My confessor told me masturbation is only venial

[Jefe_Wyatt]

But isn’t your philosophy that you own your body the same reasoning that pro-choice proponents utilize to build their case? Don’t these women say that it is their body and they have the right to choose what to do with their body? How can you so fervently hold one view while still maintaining the opposite?

When you speak of what is moral, where do you derive your values? You mentioned earlier that you received many values from friends and family. Then you mentioned that many of these people believe in God. Are you not, then, utilizing God given ethics? If everyone were an atheist and there was no God to ever influence anyone, then where would moral values come from? Who would ever be able to convince me that I can’t kill the first person who annoys me? And remember that the laws of the land are based on the Ten Commandments. Don’t animals kill for food? Can I kill someone if I’m hungry enough to eat them? Jeffery Dahmer had this problem and he went to jail. Why?

I think that pro-choice advocates are wrong in this in that once a child is conceived it becomes not just the woman’s body but the child’s body as well.

Now, I haven’t derived my entire moral code from my friends and family, mind you. But definitely they have been an influence on it, and I’ve never denied that the Christian sense of morality hasn’t had influence on me as well. But I do not subscribe to it entirely.

And you’re wrong that the laws of the land are derived from the 10 Commandments, at least if you’re trying to say that that is the fundamental basis on which law rests. Babylonian and early Roman law dictated against killing your neighbor and stealing from them long before Christianity came into existence.

I don’t think you can kill a person if you’re hungry enough to eat them, because your own self-preservation instinct does not trump that person’s right to live.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

That’s a ridiculous argument - if I rape or murder you, at that moment I clearly have more say and more choice over what happens to your body than you do. If I didn’t, you would doubtless exert your superior say and superior choice to prevent yourself being murdered or raped.

It doesn’t follow that because at that moment I have more physical control or more choice over your body than you do, that I morally have any right to rape it or murder it.

We’re in agreement. Rape and murder is wrong because it constitutes someone having more of a say over your body than you do.

 

[LilyM]

We’re in agreement. Rape and murder is wrong because it constitutes someone having more of a say over your body than you do.

Not even close, mate.

Your spouse has rights over your body, his or her right to marital fidelity trumps your right to use your body to have sex with other people, such that the marriage can be dissolved for cause of your adultery.

Your children have rights over your body - if they’re still dependent on you they have an expectation that you will use your body to go out and earn a living to support them (presuming it’s possible) which trump your right to use it to slob around on the couch all day. You will be legally and financially punished if you fail to exercise that right.

The state has rights over your body - their right to educated and thus more productive citizens who have kept their bodies at a school desk for a certain number of years trumps your right to take that body permanently away from a school desk at the age of 10 or 12. Truant officers can forcibly drag your behind back to school.

If you are found guilty of a crime - forget most of the rights you had to your body! It can be thrown into prison, made to do communty service, regularly stripsearched or drug tested and what have you.

If you die, as an unidentified and unclaimed corpse, the state can give your body in at least certain circumstances to medical schools for students to study on, or possibly for organ donation. Regardless of whatever you might have wanted to have done with it.

All sorts of people have various legitimate types of rights and say over your body that trump your own.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Not even close, mate.

Your spouse has rights over your body, his or her right to marital fidelity trumps your right to use your body to have sex with other people, such that the marriage can be dissolved for cause of your adultery.

Your children have rights over your body - if they’re still dependent on you they have an expectation that you will use your body to go out and earn a living to support them (presuming it’s possible) which trump your right to use it to slob around on the couch all day. You will be legally and financially punished if you fail to exercise that right.

The state has rights over your body - their right to educated and thus more productive citizens who have kept their bodies at a school desk for a certain number of years trumps your right to take that body permanently away from a school desk at the age of 10 or 12. Truant officers can forcibly drag your behind back to school.

If you are found guilty of a crime - forget most of the rights you had to your body! It can be thrown into prison, made to do communty service, regularly stripsearched or drug tested and what have you.

If you die, as an unidentified and unclaimed corpse, the state can give your body in at least certain circumstances to medical schools for students to study on, or possibly for organ donation. Regardless of whatever you might have wanted to have done with it.

All sorts of people have various legitimate types of rights and say over your body that trump your own.

The spouse has a right over your body because you’ve given them express legal permission.

Children are a special case. You made the choice to bring a new life into this world, so you are responsible for it. You are responsible for them, so in a sense, you are correct: they have a certain power over you.

Truant officers can forcibly drag you to school when you are a minor. When you are a minor, you do not have the legal capacity to make decisions. Notice how the state cannot force you to attend school after you are 18.

If you have infringed upon others’ rights, you lose your own. This is what criminal justice is all about.

Please cite your legal source on how the state can use an unidentified body for organ donation. Regardless of whether it is true, I don’t believe it to be right for the state to do this. If it is true, this is just another of many issues I have with the state.

So no, I don’t think there are many places where my right over my body is trumped without my specific agreement.

 

[LilyM]

Children are a special case. You made the choice to bring a new life into this world, so you are responsible for it. You are responsible for them, so in a sense, you are correct: they have a certain power over you.

Nu-uh. What about ‘surprise’ pregnancies which were unplanned and non-consensual - and for the children resulting from which you might still be legally and financially liable? You made the choice to have sex in such situations, but arguably not the choice to have a baby,and yet you can still be made to take responsibility if a baby results.

Truant officers can forcibly drag you to school when you are a minor. When you are a minor, you do not have the legal capacity to make decisions. Notice how the state cannot force you to attend school after you are 18.

In this country you have to go through certain paperwork to gain unemployment welfare - including demonstrating that you’ve applied for a certain number of jobs per fortnight. You can be directed into retraining, even requested to move to areas where the job market is better and possibly penalised financially if you don’t do such things when requested. I’d imagine there are strings attached to welfare in your country too - nothing comes for free.

If you have infringed upon others’ rights, you lose your own. This is what criminal justice is all about.

What about BEFORE your infringement is proven to the law’s satisfaction? Or situations outside of you being the alleged perpetrator? What about being denied bail, surrendering your passport, being in temporary custody - all pending trial and all without you being found guilty of infringing anything?

What about being summonsed as a witness in a case, or being ordered to produce evidence, and compelled to either or all of attending court and tell the truth under pain of legal penalty, or producing that evidence under pain of legal penalty? What about mandatory jury duty?

Please cite your legal source on how the state can use an unidentified body for organ donation. Regardless of whether it is true, I don’t believe it to be right for the state to do this. If it is true, this is just another of many issues I have with the state.

Isn’t medical experimentation bad enough even if states might not permit organ harvesting? Besides which, it doesn’t matter what your opinion of or any other legal right is in any event, if they have a legal right it’s a legal right which trumps your moral indignation.

So no, I don’t think there are many places where my right over my body is trumped without my specific agreement.

Beg to differ.

Want me to keep going? How about mandatory commitment to institutions for psychiatric patients?

Mandatory detention in my country of illegal immigrants,thankfully largely done away with now. Few countries have it and those who don’t do just fine without it, so it certainly wasn’t to protect anyone’s rights.

Mandatory vaccination of children in some jurisdictions? Building regulations which can include such matters as the appearance of the outside of your house or yard - totally irrelevant to safety or any other right, just for aesthetic reasons.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Nu-uh. What about ‘surprise’ pregnancies which were unplanned and non-consensual - and for the children resulting from which you might still be legally and financially liable? You made the choice to have sex in such situations, but arguably not the choice to have a baby,and yet you can still be made to take responsibility if a baby results.

In this country you have to go through certain paperwork to gain unemployment welfare - including demonstrating that you’ve applied for a certain number of jobs per fortnight. You can be directed into retraining, even requested to move to areas where the job market is better and possibly penalised financially if you don’t do such things when requested. I’d imagine there are strings attached to welfare in your country too - nothing comes for free.

What about BEFORE your infringement is proven to the law’s satisfaction? Or situations outside of you being the alleged perpetrator? What about being denied bail, surrendering your passport, being in temporary custody - all pending trial and all without you being found guilty of infringing anything?

What about being summonsed as a witness in a case, or being ordered to produce evidence, and compelled to either or all of attending court and tell the truth under pain of legal penalty, or producing that evidence under pain of legal penalty? What about mandatory jury duty?

Isn’t medical experimentation bad enough even if states might not permit organ harvesting? Besides which, it doesn’t matter what your opinion of or any other legal right is in any event, if they have a legal right it’s a legal right which trumps your moral indignation.

Beg to differ.

Want me to keep going? How about mandatory commitment to institutions for psychiatric patients?

Mandatory detention in my country of illegal immigrants,thankfully largely done away with now. Few countries have it and those who don’t do just fine without it, so it certainly wasn’t to protect anyone’s rights.

Mandatory vaccination of children in some jurisdictions? Building regulations which can include such matters as the appearance of the outside of your house or yard - totally irrelevant to safety or any other right, just for aesthetic reasons.

My belief is that when you choose to have sex, you accept the possibility that you may conceive. Now, we have to ask ourselves, what about rape? Rape is a terrible thing, and in a perfect world, we’d be able to pop the blastula out of the woman and raise it elsewhere. But we can’t do that yet, so I have to make one allowance in this case. The same goes when the health of the mother is in question.

Now with welfare, you have made the choice to apply for welfare. The government is saying “OK, we’ll give you some money, but only if A, B, and C.” You are completely within your right to say “No deal,” and not take the money.

I don’t believe in mandatory jury duty. I do believe that if there is reasonable evidence that you have committed a crime, the state can temporarily incarcerate you for a short duration, and that bail should be available. If you are acquitted, I believe restitution should be made.

Furthermore, I disagree with you that legal rights trump morality. Slavery used to be illegal. Are you saying that while it was legal, the state laws trumped the rights of the slaves? Sure, the government allowed slavery. But this didn’t make it any less wrong. The legality of something has nothing at all to do with the morality of something.

I also disagree with involuntary commitment to psychiatric wards unless it can be proven that the person in question is dangerous – that the person has acted in a dangerous manner before.

You’re right, the detention of illegal immigrants had nothing to do with a person’s rights. Just another example of how legality does not constitute morality. Same goes for mandatory vaccinations.

Building regulations are a part of an agreement. Don’t want to join the Homeowner’s Association? Fine, don’t buy the condo.

Please continue if you wish. We can argue back and forth all day, but back to the real issue. Is masturbation immoral? I still haven’t seen a reason that I can agree with.

The only reason that I’ve seen so far is that masturbation will harm your relationships down the line is not only unfounded on any actual statistical data, but even if it somehow was true, I don’t consider harming yourself immoral. If you do, then that’s the fundamental difference between us that causes our vehement disagreement.

 

[SuperH]

SuperH,

I’m sorry if some of my posts seem to be directed to Jefe_Wyatt’s views on morality. My intention is not to derail the thread but to emphasize the need for an informed conscience when discerning what is morally right. A person who does not believe in God does not have an absolute moral Truth as we might. So what can only be derived is a viewpoint. And one is as good as the next. I just want to plant some seeds while reminding the readers that masturbation is immoral when seen in the context of God and His reasons for the gift of our sexuality. thank you for bearing with me…teachccd

My last post, for all intents and purposes, was short as I was using my phone to reply while out and about.

The issue is just that. Jefe_Wyatt’s views on morality differ from scapularkid8. I think this is a substantial difference between what we’re centering our ideas on – including scapularkid8, and what Jefe_Wyatt is centering his ideas on.

I certainly don’t intend to call Jefe_Wyatt out on anything - EVERYONE is entitled to a difference in opinion. It is part of our free will and our freedom to think. But, case in point, scapularkid8 was questioning whether the sin in venial or not. Taking the textbook definition, the sin is a grave matter - and anyone studying it as deeply as the OP knows that it is grave matter. The OP knowingly commits the sin with full consent. Thus, it is a mortal sin.

Through many other posts by scapularkid8, we know that he struggles with his urge to masturbate. He needs to understand that we are sinners at our core, and that we should all work to avoid what we believe – or what we believe God says – as sin. My posts have been directed at scapularkid8 to try to help him combat his struggle.

It is clear to me that scapularkid8 is not satisfied with, “It’s a venial sin, go ahead and accept the Host.” If this is in fact the case, scapularkid8 needs to work on not performing the sinful act. I am not going to refute Jefe_Wyatt’s views on ejaculatory release being a healthful thing. Nor, am I going to refute the argument that “releasing sexual urges” aren’t beneficial.

However, I will reiterate from my own personal experience. Those sexual urges go away once you give up the act.

Back to the original question… I would not accept the host, myself, as I do consider this a mortal sin.

I do understand why Jefe_Wyatt argues the points he does. Without the religious aspect to the argument, his points are completely valid and irrefutable – at least to the health aspect of it.

But, you’re not going to die from NOT masturbating. Your body will either flush itself out through natural internal processes, or nocturnal emissions.

As far as not seeing a reason you can agree with, Jefe_Wyatt. That is because you’re not Catholic/Christian and your moral code - while prevalent, is different. You stated so yourself in every one of your posts - by saying there is “nothing wrong”. From a non-Christian standpoint, you are correct. There is nothing wrong.

My intent is to help scapularkid8 to abide by the moral code. It has been obvious that he wants to stop the act, not accept it as “ok”. He wasn’t asking to change it.

 

[LilyM]

My belief is that when you choose to have sex, you accept the possibility that you may conceive. Now, we have to ask ourselves, what about rape? Rape is a terrible thing, and in a perfect world, we’d be able to pop the blastula out of the woman and raise it elsewhere. But we can’t do that yet, so I have to make one allowance in this case. The same goes when the health of the mother is in question.

Now with welfare, you have made the choice to apply for welfare. The government is saying “OK, we’ll give you some money, but only if A, B, and C.” You are completely within your right to say “No deal,” and not take the money.

I don’t believe in mandatory jury duty. I do believe that if there is reasonable evidence that you have committed a crime, the state can temporarily incarcerate you for a short duration, and that bail should be available. If you are acquitted, I believe restitution should be made.

Furthermore, I disagree with you that legal rights trump morality. Slavery used to be illegal. Are you saying that while it was legal, the state laws trumped the rights of the slaves? Sure, the government allowed slavery. But this didn’t make it any less wrong. The legality of something has nothing at all to do with the morality of something.

I also disagree with involuntary commitment to psychiatric wards unless it can be proven that the person in question is dangerous – that the person has acted in a dangerous manner before.

You’re right, the detention of illegal immigrants had nothing to do with a person’s rights. Just another example of how legality does not constitute morality. Same goes for mandatory vaccinations.

Building regulations are a part of an agreement. Don’t want to join the Homeowner’s Association? Fine, don’t buy the condo.

Please continue if you wish. We can argue back and forth all day, but back to the real issue. Is masturbation immoral? I still haven’t seen a reason that I can agree with.

The only reason that I’ve seen so far is that masturbation will harm your relationships down the line is not only unfounded on any actual statistical data, but even if it somehow was true, I don’t consider harming yourself immoral. If you do, then that’s the fundamental difference between us that causes our vehement disagreement.

I’m sorry - you were saying masturbation is ok because ‘you have a right to have a say over your body’. Correct?

You didn’t say that it was a merely moral as opposed to a legal right or say - in either event your right over your body is not absolute. In either case there is a disconnect between legal or physical control over your actions and moral correctness.

Your morals could be screwy and you might think murder is just fine and dandy - does that mean the state loses its right to declare murder illegal and punish those who do it? You might think the speed lmits are idiotic - does that mean the state no longer has the right to set those limits as it sees fit and punish those who break them?

The state has the legal rights it does over your body, and being the state can also force you to comply with them whether you consider it to be morally correct for them to do so or not.

So God who created you has the rights HE does over your body, whether you even acknowledge His existence or not. Those who He has set in positions of moral authority have the right to teach us in His name - He gave it to them! Doesn’t matter whether you disagree or not, His rights and moral code trumps your private opinion, just as the state’s power in matters of speed limits or those other things you don’t like trumps your private opinion.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

I understand that you’re not trying to vilify me, SuperH, but allow me to explain myself:

You have to understand, it wasn’t my intent to derail the thread, and I’m sorry if I did. What I saw was some members stating that masturbation was a “grave matter”, and I wanted to try to point out that it wasn’t. This snowballed into a discussion on my personal views of morality. If anyone wishes to directly challenge something that I have said, they can always PM me. But of course it is natural in a public forum to want your opinions to be heard by all. I think that an evolving discussion that turns away from the original post is a natural part of the whole concept of forums, which is to have an ongoing discussion. Just like a discussion with friends will turn here and there, so will a discussion on a thread.

However, that may not be the intent of this forum. I’m new here, so I have yet to truly understand the wishes and intents of the administrators and the moderators. If there is ever a complaint I’ll follow their direction, and attempt to have my own personal battles on more appropriate venues.

 

[LilyM]

I understand that you’re not trying to vilify me, SuperH, but allow me to explain myself:

You have to understand, it wasn’t my intent to derail the thread, and I’m sorry if I did. What I saw was some members stating that masturbation was a “grave matter”, and I wanted to try to point out that it wasn’t. This snowballed into a discussion on my personal views of morality. If anyone wishes to directly challenge something that I have said, they can always PM me. But of course it is natural in a public forum to want your opinions to be heard by all. I think that an evolving discussion that turns away from the original post is a natural part of the whole concept of forums, which is to have an ongoing discussion. Just like a discussion with friends will turn here and there, so will a discussion on a thread.

However, that may not be the intent of this forum. I’m new here, so I have yet to truly understand the wishes and intents of the administrators and the moderators. If there is ever a complaint I’ll follow their direction, and attempt to have my own personal battles on more appropriate venues.

Allow me to enlighten you then.

The OP asked very clearly whether ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH masturbation was grave matter.

Since you’re not speaking, and not pretending to speak, to Church teaching, it was quite wrong of you to answer the question in the negative as you did - although you were quite welcome to say ‘I am not Catholic, and dont’ believe the Catholic position is correct’.

The only possible answer to the question as asked, the one we gave, was in fact ‘yes, according to Catholic teaching, very clearly expressed in teh Catechism, it IS grave matter, named as such in precisely so many words’.

The poster was quite clearly asking for the Church’s view, not for whatever your screwy code of morals decides is ok for now. So yes you seriously derailed the thread - which is OK, it happens, but how can you claim you didn’t know you were doing so? Or that you didn’t know that your answer was flat out wrong vis-a-vis the question asked?

Equally clearly the purpose of the thread, and of most all threads as a default position, is to answer the question asked, according to the Catholic perspective. Hence the fora being named ‘Catholic Answers’ - d’uh!

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

What are you blathering on about? The OP asked very clearly whether ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH masturbation was grave matter. Since you’re not speaking, and not pretending to speak, to Church teaching, it was quite wrong of you to answer the question in the negative.

The poster was quite clearly asking for the Church’s view, not for whatever your screwy code of morals decides is ok for now. Clearly the purpose of the thread, is to answer the question asked, according to the Catholic perspective as a default position.

Hence the fora being named ‘Catholic Answers’ - d’uh!

I enjoyed our rational discussion while it lasted, but you’re beginning to lose that quality.

Actually, the OP asked if he/she should listen to his/her confessor. Which, in my opinion, the answer is no, the confessor is wrong. Not because masturbation is a mortal sin rather than venial, but because masturbation shouldn’t be a sinful act at all.

The forum rules actually explicitly state that non-Catholics are welcome in all parts of the board. I believe this is in an attempt to encourage discussion rather than stifle it, but if an admin or mod wishes to clarify this to me, I will of course defer to them.

I’m not going to try to justify myself to you further. I am glad that this discussion helped me clarify my own views on personal ownership, and allowed me to hear yours. Without a common ground on this, it is impossible to find a common ground on the issue of masturbation. If you want to discuss this separate issue further, by all means, PM me.

 

[SuperH]

But of course it is natural in a public forum to want your opinions to be heard by all.

We welcome everyone to participate here, of course.

Maybe this will help scapularkid8…

From the New American Bible…
nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/

Colossians 3:5-6
5
Put to death, then, the parts of you that are earthly: immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and the greed that is idolatry.
6
Because of these the wrath of God is coming (upon the disobedient).

Hebrews 12:16
16
that no one be an immoral or profane person like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

Hebrews 13:4
4
Let marriage be honored among all and the marriage bed be kept undefiled, for God will judge the immoral and adulterers.

1 Peter 4:3
3
For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do: living in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and wanton idolatry.

Jude 7
7
Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

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

Which stems from…
Deuteronomy 5:18/Exodus 20:14
18
'You shall not commit adultery.
/
14
"You shall not commit adultery.

I hope that helps him a bit more in his journey. I would say the answer is “mortal”.

 

[teachccd]

My last post, for all intents and purposes, was short as I was using my phone to reply while out and about.

The issue is just that. Jefe_Wyatt’s views on morality differ from scapularkid8. I think this is a substantial difference between what we’re centering our ideas on – including scapularkid8, and what Jefe_Wyatt is centering his ideas on.

I certainly don’t intend to call Jefe_Wyatt out on anything - EVERYONE is entitled to a difference in opinion. It is part of our free will and our freedom to think. But, case in point, scapularkid8 was questioning whether the sin in venial or not. Taking the textbook definition, the sin is a grave matter - and anyone studying it as deeply as the OP knows that it is grave matter. The OP knowingly commits the sin with full consent. Thus, it is a mortal sin.

Through many other posts by scapularkid8, we know that he struggles with his urge to masturbate. He needs to understand that we are sinners at our core, and that we should all work to avoid what we believe – or what we believe God says – as sin. My posts have been directed at scapularkid8 to try to help him combat his struggle.

It is clear to me that scapularkid8 is not satisfied with, “It’s a venial sin, go ahead and accept the Host.” If this is in fact the case, scapularkid8 needs to work on not performing the sinful act. I am not going to refute Jefe_Wyatt’s views on ejaculatory release being a healthful thing. Nor, am I going to refute the argument that “releasing sexual urges” aren’t beneficial.

However, I will reiterate from my own personal experience. Those sexual urges go away once you give up the act.

Back to the original question… I would not accept the host, myself, as I do consider this a mortal sin.

I do understand why Jefe_Wyatt argues the points he does. Without the religious aspect to the argument, his points are completely valid and irrefutable – at least to the health aspect of it.

But, you’re not going to die from NOT masturbating. Your body will either flush itself out through natural internal processes, or nocturnal emissions.

As far as not seeing a reason you can agree with, Jefe_Wyatt. That is because you’re not Catholic/Christian and your moral code - while prevalent, is different. You stated so yourself in every one of your posts - by saying there is “nothing wrong”. From a non-Christian standpoint, you are correct. There is nothing wrong.

My intent is to help scapularkid8 to abide by the moral code. It has been obvious that he wants to stop the act, not accept it as “ok”. He wasn’t asking to change it.

I agree and I thank you for your response…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

I understand that you’re not trying to vilify me, SuperH, but allow me to explain myself:

You have to understand, it wasn’t my intent to derail the thread, and I’m sorry if I did. What I saw was some members stating that masturbation was a “grave matter”, and I wanted to try to point out that it wasn’t. This snowballed into a discussion on my personal views of morality. If anyone wishes to directly challenge something that I have said, they can always PM me. But of course it is natural in a public forum to want your opinions to be heard by all. I think that an evolving discussion that turns away from the original post is a natural part of the whole concept of forums, which is to have an ongoing discussion. Just like a discussion with friends will turn here and there, so will a discussion on a thread.

However, that may not be the intent of this forum. I’m new here, so I have yet to truly understand the wishes and intents of the administrators and the moderators. If there is ever a complaint I’ll follow their direction, and attempt to have my own personal battles on more appropriate venues.

SuperH is correct. From your non-Christian standpoint you would never see the immorality of masturbation. Yet, I do find that you are extremely polite and considerate to all of us here. I can appreciate that. The OP is looking for advice from those who share in the same Chrisitan tenets as he does and this would be most difficult for you. It sould be very difficult for me to log onto a Mormom forum and try to direct a Mormon with Catholic beliefs. That would not be what he’s looking for. So, while you are extremely cordial and considerate you must realize that whenever you respond from an atheistic viewpoint your crediblity will be challenged. So, I thank you for your replies to me and I will let this thread continue in the direction that the OP intended. God Bless you because that’s what we do here and peace be with you…teachccd

 

[LilyM]

This was the question:

…and that I should keep taking the Eucharist while still attempting to stop because it’s a serious and spiritually harmful venial sin…do I listen to him after I’ve known for years that the Church defines this as a mortal sin?!

And this was your answer:

Not being a Catholic, I can’t tell you whether masturbation is a mortal sin or not according to the church, but I can say that I don’t believe masturbation to be harmful in the slightest.

It’s a sexual release, people. Every once in a while, the evolutionary directive in your subconscious demands that you go and “spread your seed”. Given that this isn’t always possible, many turn to masturbation to give themselves that release. It’s a personal thing, part of many sexually healthy lifestyles, and it does nothing to increase suffering in this world. Given this, I cannot fathom how it could be morally objectionable. As far as sins go, it has to be a relatively minor one.

His question was very clearly set in the context of Church teaching and not private morality, and was as much about listening to the advice of his confessor as simply being about masturbation - he even shows that he knows and willingly abides or wishes to abide by Church teaching on the matter!

You actually didn’t answer the question at all unless in the most roundabout of ways. Just spouted your opinion of the joys of masturbation, which joys you knew full well, from the posts prior to yours, are balanced by great perceived moral harms from a Catholic perspective - so even your comment of ‘I can’t tell you’ is disingenuous, Catholic teaching is clearly spelt out for you in the posts before yours.

 

[jfoges]

Masturbation is wrong but it is not always a mortal sin. It can be a venial sin too depending on the circumstances. The best thing for the OP to do is listen to his confessor.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To Jefe_Wyatt:

Another name for masturbation is “self-abuse.” Catholics believe Scripture when it tells them that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. I agree with others that the circumstances & disposition can make a difference in the gravity of it, according to Catholic moral theology; thus, age & compulsion factor in. That’s very different from cultivating the practice, shall we say. An earlier poster referred to that (that generally, esp. in an adult male, visuals tempt, or are “the near occasions of sin,” according to traditional teaching.)

So,
(1) Our bodies are not really “our own,” if you are a believer, which you have said you are not.

(2) A frequent habit is generally something that a person has taken inadequate steps to reduce – from anything as minor & “harmless” as nail-biting, to something potentially self-destructive such as overeating, to something more serious such as viewing a copy of a pornographic magazine, which honestly is a source of temptation for most men. Most men actually deliberately purchase (or download, or view on a TV screen) pornography. Mostly it’s not accidentally thrust in their faces – although I’ll admit some “mainstream” TV images can be pretty pornographic.

Like other posters, I also trust the confessor in question. Very different from an ingrained habit of an adult male with a fully formed conscience & some resources for self-control. May I say that I’m impressed with the 24-year-old poster who has managed to conquer this. Having dated many men in my 20’s, I know how highly sexually charged that age group is, so kudos to that poster.

To me, the near occasion of sin is the sticking point, actually. Effort had to be involved, if ever so slightly even, to acquire the external temptation source. (Someone said that it’s probably not happening without a stimulation source.) Very different from a compulsion; very different from the body’s release through nocturnal emissions, etc.

It would be hard to believe that masturbation is not a universal experience that has been engaged in at least once by virtually everyone, male or female. That may be what you, Jefe, are talking about when you call it “instinct.” Yes, it’s instinct to spread your seed & reproduce. But you do have a brain & free will. We Catholics also believe in our “higher natures” not just our lower (biological) ones. That higher nature directs our impulses to others (not self), to love (others, physically, in sacred bonds), & that the sexual instinct is ultimately intended for mutuality rather than solo behavior.

 

[TLM08]

In modern culture, everywhere a man turns there are images that can instantly set a signal through the central nervous system to prepare the male anatomy for an ejaculatory response. Without a battle plan, you are sunk the instant this occurs.

This is so common that even the most moral and holy of men are at risk. Even a glance at an attractive woman wearing modest clothing can elicit that response. Men will tell you that 1/10th of a second flash of skin during a shampoo commercial can even send a guy straight down that dreaded road. I’m not kidding. We fall into this habit during boyhood usually from porn exposure. Before we know it, we’ve been robbed of our innocence and are trapped like rats.

The more immodest material that enters the brain, from immodest company, magazines, music, television, the stronger and easier to trigger this ejaculatory response becomes. Pornography is absolutely like nuclear fuel of a masturbation habit. Porn viewing demands the relief of masturbation. Without that relief, pornography is nothing but a source of extreme frustration even for the atheist. Which bring me to the master mind of this sin cycle. His name is Satan. He invented this stuff in the first place. With God’s grace, you can outsmart him in this fight!

G-Rated living, frequent confession and lots of prayer is the only way to purify the mind. The purified mind in turn is better able to handle the occasional impure image that grabs the eye in the course of day to day living.

 

[TLM08]

We don’t do this because we are bad people. We do this because we don’t know how to stop. Knowledge combined with God’s grace is the key.

 

[ganzverwirrt]

Reply:

My dear friend in Christ,

It’s actually a very shrewd philosophy that you espouse. If your not seeking the truth, your much less likely to find it:thumbsup: On the other hand you may bump into it from time to time, but not to worry, you likely woun’t recognize it anyhow.

I wish I could know what you believe is true, but, heck, there isn’t any truth, so how can I?

Not only is your philosophy good, but it’s also very convient. "It’s only true, if I say its true." What a novel idea. Thanks! I wish I had thought of it first.

Let’s please quit flaming each other over this. I really don’t believe that this poster only believes what is “convenient.” He probably feels that he has very legitimate, even moral, grounds for the convictions he stated in his earlier posts. And yes, atheists and non-Catholics DO have morals, even if you are inclined to believe otherwise.

Please, instead of browbeating him and other posters, let’s offer constructive reasons for the differences in doctrine. He is entitled to think this, even if it is in opposition to the Catholic dogma of what is “true.” Saying that one “wouldn’t recognize the truth if they bumped into it” (essentially), or that they are really just changing their opinions for convinience is hardly a way to get someone to respect, much less agree with, your own ideals.

Catholics have a reputation for being very dogmatic and disrespectful, particularly towards people from other traditions. Let’s please make this a welcoming place for the exchange of ideas for outsiders, as well as for finding out good information about the church. People who are questioning have a right to hear all sides, without the flag-waving.