Masturbation

[josh987654321]

You lost me on this one.

Nevertheless, this is interesting.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424416/Swedish-court-rules-IS-legal-masturbate-public-directed-specific.html

:dts:

Anyone doing the same in the UK would face charge of indecent exposure … and rightly so I believe.

I am not saying the masturbation is right just that there is more to it then we might know.

May I ask what you mean by ‘More to it then we might know?’ I am unsure what you are insinuating,

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You lost me on this one.

Nevertheless, this is interesting.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424416/Swedish-court-rules-IS-legal-masturbate-public-directed-specific.html

I am not saying the masturbation is right just that there is more to it then we might know.

You think that court has figured out what the great theologians and Fr. X in the confessional has not? Is there some case you wish to make on the idea that a mortal sin was misunderstood and somehow the Church and God himself has been wrong on this? I have no idea your credentials but I think since the Church has been dealing with this concept with billions of people throughout history I give it a tad more credibility than you or a court in a country where prostitution is legal.

Justify away. Just know that God accepts peoples repentance for all sins. The catch is you have to know to apologize and accept the ruling of the Church. Which is that masturbation is mortal.

What did you have a problem with about invincible ignorance. I thought the article was on point. Did you wish to discuss it further or have it clarified?

 

[Rau]

You lost me on this one.

Nevertheless, this is interesting.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424416/Swedish-court-rules-IS-legal-masturbate-public-directed-specific.html

I am not saying the masturbation is right just that there is more to it then we might know.

Not sure what “more to it” you have in mind?

Seems that in Sweden they have no indecent exposure statute or similar, hence the only possible crime to charge the guy with seemed to be sexual assault. So not too surprising the court concluded as it did.

Presumably, in Sweden, orgies in public would be ok too? Swedish law does not seem to have much to offer in the area of guiding us as to what is moral, eh?

 

[Jaaanosik]

You think that court has figured out what the great theologians and Fr. X in the confessional has not? Is there some case you wish to make on the idea that a mortal sin was misunderstood and somehow the Church and God himself has been wrong on this? I have no idea your credentials but I think since the Church has been dealing with this concept with billions of people throughout history I give it a tad more credibility than you or a court in a country where prostitution is legal.

Justify away. Just know that God accepts peoples repentance for all sins. The catch is you have to know to apologize and accept the ruling of the Church. Which is that masturbation is mortal.

What did you have a problem with about invincible ignorance. I thought the article was on point. Did you wish to discuss it further or have it clarified?

A person knows Church’s teaching. The person studies the issue for let’s say a half a year. The person still does not accept the Church’s teaching for whatever reason.

What type of ignorance is it?

Well, let’s see your link:

It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching of St. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant.

The person is studying…
Nevertheless … results of “a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning” are still not in line with the Church’s teaching.

Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant.

I stand by what I said. It’s called the invincible ignorance.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A person knows Church’s teaching. The person studies the issue for let’s say a half a year. The person still does not accept the Church’s teaching for whatever reason.

What type of ignorance is it?

Well, let’s see your link:

The person is studying…
Nevertheless … results of “a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning” are still not in line with the Church’s teaching.

I stand by what I said. It’s called the invincible ignorance.

It is quite within the realm of natural law to know that masturbation is immoral. If you want to make the argument that it requires study then you obviously have never been on either end of a parent walking in on a 12 year old in the middle of the deed. There is a reason why entrances to porn stores are in the back and why you cannot masturnbate in the parking lot of the mall.

It need not take study. Because in most cultures for history it has been shameful.

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

That is not what this says about the levels of ignorance.
newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

You seem to still be describing vincible ignorance. Invincible ignorance seems to have a higher threshold. And while vincible ignorance “leaves the culpability in tact” It can make the act “less voluntary” But invincible? Total excuse from the law?

Not even close on this one.

To claim invincible ignorance of the natural law one would have to have signs like “public masturbation” or public viewing of porn, etc. One knows these things are wrong, one is not ignorant of the moral law because one does not walk into a second grade classroom and start masturbating. One is embarrassed by it (or should be)

How about a married couple having sex in a public?

There are things we do in private for reasons of modesty, embarrassment, or inappropriateness for viewing by children, not because we think they’re wrong.

 

[Rau]

How about a married couple having sex in a public?

There are things we do in private for reasons of modesty, embarrassment, or inappropriateness for viewing by children, not because we think they’re wrong.

Criminal sanctions against masturbation in public, or sex in public, do not respond to the acts, but the putting of them on public display.

Moral assessments need not be limited to the public display element of the deed.

 

[ExCatholicGuy]

Criminal sanctions against masturbation in public, or sex in public, do not respond to the acts, but the putting of them on public display.

Moral assessments need not be limited to the public display element of the deed.

Yes, agreed - I was simply responding to the incorrect assertion that shame at performing some activity in public is an acknowledgement that the activity is immoral.

 

[Nelka]

…masturbation in public…

Something I hope I never see in my life!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How about a married couple having sex in a public?

There are things we do in private for reasons of modesty, embarrassment, or inappropriateness for viewing by children, not because we think they’re wrong.

Yes, and self stimulation of ones genitals is not one of them. It is not holy, it is not a necessity. And this I just cannot understand. It has been a mortal sin for thousands of years. Why does one’s justification of it need to override human salvation history?
It is disordered sexual action. (what does that sound like)
And just like any other sin it is forgivable by Jesus on the Cross. All one need to do is seek the forgiveness in the Church?

But with this sin in particular it seems the devil has seized upon our pride and made it something that is often debated. Not many threads about how missing Mass should not be a mortal sin. (though there are a few) But this subject is defended almost as if it is a religion in and of itself. This, homosexuality, and Birth Control. HMMMMm All sexual sins…

 

[Rau]

But with this sin in particular it seems the devil has seized upon our pride and made it something that is often debated. Not many threads about how missing Mass should not be a mortal sin. (though there are a few) But this subject is defended almost as if it is a religion in and of itself.

When you consider that this sin is so prevalent among young people, is seemingly irresistible to so many at that age, I can understand people being moved to question its status as “grave”. Perhaps those who debate this overlook the reduced culpability that may apply when the hormones are racing.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When you consider that this sin is so prevalent among young people, is seemingly irresistible to so many at that age, I can understand people being moved to question its status as “grave”. Perhaps those who debate this overlook the reduced culpability that may apply when the hormones are racing.

It would seem the Church would agree with you.

Youcat states:

YOUCAT 409: Is masturbation an offense against love?

Masturbation is an offense against love, because it makes the excitement of sexual pleasure an end in itself and uncouples it from the holistic unfolding of love between a man and a woman. That is why “sex with yourself” is a contradiction in terms. [2352]

The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto “For sex I do not need anyone; I will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy.

Youcat states that the Church does not “demonize” masturbatuion and also focuses not necessarily on the spiritual aspects but rather on the social ones. It would appear that fo the youth. Mastubation is not a mortal sin.

The Catechism however states.

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."138 “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."139

In both of these the use of terms like “demonize” intrinsically" “gravely” “disordered” Are chosen for a reason. It would appear that age does indeed play a part.

HOWEVER just by the idea of so many doing it does not really enter into the argument. Many young people also do not attend weekly mass, this does not make this sin less mortal. Nor does the idea of lessened culpability mean “blameless”

Perhaps many young people cannot help themselves and cannot stop stimulating their genitals. Or perhaps the need to teach them is just that much more important because when they grow up, get married and find out what those genitals are for they need to be able to practice chastity and fidelity. Even when it is hard to do so. Even when a wife is postpartum or perhaps even permanently disabled. It rises to the level of mortal sin and runs the risk of ending marriages, ruining families and destroying children.

Personally I demonize it. Because I think it is ultimately demonic. I wonder at what age the Church agrees with that?

Or perhaps that use of the word is one of the most unfortunate references to the subject we have. ESPECIALLY if it is so prevalent in the youth. As someone who works with the youth programs I can tell you that many parents defend their masturbating kids and think it is healthy and ok. HOly even. Now THOSE are uncomfortable conversations to have with little johnny’s mom.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It is quite within the realm of natural law to know that masturbation is immoral. If you want to make the argument that it requires study then you obviously have never been on either end of a parent walking in on a 12 year old in the middle of the deed. There is a reason why entrances to porn stores are in the back and why you cannot masturnbate in the parking lot of the mall.

It need not take study. Because in most cultures for history it has been shameful.

Well, so if the contraception is not shameful in most cultures it’s OK according to your definition of the Natural Law.
Do I miss anything?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, so if the contraception is not shameful in most cultures it’s OK according to your definition of the Natural Law.
Do I miss anything?

Yes, that is a separate issue that falls under separate theology. Depending on the contraception it can be murder.

But that is off topic…

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, that is a separate issue that falls under separate theology. Depending on the contraception it can be murder.

But that is off topic…

Contraception does not fall under the Natural Law?
We were discussing the Natural Law, the invincible ignorance and their relationship.
It does not appear as off topic to me because the contraception, especially non-abortive, does fall under the Natural Law according to the HV.
Maybe you are not aware of it but the Natural Law always involves a reasoning process.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Contraception does not fall under the Natural Law?
We were discussing the Natural Law, the invincible ignorance and their relationship.
It does not appear as off topic to me because the contraception, especially non-abortive, does fall under the Natural Law according to the HV.
Maybe you are not aware of it but the Natural Law always involves a reasoning process.

While it may be on topic to you. It is a completely separate issue for me. If you wish to start a new thread and tell me where it is I would be happy to participate.

 

[Jaaanosik]

While it may be on topic to you. It is a completely separate issue for me. If you wish to start a new thread and tell me where it is I would be happy to participate.

I’ll let you off the hook.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’ll let you off the hook.

Gee, thanks.

 

[Madmaxepic]

Personally, I view it as only a venial sin. However I think it is a far greater sin if pornography is involved, but still not mortal.