps hammering “grave” and “disordered” and “evil”. Enough already, everyone gets it, and no one is arguing those parts. It is the application and interpretation within the context of a situation that makes all the difference in the world. Do you/anyone think it is of help to any individual already struggling with the question to get beaten over the head on line by people who have no idea what they’re going through, but quote the Catechism and suggest that everything not in line is evil and we’re all going to hell? It doesn’t help, lends no credibility to what is said, and causes confusion when someone goes to a priest (or two or three) and gets different answers anyway. State what the Catechism says, direct someone to where it is, leave out what amounts to personal interpretations (everyone in general, not just you specifically), and pray for them.

I really fail to understand your point? You are imputing bad motives to people when their words say the opposite of what you claim.

Now, you may not like the plain “tone” that you perceive in some posts, but that does not make what is in those posts wrong, confusing, or unhelpful.

I may argue that some posts clearly try to undermine the teaching in an attempt to appear pastoral. The teaching in the CCC, as one example, is not some pie in the sky ideal that we leave in a dusty old book. It is the truth and the words reveal to us how to act and how not to act. We are interested because we want to please God.

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the OP. I hope and pray he receives wise and holy counsel. That does not mean others who read these posts should be given false impressions about what is expected of each of us.

 

[BrownR]

I guess this is my point on every one of the posts in any thread that keeps hammering “grave” and “disordered” and “evil”. Enough already, everyone gets it, and no one is arguing those parts. It is the application and interpretation within the context of a situation that makes all the difference in the world. Do you/anyone think it is of help to any individual already struggling with the question to get beaten over the head on line by people who have no idea what they’re going through, but quote the Catechism and suggest that everything not in line is evil and we’re all going to hell? It doesn’t help, lends no credibility to what is said, and causes confusion when someone goes to a priest (or two or three) and gets different answers anyway. State what the Catechism says, direct someone to where it is, leave out what amounts to personal interpretations (everyone in general, not just you specifically), and pray for them.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

But of course, I will borrow a quotation used earlier by one of my boardmates here…

The main issue here is deliberate consent. We cannot know exactly how deliberate the OP’s consent is, simply because, first of all, we only have a portion of the story, and second of all, we should not be making a spiritual diagnosis for another person unless we are that person’s confessor anyway.

The OP is in a war zone and, as such, could be in a mental state where masturbation has become a compulsion. This could be an adaptive measure as a way of coping with combat stress.

In this case, a mortal sin would not be committed because he commits the sin without deliberate consent.

However, I am certain that someone is going to repost the church’s teaching on masturbation being a disordered condition and go on a rant about how now we can classify everything as “compulsion” and feel justified.

To answer your question in short, diminished culpability could mean the sin is not mortal.

Incidentally, unless you are God, there is no way you can declare any sin to be a mortal sin, regardless of its nature. Even a priest runs the risk of mis diagnosis since he cannot get into the head of a person and determine their intent and knowledge at the time of the commission of sin. For this reason, we all need to get off the “Masturbation is a mortal sin” kick, opting instead for “masturbation can be a mortal sin, go talk to your priest.”

Maybe I missed something, but since he is in Iraq, that means that the way he deals with the stress is to masturbate, therefore, he does not consent to it?

If it is an compulsion, does that change the fact that it is still a mortal sin? As it has been stated it lessens/diminishes the culpability of that sin, it does not get rid of it.

Let me also state that I never EVER claimed to be God or claim to know what God will use in judgement of a person. I am simply following the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So tell me, based upon your logic, there is a chance that abortion could be a venial sin? Well you know with the pressure that a family may be putting on someone, all the stress that is involved, right? Then you could see how this could not be mortal, right?

 

[setter]

NOT EVERYTHING which is in the Catechism on this issue is as black/white as some posters will say, that according to a priest I’ve spoken to as well; you do have to take into consideration your situation and circumstances

DO NOT get wrapped up into this over what type of sin or how bad or trying to interpret the Catechism, or even what everyone here has to say (I get different answers from priests let alone everyone on this board!).

Not that you will accept this, since I am citing the CCC, but this is what the Church teaches:

**1754 **The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (CCC)

Pray, do your best not to sin, but also realize that others (especailly soldiers) understand.

You may have greater empathy, but how does this at all change what is right or wrong?

 

[searching06]

Holy ****! The last posts from fix and mirror mirror are EXACTLY what the problem is with boards like these. Yes, you point out what the Catechism says and what God expects, and no one is disagreeing. And your motives may be all well and good.

But the question of consent is a perfect example - are you inside anyone’s head at any given point to determine just how hard they may be fighting anything, to where you can say automatically that they gave consent because they sinned? Have you ever sinned after trying not to? Let’s not throw the first stone, folks.

And trying to compare this to abortion? That logic is flawed, or a leap at best. Let’s stay away from “moral equivalency”.

And the comment on compulsion - goes back to who’s defining and interpreting “mortal” - I say again, not everything is black and white. To sit there and say that something is “mortal” because the Catechism defines “mortal” with the requirements it does, either without knowing or with trying to separate it from what is going on inside someone’s head (tying in mitigation and culpability) is flawed as well - and comes across as passing judgement, not educating. Same argument I had with chevalier. Has nothing to do with plain talk or tone.

 

[searching06]

Not that you will accept this, since I am citing the CCC, but this is what the Church teaches:

**1754 **The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (CCC)

You may have greater empathy, but how does this at all change what is right or wrong?

It doesn’t and no one is trying to make it so. “Circumstances cannot change the …act”, but neither can you separate the circumstances or situation from the act, which is how things come across.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Holy ****! The last posts from fix and mirror mirror are EXACTLY what the problem is with boards like these. Yes, you point out what the Catechism says and what God expects, and no one is disagreeing. And your motives may be all well and good.

But the question of consent is a perfect example - are you inside anyone’s head at any given point to determine just how hard they may be fighting anything, to where you can say automatically that they gave consent because they sinned? Have you ever sinned after trying not to? Let’s not throw the first stone, folks.

And trying to compare this to abortion? That logic is flawed, or a leap at best. Let’s stay away from “moral equivalency”.

And the comment on compulsion - goes back to who’s defining and interpreting “mortal” - I say again, not everything is black and white. To sit there and say that something is “mortal” because the Catechism defines “mortal” with the requirements it does, either without knowing or with trying to separate it from what is going on inside someone’s head (tying in mitigation and culpability) is flawed as well - and comes across as passing judgement, not educating. Same argument I had with chevalier. Has nothing to do with plain talk or tone.

Again, let us remember that the OP brought this to the CAF, we did not bring it to him. He wants the opinion of the Catholic Church and that is being presented.

“Mortal sin exists when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered.”

Now you are touching on the “full consent” part of a sin being mortal. Tell me how when one decides to perform an act, they do not give full consent? Aside from mental illness.

“Masturbation—“Masturbation is the deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs in order to derive sexual pleasure” (CCC 2352). The Church teaches that sex has two main purposes that must be sought in the marriage act: sex is for reproduction of children within a valid marriage, and it is a loving, unifying act between husband and wife. Masturbation violates both aspects of the natural law and is thus a grave sin.”

Mortal sins cannot be done “accidentally.” Any one who commits a mortal sin is someone who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. Therefore this means that mortal sins are “premeditated” by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.

How is there no consent in this case?

 

[fix]

Holy ****! The last posts from fix and mirror mirror are EXACTLY what the problem is with boards like these. Yes, you point out what the Catechism says and what God expects, and no one is disagreeing. And your motives may be all well and good.

But the question of consent is a perfect example - are you inside anyone’s head at any given point to determine just how hard they may be fighting anything, to where you can say automatically that they gave consent because they sinned? Have you ever sinned after trying not to? Let’s not throw the first stone, folks.

And trying to compare this to abortion? That logic is flawed, or a leap at best. Let’s stay away from “moral equivalency”.

And the comment on compulsion - goes back to who’s defining and interpreting “mortal” - I say again, not everything is black and white. To sit there and say that something is “mortal” because the Catechism defines “mortal” with the requirements it does, either without knowing or with trying to separate it from what is going on inside someone’s head (tying in mitigation and culpability) is flawed as well - and comes across as passing judgement, not educating. Same argument I had with chevalier. Has nothing to do with plain talk or tone.

I specifically said only God decides who is culpable for any sin. One more time, no one may try to judge anyone’s conscience. That one may be non culpable for committing an intrinsically disordered act does not change the object of the act. It may lessen or remove culpability, but such an act is still disordered.

… Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131…

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; *per se *and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. “As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?”.134

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

.

Now, you apparently do not like to be reminded that some acts are disordered. I think it is important to keep in mind the magnitude of what we are doing. If one is scrupulous or has some authentic habit that diminishes personal culpability that is one thing, but why try to minimize the wrongness of the action?

 

[setter]

It doesn’t and no one is trying to make it so. “Circumstances cannot change the …act”, but neither can you separate the circumstances or situation from the act, which is how things come across.

But God made us rational and free will beings. If someone becomes a “slave” to vice or sin, then they have recourse to God’s grace to become free. Also, maturity and understanding are co-factors in weighing culpability. I come from the belief “You get what you expect”, so why spend so much energy saying, “Yes, but …” to black and white areas of faith and morals? Conversion is an ongoing process, but God’s standards and laws are immutable.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

But God made us rational and free will beings. If someone becomes a “slave” to vice or sin, then they have recourse to God’s grace to become free. Also, maturity and understanding are co-factors in weighing culpability. I come from the belief “You get what you expect”, so why spend so much energy saying, “Yes, but …” to black and white areas of faith and morals? Conversion is an ongoing process, but God’s standards and laws are immutable.

Very good points. Thanks!

 

[Raider05x]

Thank you for all the insight, this has been a good board for me to read,

Its midnight here in Iraq and i have a lot of work to do when i wake up. I look forward to seeing many more replies tomorrow. I’ll let everyone know what the priest has to say, which I’m sure will spark more discussion, regardless of what he says. I’ll also give more insight to my current situation if any wants to know or thinks that it makes a differance.

Thank you all for your support.

 

[searching06]

Again, let us remember that the OP brought this to the CAF, we did not bring it to him. He wants the opinion of the Catholic Church and that is being presented.

“Mortal sin exists when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered.”

Now you are touching on the “full consent” part of a sin being mortal. Tell me how when one decides to perform an act, they do not give full consent? Aside from mental illness.

“Masturbation—“Masturbation is the deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs in order to derive sexual pleasure” (CCC 2352). The Church teaches that sex has two main purposes that must be sought in the marriage act: sex is for reproduction of children within a valid marriage, and it is a loving, unifying act between husband and wife. Masturbation violates both aspects of the natural law and is thus a grave sin.”

Mortal sins cannot be done “accidentally.” Any one who commits a mortal sin is someone who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. Therefore this means that mortal sins are “premeditated” by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.

How is there no consent in this case?

Again, if you’re going to drop in quotes, please advise the OP to discuss those with a priest, not present them as the sole answers, which is the way it all appears.

I debate that you are presenting the “opinion” of the Church; I think you are presenting the “hard-line” or “conservative” or “strict” definition and interpretation of the black and white Catechism, and failing to take into account what it also says about consent and culpability, or that there is debate among priests as to what constitutes consent and “mortal”, in spite of the Catechism. It is your presentation, not Church opinion.

I had one priest who defined mortal as turning to God and giving Him the fist and saying “to he** with You!” Does everyone who commits mortal sin by definition do this with total consent? I don’t think so - it may well be weakness overwhelms the person and they give in - again, who’s going to throw the first stone?

 

[fix]

Again, if you’re going to drop in quotes, please advise the OP to discuss those with a priest, not present them as the sole answers, which is the way it all appears.

I debate that you are presenting the “opinion” of the Church; I think you are presenting the “hard-line” or “conservative” or “strict” definition and interpretation of the black and white Catechism, and failing to take into account what it also says about consent and culpability, or that there is debate among priests as to what constitutes consent and “mortal”, in spite of the Catechism. It is your presentation, not Church opinion.

I had one priest who defined mortal as turning to God and giving Him the fist and saying “to he** with You!” Does everyone who commits mortal sin by definition do this with total consent? I don’t think so - it may well be weakness overwhelms the person and they give in - again, who’s going to throw the first stone?

It seems like you think there is no authentic way to know what the Church actually teaches?

 

[searching06]

Raider05x,

The direction of this thread, which started with your honest question, is what I meant about being cautious with all of this. It’s great for a bunch of armchair Catechists, and maybe even those with a great deal of knowledge, but it doesn’t take the place of seeking human guidance (which no one has claimed; quite the opposite).

Take everything with a grain of salt, so to speak, me included - pray, go see a priest, fight the good fight, don’t be discouraged, “keep your head down and your powder dry”.

God bless.