Splitting hairs about masturbation?

[convert31]

I hope this is the right forum. A friend of mine and I were having a quite cerebral conversation about chastity, and the conversation took a turn to an unusual but apparently real scenario that neither one of us could definitively analyze. I’ve read the relevant forum posts about masturbation and mortal sin and have also perused parts of the Catechism, and I still don’t know quite how to break it down. I’ll try to describe it concisely without being graphic:

Apparently some women are sensitive enough in areas of the body–areas above the waist or below the knee–that they can achieve pleasure without going near the obvious places. In effect, they can masturbate without ANY stimulation of the genital organs whatsoever. However, according to the Catechism, masturbation is defined as the “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.”

Obviously, this is a misuse of sexual pleasure–but, even if done knowingly, is it grave enough to constitute a mortal sin? It seems like it’s just a physiological end run around masturbation, so it should be a mortal sin just as masturbation is. Still, it doesn’t really even come close to the definition in the Catechism, and the Catechism could have been phrased broadly enough to include this. So is it masturbation? If it’s not masturbation, what other kind of mortal sin would it be? Or is it just not a mortal sin? What portions of the Catechism are relevant to p(name removed by moderator)ointing the gravity of this conduct?

I realize that this is an arcane example, but I’m hoping that your (name removed by moderator)ut will be structured in a way that will help me better form my conscience when drawing lines about more common behaviors. Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[mercygate]

I hope this is the right forum. A friend of mine and I were having a quite cerebral conversation about chastity, and the conversation took a turn to an unusual but apparently real scenario that neither one of us could definitively analyze. I’ve read the relevant forum posts about masturbation and mortal sin and have also perused parts of the Catechism, and I still don’t know quite how to break it down. I’ll try to describe it concisely without being graphic:

Apparently some women are sensitive enough in areas of the body–areas above the waist or below the knee–that they can achieve pleasure without going near the obvious places. In effect, they can masturbate without ANY stimulation of the genital organs whatsoever. However, according to the Catechism, masturbation is defined as the “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.”

Obviously, this is a misuse of sexual pleasure–but, even if done knowingly, is it grave enough to constitute a mortal sin? It seems like it’s just a physiological end run around masturbation, so it should be a mortal sin just as masturbation is. Still, it doesn’t really even come close to the definition in the Catechism, and the Catechism could have been phrased broadly enough to include this. So is it masturbation? If it’s not masturbation, what other kind of mortal sin would it be? Or is it just not a mortal sin? What portions of the Catechism are relevant to p(name removed by moderator)ointing the gravity of this conduct?

I realize that this is an arcane example, but I’m hoping that your (name removed by moderator)ut will be structured in a way that will help me better form my conscience when drawing lines about more common behaviors. Thanks in advance for your responses.

A. Deliberate sexual self-stimulation is grave matter.
B. You know it is grave matter.
C. You knowingly do it anyway.

Short answer: Yes. It is a mortal sin. The language of the *Catechism *is not the least bit unclear. "Deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs . . . " It doesn’t say “touching.”

 

[convert31]

That’s basically what I thought–indirect stimulation is still stimulation, after all. So here’s the followup question: a person in a relationship with such a woman would have the responsibility to avoid those triggers, even where a normal woman wouldn’t be so stimulated?

 

[mercygate]

That’s basically what I thought–indirect stimulation is still stimulation, after all. So here’s the followup question: a person in a relationship with such a woman would have the responsibility to avoid those triggers, even where a normal woman wouldn’t be so stimulated?

That question is a little too circumspect for a direct answer. Let me guess.

If you are a guy engaging in petting and such with this woman, then you need to re-think that whole part of your relationship and avoid the “near occasion of sin.” This would then be “matter for confession” for both of you.

You both definitely need to guard one another’s chastity. Quidquid requiretur! (Whatever it may take!)

 

[Pat_the_Cat]

I have to agree that all sexual acts outside of marriage are seriously sinful.

To purposefuly provoke yourself to become aroused is in direct contradiction to the virtue of chastity (no matter how it’s done). It is perfectly acceptable for a married person to become aroused by their spouse in preperation for intercourse. Christopher West coined the phrase “Arousal is Spousal”. Hope this helps settle your debate!

 

[convert31]

That question is a little too circumspect for a direct answer. Let me guess.

If you are a guy engaging in petting and such with this woman, then you need to re-think that whole part of your relationship and avoid the “near occasion of sin.” This would then be “matter for confession” for both of you.

You both definitely need to guard one another’s chastity. Quidquid requiretur! (Whatever it may take!)

Sorry, mercygate, you’re guessing wrong, but thanks for your concern. I’m in a chaste relationship that consists of little more than handholding. It’s just that I’m a convert who is learning that you don’t read the Catechism the way Scalia reads the Constitution: “strict construction” and “plain meaning” are better suited for legal questions than moral ones.

 

[CuriousInIL]

A. Deliberate sexual self-stimulation is grave matter.
B. You know it is grave matter.
C. You knowingly do it anyway.

Short answer: Yes. It is a mortal sin. The language of the *Catechism *is not the least bit unclear. "Deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs . . . " It doesn’t say “touching.”

The language of the Catechism is not what you quoted. Rather, it states (and I agree with you in language that is not unclear):

****2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Sorry, mercygate, you’re guessing wrong, but thanks for your concern. I’m in a chaste relationship that consists of little more than handholding. It’s just that I’m a convert who is learning that you don’t read the Catechism the way Scalia reads the Constitution: “strict construction” and “plain meaning” are better suited for legal questions than moral ones.

I think you will find here that many many people are entirely inconsistent and apply “strict meaning” to certain CCC sections when it suits their position and the “the meaning of this in context” type analysis when that is better suited.

 

[larry85704]

You should really read the whole 2352 paragraph.

When I read this I would believe that kissing my date is masturbation. Kissing can lead to genital stimulation, if you do it right. Of course I know this because I am married and I kiss my wife.

Watching a movie that arouses you, even a little bit, is also wrong.

The paragraph doesn’t say anything about how you stimulate yourself.

Then read the second part. If that isn’t a loophole, I am a goose.

 

[mercygate]

Sorry, mercygate, you’re guessing wrong, but thanks for your concern. I’m in a chaste relationship that consists of little more than handholding. It’s just that I’m a convert who is learning that you don’t read the Catechism the way Scalia reads the Constitution: “strict construction” and “plain meaning” are better suited for legal questions than moral ones.

I am glad you are in a chaste relationship. Congratulations, so few people are.

Since you are clear about how the Catechism should be interpreted, I fail to understand why you asked the question.

 

[convert31]

I definitely agree with all the posters that such arousal is a sin against chastity and is therefore unacceptable no matter how it’s done or who is stimulating it. I posted because my buddy and I got stuck trying to articulate whether and why engaging in such stimulation (self- or otherwise) would be a mortal sin.

In other words, I reached the “mortal sin” conclusion, but when I try to explain it using Church authority, I get stuck in definitions. I’m trying to get “unstuck” in my thought process while still using reason and Church authority rather than conclusive declarations based on intuition and conscience.

My hypothetical is really more of a mortal sin question. I posted hoping to see someone specifically address the analytical steps so that I could learn something about applying Church teachings methodically without being too legalistic. There are many forms of sins against chastity that do not rise to the level of mortal sin, and obviously some forms of stimulation (like kissing) are at most unchaste, whereas others (like my hypothetical) seem pretty darn dangerous.

If the discussion is over, that’s fine too; there’s been enough to settle the basics and I don’t want to encourage people to be too legalistic or too preoccupied with this somewhat distasteful hypothetical. Thanks for all of your (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[brotherjoe]

You guys have me in Hell, no question about it.

IMHO, if the application of a grave matter of sin is in doubt due to a question of interpreting the Catechism or a Church document, then I believe that it is impossible to have the “full knowledge” requisite for mortal sin. Particularly when I was a young man, but even now, I found that a great deal of affection between myself and friends or relatives resulted in involuntary and unwanted arousal. I could have become standoffish, but being as the second greatest commandment in all the universe is that we love one another, and that Jesus seems to have been a toucher himself, I chose to err on the side of showing affection. I still feel that way. It may well be that I have erred, but I am truly confident in the mercy of God, who is eager to forgive and slow to condemn, in such an area of doubt.

Joe

 

[larry85704]

To understand anything that is written down you need, to be safe, formal training. I hate to say it but you need to become a lawyer. A canon lawyer maybe. Often time we apply definitions to words and we are wrong. The catechism does not describe how the stimulation occurs, so it doesn’t matter. Also, if you are married, you may not be able to commit the sin of masturbation. I think, from reading the text, that is a grey area. Other posters have said that anything is ok in a marriage as long as sperm winds up properly in the woman. I guess I would want to talk to a priest about that. Again, we tend to read stuff into paragraphs that isn’t actually there. And then there is the statement about reduced moral culpability due to social factors. What social factors?

Anyway, if you become aroused, even unintentionally, and you are not married, you should take steps so that doesn’t happen again. I think the catechism says that. If it is a mortal sin? Now that is a much bigger can of worms. You have to consider the parts of the catechism I really don’t understand. Anybody want to tell me why social factors reduce the moral culpability of masturbation? I think that says social factors can make it not a mortal sin. So what are the social factors?

 

[mercygate]

To understand anything that is written down you need, to be safe, formal training. I hate to say it but you need to become a lawyer. A canon lawyer maybe. Often time we apply definitions to words and we are wrong. The catechism does not describe how the stimulation occurs, so it doesn’t matter. Also, if you are married, you may not be able to commit the sin of masturbation. I think, from reading the text, that is a grey area. Other posters have said that anything is ok in a marriage as long as sperm winds up properly in the woman. I guess I would want to talk to a priest about that. Again, we tend to read stuff into paragraphs that isn’t actually there. And then there is the statement about reduced moral culpability due to social factors. What social factors?

Anyway, if you become aroused, even unintentionally, and you are not married, you should take steps so that doesn’t happen again. I think the catechism says that. If it is a mortal sin? Now that is a much bigger can of worms. You have to consider the parts of the catechism I really don’t understand. Anybody want to tell me why social factors reduce the moral culpability of masturbation? I think that says social factors can make it not a mortal sin. So what are the social factors?

All this quibbling about whether it is a mortal sin or not is just noise. Sin is something to be loathed, whatever the degree. Sin is incompatible with love.

Try Christopher West’s handy little book, Good News about Sex and Marriage. It covers all these questions in crisp, easy-to-understand Q&A format.

 

[convert31]

To understand anything that is written down you need, to be safe, formal training. I hate to say it but you need to become a lawyer. A canon lawyer maybe.

Actually, I have a ton of formal training (though not in canon law specifically) and would love to be a canon lawyer so that I could chew on these issues somewhere other than message boards. The other poster was right: whether or not it is a mortal sin is just noise. Still, it makes a difference to how someone must respond if it occurs–and it makes a difference to me when thinking about how to apply Church teachings in general. My own life is simple enough that I find the principles pretty straightforward most of the time, which is why this question had me stumped.

I’ll also agree that Christopher West’s book is extremely useful on any number of levels. I highly recommend it as well.

 

[larry85704]

Ok, are you saying it does not make any difference if it is a mortal sin or not?

In a way I agree with you, sin is sin, but the teachings of our Church make mortal sin a big deal. So, based on the teachings of the Church, I’d say it is a big deal if it is a mortal sin or not.

 

[mercygate]

Ok, are you saying it does not make any difference if it is a mortal sin or not?

In a way I agree with you, sin is sin, but the teachings of our Church make mortal sin a big deal. So, based on the teachings of the Church, I’d say it is a big deal if it is a mortal sin or not.

Of course mortal versus venial sin is a big deal. But the person who is doing contortions to “decide” the degree of culpability is approaching the subject from the “letter” rather than the “spirit” of the thing. The MATTER is objectively grave matter, and therefore the matter of mortal sin. The culpability may be mitigated by certain subjective conditions. That should be between the person and his confessor.

When it doubt, get it out! If you are doing something that is objectively grave matter, it is wise to subject it to the power of the Keys even if your subjective culpability might be mitigated by conditions and circumstances.

 

[larry85704]

Ok, lets plod along down the path a awhile.

Mortal sin means no communion and you go to hell if you die, or did somebody change that? Assuming you don’t go to confession, of course.

Non-mortal sins means you probably go to heaven. You can receive communion. Seems like a big deal to me.

Anyway, you go to your priest and determine your masturbation is not a grevious matter that is a mortal sin. I agree fully that this is what you need to do. I agree fully that this is a matter between you and your confessor, most certainly nobody else.

Now, how to you reconcile that to all the posts on this site that declare masturbation to be a mortal sin? All these posters do not have the right to make that determination. If anything, Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that placing an unreasonable burden on the back of your brothers in Christ will probably get us a ticket to the confessional.

If all the posters on this site were as enlightened as you are this would be a better place.

 

[TIME]

Guys & Gals, their is a thread on “Whats Ok and What’s Not Regarding Marital Sexuality?” in the Family Life Forum that explains a lot of this as well.

 

[blessedtoo]

****2351 *****Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **
**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."137 “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."138

When I read this I would believe that kissing my date is masturbation. Kissing can lead to genital stimulation, if you do it right. Of course I know this because I am married and I kiss my wife.

If kissing your date causes sexual arousal, even to the point of “finishing” for either the man or woman, there would certainly be an obligation to refrain from such activity. It may not qualify as masturbation, but it would certainly fall within the parameters of the definition of lust in the CCC. If one knows that such physical activity is going to result in inappropriate and inordinate sexual arousal, and one continues to SEEK this activity for this reason, that would certainly qualify as a sin.

Watching a movie that arouses you, even a little bit, is also wrong.

Agreed. This would also fall within the same definition of deliberately seeking an activity or source for the specific intent of experiencing sexual pleasure.

The paragraph doesn’t say anything about how you stimulate yourself. Then read the second part. If that isn’t a loophole, I am a goose.

There is no loophole. The CCC doesn’t need to define masturbation as it has already been defined since time immemorial.
mas·tur·ba·tion *–noun *1.the stimulation or manipulation of one’s own genitals, esp. to orgasm; sexual self-gratification. 2.the stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of another’s genitals, esp. to orgasm.