By attempting to apply the most basic of God’s law’s - to love my neighbor - and by thoughtful consideration of religious teachings (including those of the Catholic Church) which support it. I believe that is what God expects of me. It is an ongoing process.
You are just cherry picking scripture to see and hear what you desire to see and hear – to make the data fit your preconceived agenda or objective. You need to be honest and see what you are doing is a rationalization process and no matter what we say you are committed to having it “your way”.
Don’t worry - mine is forming the right way. I don’t kill people, steal, or otherwise cause harm to others. I believe that’s what God wants from me. Anything wrong with that?
Ted Bundy could have said the same thing!
That’s a tiresome old mantra in this forum: impugning the motives of anyone who disagrees with Church doctrine. Without knowing me, how can possibly know whether I’m attempting to rationalize doing what I want regardless of its morality? The fact is, I simply believe that masturbation is not immoral for an unmarried and uncommitted person.
Quite the contrary - I do not have to ignore or rationalize away any of it. It’s simply irrelevant to the issue unless one goes through extrordinary contortions to force-fit it to one’s preconceived ideas.
It doesn’t; nor does it dishonor Him.
It is self-absorbtion, as are many pleasures that are not considered mortal sins. As for the homosexuality angle, that’s a bit of a stretch; it falls into the realm of “novel legal theory”.
Let’s face it - the COLRs (Cranky Old Latin Riters) of this forum need people like me to make themselves feel superior. But I’m humble, I don’t request any thanks
Of course not. How is that relevant? Who is a person depriving, and of what, by masturbatingf?As a calibration point do you think it is moral for a lactating mother to deprive her baby of her breast milk and feed herself?
“Selfishness” implies that something is being taken from someone else. In masturbation by a single person, that’s clearly not the case.
Nice try, but you left one sentence in quoting me: “I don’t kill people, steal, or otherwise cause harm to others.”
Sin, including masturbation causes harm to others.
How does masturbation by a single, unattached person cause harm to others?
It hinders the natural attachment of a relationship.
I’m specifically referring to situations where there is no relationship; I stated “…by a single, unattached person…”.
… oh and the Ted bundy example completly has you! 
no one likely belives themselves to be evil! but when you have no concrete structure to set as your standered people like ted bundey or Adolf Hitler develope! and masturbation harms the whole fait communty for we are “one body in Christ!” :takethat:Well, none of the scripture that CentralFLJames cites refers to masturbation. He implies that the practice somehow dishonors God, but doesn’t back it up.I belive Cristiano is refering to the problems one who masterbates will have forming a full and meaning full realationship later in life, and I must ask how you can possibly ignore the list of scripture that CentralFLJames posted
The ted bundy example and my own Adolf Hitler example prove that by forming your own conscience can lead to unforcean consequences mainly problem in said conscience! And the scriptures aformentioned quite clearly refer to masturbation. especial Genesis 38:9-10 …so whenever he [Onan] lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also. I would love to see you deny that that refers to masturbation!
Indeed, forming one’s own conscience is not an easy task. But so far, I’m not discerning any calling to become a serial killer or genocidal monster.
Onan masturbated as a means of contraception in a marital relationship. The sin was the avoidance of producing offspring. In the case of a single, unattached person, there’s no chance of producing offspring - indeed for such a person to have sex with a woman would itself be considered sinful.And the scriptures aformentioned quite clearly refer to masturbation. especial Genesis 38:9-10 …so whenever he [Onan] lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also. I would love to see you deny that that refers to masturbation!
But you could have a relationship in the future, presumably, and masturbation hinders the other-ness in our orientation by which we welcome, would welcome, such a relationship, should God choose, and a partner choose, to desire your partnership with another.
There goes your Freudian Slip: I never mentioned any word about immorality. You said it yourself.
How do you define Natural Law? If you equate it to Church teaching, then by definition masturbation is wrong. But that’s circular reasoning. People make statements like “sexuality was created solely for reproduction”, but they only back them up by reference to Church documents. An objective look at sexuality doesn’t support that position. Clearly, reproduction is one function of sexuality, but doesn’t show that it’s the only function. That’s a man-made construct.
Your rebuttals are a tiresome old mantra of “me myself and I” are just fine with whatever we agree too in committee. I don’t know you except by what you post here and what you post here is subjective spin that flies in the face of common sense as well as scripture as well as Church teaching. Believing something, no matter how hard you stroke your own ideas, does not make it stand up to objective truth. This is the same general error the Protestants make in their sola fide concept - imagining that truth is s function of one’s labor of belief.
So say you if you say so yourself. What is extraordinary is your refusal to accept the obvious - that you are quite possibly wrong and going counter culture to 2000 years of moral teaching. Papal infallability?
St. Paul said otherwise. Do you reject St. Paul’s apostolic teachings and consider yourself more moral than he?
Novel? Canon Law and Church teaching have been in existence for 2,000 years. What is novel is the barrel and hoop dog-n-pony show you are going through to dance around them.
And now you finally show your frustration in not getting to have it “your way” and start with the ad hominums and “woe is me as the poor independent thinker who suffers to have to deal with the misinformed”. How typical…Let’s face it - the COLRs (Cranky Old Latin Riters) of this forum need people like me to make themselves feel superior. But I’m humble, I don’t request any thanks
I would recommend watching Christopher West’s video “Theology of the Body”. I don’t remember if it specifically addresses masturbation, but it covers human sexuality in a broader context of the theology of the body. These forums with short posts - responses aren’t a good way to learn about something so subtle and complex.
What specifically is the “common sense” to which you refer? And since when is Church teaching “objective truth”?
What could be more extraordinary than believing that one man in Rome can somehow tell all of us, infallibly, what God wants us to do or not do? And 2000 years of moral “teaching” - so what? It still has to stand on its own, without self-referential claims of infallibility.