T
tjm190
Guest
Is it always sinful to separate the two aspects of a natural process?
- Status
S
surritter
Guest
That should be the point of the discussion, not the terminology. (TJM – didn’t you and I already go over this regarding bulimia? Perhaps in that other thread that was subsequently yanked? Or maybe it was someone else…)
T
tjm190
Guest
That was me- I stated that foods engineered to lack nutrition also separate the life sustaining end from the pleasure end. This is not seen as a natural law violation.
Yes, bulimia is seen as a natural law violation- however, since diet foods are not seen as violating natural law it must be something the two don’t have in common that violates natural law.
S
surritter
Guest
Let’s see what other folks have to say. But the sin is in the deliberate divorcing of the two aspects by the individual. When a person eats diet foods, they are still letting biology do its thing. They are not actively separating the nutritional value from the act of consumption. It’s similar to a man marrying a woman who is sterile. He got “diet food” off the shelf when he married her. But he and she still do not actively circumvent the biology.
Sorry for the crass analogy, especially to women who have trouble conceiving. But discussing the characteristics of a thing (food and its nutritive properties) are different than discussing how that thing is used (eat normally and let the body digest whatever is in the food).
T
tjm190
Guest
They let the biology do its thing with what it has left- they make sure that what they don’t want is removed. A contraception using couple does not interfere with the reaction between sperm and egg any more than a person consuming low nutrition foods interferes with digestion. A sperm cell with unify with egg no less effectively if a condom is present- there’s just less sperm there, just as the digestive track makes use of all of the nutrients that get to it. But the intent on both sides is to limit what the biology gets its hands on. The analogy is starting to reach its limits with infertile people- that seems the most similar to people with lower metabolisms (they have to partake in the relevant act less often to achieve the same number of conceptions/nutrients stored.)
I guess masturbation, even mutual masturbation, are close to gum chewing? (You engage in the act, get the pleasure end, but really contribute nothing at all to the life sustaining aspect)
S
steve711
Guest
I will say this, NFP can be a big help when a husband and wife have small children, the wife works herself ragged taking care of the children and needs time to sleep at night and not necessarily more children at that time.
If the question is having relations with my wife without getting pregnant again, I would look into NFP. It is very effective in preventing pregnancy and mutually satisfying for the married couple. Yes there are times of abstinence, but it surely helps a stressful situation an is very effective.
Go with Gods Grace!
If the question is having relations with my wife without getting pregnant again, I would look into NFP. It is very effective in preventing pregnancy and mutually satisfying for the married couple. Yes there are times of abstinence, but it surely helps a stressful situation an is very effective.
Go with Gods Grace!
S
stringbeanduck
Guest
Looking at the nutrition fact on my gum packet: it says there are 3.5 calories in it and that it is scientifically found that chewing one stick for a while stimulates salvia flow fighting plaque and strengthening teeth. Saying it doesn’t do anything to sustain life is false. Gum chewing is a proper use for our mouth and stomach both physically and spiritually. Even so, the physical aspect is moot on it’s morality. Gum chewing interferes in no way any moral teaching inside the bible and Catholic Church. Masturbation is not a proper use for our sexual facilities. As with gum, whether or not it is good physically is moot. Spiritually it is damaging and a violation of biblical teaching interpreted by the Church. Whether you care accept this teaching or choose to rely on your own one man philosophy despite the hard work, prayer, discernment of 1000’s and 1000’s of men guided by the holy spirit is really what this argument boils down too.
T
TedDC
Guest
All that hard work, prayer and discernment mean nothing if they can’t produce a compelling argument that masturbation is an intrinsic moral wrong, as opposed to merely a violation of arbitrary man-made rules.
F
fbl9
Guest
What is the topic now? As for the low cal arguement to me it does seem to have a point.
The topic is not solo mb, it is mutual mb.
solo mb is always sinful, whether one is married or not,
mutual mb done for the end is sinful on the male’s part.
mutual mb done for priming immediately followed by the, but if the marital act is interupted and can not be completed,there is no sin due to the intent of the marital act and the mutaul mb was not done as the only intended form of enjoyment.
The topic is not solo mb, it is mutual mb.
solo mb is always sinful, whether one is married or not,
mutual mb done for the end is sinful on the male’s part.
mutual mb done for priming immediately followed by the, but if the marital act is interupted and can not be completed,there is no sin due to the intent of the marital act and the mutaul mb was not done as the only intended form of enjoyment.
S
surritter
Guest
But if one understands why solo masturbation is wrong (separates love-giving from life-giving) then mutual masturbation is wrong for the same reason.
O
onmyknees
Guest
Arbitrary man-made rules? Have you not read Matt 16. When Jesus gave Peter (the first pope) the keys to the Church and said,“What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” And 2 Peter 1:20-21 “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” And John 16:12 He says,“I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes He will lead you to complete Truth.”
And on masturbation. Matt.5:30 “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”
S
stringbeanduck
Guest
That’s really sad to hear that from another Catholic. Show’s a complete lack of faith in Christ’s words.
Do really think the church would make up some rule just to make people lives more troublesome?Food for thought: Anybody think Jesus would or did masturbate?
T
TedDC
Guest
None of that says anything about masturbation. The idea of a married couple in America (or anywhere) being bound by an excruciatingly legalistic definition of what they can and can’t do in bed, written in a dead language by celibate old men in Rome, is patently absurd.
F
fbl9
Guest
To me you are mixed up in this,if this is the reason why you beleive solo is sinful. If you mean mutual done for the end on the male’s part is sinful,then it would be correct.
solo is adultry when done in marriage because one seeks sexual pleasure outside the marital bond, also apllied to un married.
S
surritter
Guest
Respectfully, your thinking doesn’t make sense. You say that solo masturbation is wrong for a married person because it seeks sexual pleasure outside the marriage bond.
Can’t you connect the dots and see that solo masturbation for a SINGLE person also is meant to seek pleasure outside the marriage bond?
F
fbl9
Guest
What does “also apllied to the umarried mean”?,you claim that solo mb is wrong because it seperates the love giving from the life giving,so does mutual mb…I agree with this clarified with the addtion that for it to be sinful for the married, that mutual mb is done for and to the end,.It’s use as foreplay is not sinful for it does not seperate the love giving form the life giving, and the enjoyment is not sought outside the marital bond.
S
surritter
Guest
OK — I agree with you there; as foreplay between married persons, MB is OK. Sorry, I just didn’t understand what you were saying in the previous post.
O
onmyknees
Guest
I don’t think you understand that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were talking in the scriptures that I put in my post. Jesus said that masturbation is wrong in Matt 5. That is why the Church teaches this and always has. Jesus started the Church. Also look at the consequences of this sin. It is also a form of birth control. Look at what has happened to our society since abc was available. Divorce rates increased which caused more poverty, latch key children, abortion became something that was okay, and sexual intimacy between man, wife and God became just mutual pleasure. God is taken out of the act because there is no possibility for life. There is no union between man and wife in intercourse which brings the couple together literally as one flesh.
T
tjm190
Guest
Did He now?
S
surritter
Guest
While I believe 100% what the Church teaches about masturbation, I agree that it’s pretty shaky to cite Matt 5 on this point.
I can think of lots of sins that can be done by the right hand, and 90% of them ain’t sexual!
The better approach is to use scripture to explain how Jesus gave the Apostles (and thus their successors) the authority to teach and clarify as needed. If that premise is in place, then we can trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church with regards to masturbation (since it falls under the faith/morals umbrella).
I can think of lots of sins that can be done by the right hand, and 90% of them ain’t sexual!
The better approach is to use scripture to explain how Jesus gave the Apostles (and thus their successors) the authority to teach and clarify as needed. If that premise is in place, then we can trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church with regards to masturbation (since it falls under the faith/morals umbrella).
- Status