Unclear on the Catechism's def. on masturbation

[Kamonian_Wax]

Hello!

Okay, so I don’t want to sound like I want to justify the action, but I reread the definition of the action in the catechism, and the last part raises some questions…

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

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

So, everyone is aware that the action constitutes a mortal sin, i.e., “gravely disordered action”. The last part of the definition, however, seems to contradict the sin’s seriousness and lays some of the blame on outside influences, or “factors.”

On a personal level, as a young man, of 19, I’ve had to deal with this struggle, like so many other guys, throughout my adolescence. Although, the frequency of falling to this sin has since dropped as my hormones are slightly coming back into order, I’ve come to consider the possibility that not every single situation where I ended up doing it actually could have registered as a mortal sin. I remember one out of the hundreds of times I’ve gone to confession for this sin, and hearing my confessor say a very odd thing: that the sin isn’t always mortally punishable.

Now, we’re all pretty aware that the body naturally “cleans house” every now and then, typically in wet dreams, or just involuntarily during sleep. I don’t want to sound like I want to do the action, but what if the sexual tension associated before hand causes me to stumble even without lustful images or an direct pre-meditated desire for sexual stimulus?

Again, I’m looking at the last part of the definition. It seems that moral culpability can adjust the seriousness of the sin. Help me out guys, I’d love to hear from you!

Nick

 

[bmullins]

Moral culpability always determines the difference between mortal and venial sin. All grave sins can be mortal, and they can be venial. The difference is in the three aspects of mortal sin.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

So let’s look at masturbation in particular.

Condition 1: Grave matter - masturbation does indeed fall under grave matter, as your quote shows.

Condition 2: complete consent - This is one that only God and the person sinning knows for sure. Are they giving in because they want to or have to? Are they being forced by someone else? Can they control themselves? Addiction can often cause us to do things we do not want to do, even to the point where it’s against our consent.

Condition 3 - Full knowledge - here is the one that many people miss. They think that knowing that it’s a grave matter means the person has full knowledge. Full knowledge also implies that they fully and completely understand that this is a mortal sin, are aware that it will severe their relationship with God, have no doubts to the seriousness of the situation, are not compelled in anyway, but simply choose to do it anyway.

Mortal sin is not an accidental thing. It’s basically walking up to God, saying yeah I know… then slapping him in the face; turning around and doing what you want to anyway.

 

[carguy]

Mortal sin is not an accidental thing. It’s basically walking up to God, saying yeah I know… then slapping him in the face; turning around and doing what you want to anyway.

Yea that is a good way to but it. Just stay away from it this coming from someone that was addicted to it. It has been shown it is as addicting as heroin. If you are asking the question than you have the knowledge to know it is wrong so just wait till you are married I know it can be hard at times, but it is better to not do it.

 

[Nate13]

If you are addicted to masturbation, and doing everything possible to fight against that addiction, your culpability for the act should you fall is lessened. Measuring this lessening of culpability is not your job, but rather God’s. Do what is in your power to fight and throw your failings at the mercy of God, with your eyes set on the end goal. It is definitely recommended to continue going to confession on a regular basis and to not try to distinguish the culpability for the act yourself. If the sin you committed can be considered a grave sin, just go to confession and leave the culpability matter to the mercy of God.

 

[Joe_5859]

The last paragraph is not part of the “definition” of masturbation. It is giving advice to pastors on some things to take into consideration when evaluating an individual’s moral culpability in committing this particular act.

Bmullins listed the three conditions necessary for a sin to be mortal. Masturbation is grave matter and thus fulfills the first condition. The last paragraph of CCC 2352 brings up some scenarios that might possibly affect the other two conditions. For example, if the “force of acquired habit” is strong, that reduces a person’s capacity to completely consent to the act.

In any case, I would recommend to anyone that they not attempt to parse through this on their own and assume that they’re probably not committing a mortal sin and thereby can keep doing what they are doing. If someone is struggling with masturbation, they should seek the counsel of a priest in the sacrament of Confession and together with the priest parse out what these words might mean for their individual situation.

I think the intent of the paragraph is to offer hope to those who are entrenched in this sin and may be prone to despair. The intent is not to serve as some sort of license to continue committing the sin without remorse.

 

[Kamonian_Wax]

I think the intent of the paragraph is to offer hope to those who are entrenched in this sin and may be prone to despair. The intent is not to serve as some sort of license to continue committing the sin without remorse.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Joe. But as a guy who isn’t at all immersed in theology, all these clauses and variables thrown into the mix of discerning whether or not it was a mortal sin cloud any certainty. Even while my struggle does, indeed, seem to be “force of acquired habit,” I still end up having to avoid the Eucharist and live in slight contempt because I’m never sure I’m free from hell unless I go as soon as possible to confession.

Now that I’m in college, the issue of going to confession has been utterly inconvenient, as last semester I walked for almost an hour to confession almost every other Saturday afternoon.

 

[Nate13]

I whole-heartedly agree with you, Joe. But as a guy who isn’t at all immersed in theology, all these clauses and variables thrown into the mix of discerning whether or not it was a mortal sin cloud any certainty. Even while my struggle does, indeed, seem to be “force of acquired habit,” I still end up having to avoid the Eucharist and live in slight contempt because I’m never sure I’m free from hell unless I go as soon as possible to confession.

Now that I’m in college, the issue of going to confession has been utterly inconvenient, as last semester I walked for almost an hour to confession almost every other Saturday afternoon.

Is there the possibility of talking to your priest and setting up a time right before mass every Sunday or whenever you go to mass where you can go to confession? I would talk to your priest about this and get his advice on how to handle it.

 

[Kamonian_Wax]

Is there the possibility of talking to your priest and setting up a time right before mass every Sunday or whenever you go to mass where you can go to confession? I would talk to your priest about this and get his advice on how to handle it.

That’s almost like saying, “Umm, Father, I’m going to be mortally sinning at least once every week -” This priest, unfortunately, is responsible for a huge parish and they stopped having Sunday morning confessions right before I arrived to college…

 

[Nate13]

That’s almost like saying, “Umm, Father, I’m going to be mortally sinning at least once every week -” This priest, unfortunately, is responsible for a huge parish and they stopped having Sunday morning confessions right before I arrived to college…

If you have been seeing him for confession regularly he will know of the situation. There are many people who set up a weekly confession time with a priest so that in and of itself is not weird or something to be ashamed of. Lots of nuns probably receive weekly confession and spiritual guidance.

In any event talk it over with him and see what he thinks about you receiving communion even if you were unable to get to confession, and whether your current state of sin has been reduced culpably to the point where it is a venial sin and no longer and mortal sin.

If that is not the case then you get the unenviable cross to bear of not being able to receive the Eucharist on a weekly basis if your not able to get to confession.

 

[Jaguar]

In any event talk it over with him and see what he thinks about you receiving communion even if you were unable to get to confession, and whether your current state of sin has been reduced culpably to the point where it is a venial sin and no longer and mortal sin.

I don’t know about this part. I think this sin can only be judged on a case by case basis. One might take the above for granted, and make the mistake even more often. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

 

[Nate13]

I don’t know about this part. I think this sin can only be judged on a case by case basis. One might take the above for granted, and make the mistake even more often. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

Yeah I don’t see an easy answer. A bike might speed up your trip to Church by about half/third if you can get your hands on one…

 

[Kamonian_Wax]

I think this sin can only be judged on a case by case basis. One might take the above for granted, and make the mistake even more often. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

Excellent point, Jag. It’s not like I can get permission from the priest to not have to go to confession anymore and just give into the temptation regularly. That’s totally ludicrous. I think it would be great to seek advise, but it’s still annoying that I end up asking a human, and many many priests have different views. So at the end of the day, I’m still uncertain. I’d love it if the Vatican just published an extremely thorough definition.

It’s just that, and this goes with the whole confusion of the Catechism’s various definitions on sexuality-related subjects, if the Vatican did indeed make extensive revisions, we’d end up in a violent whirlpool of do’s and don’ts. This, in turn could cause more discussion and confusion on what is and isn’t permissible. On a side note, It was very unnerving to me while reading these forums when I found out that oral sex was not sinful, as long as the man finishes the act in the vagina. In my opinion, it’s kinda silly that actions that do not express conjugal love can be justified just by completing them in the vagina, and for that reason, I think theologians are getting their brains too worked up as to what is right and wrong in every situation. Why have so many Catholic’s gone so darn technical in interpreting the moral actions of what goes on in the bed room between a married couple??? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! How can we condemn anything that goes on between a married couple if they didn’t take pills or put on condoms??? They should be congratulated that they are not buying into artificial contraceptives so long as they are not intentionally avoiding vaginal intercourse for the purpose of contraception! … I digress, hahah. It’s just frustrating to read people endlessly discuss and argue sometimes.

 

[Kamonian_Wax]

Excellent point, Jag. It’s not like I can get permission from the priest to not have to go to confession anymore and just give into the temptation regularly. That’s totally ludicrous. I think it would be great to seek advise, but it’s still annoying that I end up asking a human, and many many priests have different views. So at the end of the day, I’m still uncertain. I’d love it if the Vatican just published an extremely thorough definition.

It’s just that, and this goes with the whole confusion of the Catechism’s various definitions on sexuality-related subjects, if the Vatican did indeed make extensive revisions, we’d end up in a violent whirlpool of do’s and don’ts. This, in turn could cause more discussion and confusion on what is and isn’t permissible. On a side note, It was very unnerving to me while reading these forums when I found out that oral sex was not sinful, as long as the man finishes the act in the vagina. In my opinion, it’s kinda silly that actions that do not express conjugal love can be justified just by completing them in the vagina, and for that reason, I think theologians are getting their brains too worked up as to what is right and wrong in every situation. Why have so many Catholic’s gone so darn technical in interpreting the morality of actions that go on in the bed room between a married couple??? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! How can we condemn anything between a married couple if they didn’t take pills or put on condoms??? They should be congratulated that they are not buying into artificial contraceptives so long as they are not intentionally avoiding vaginal intercourse for the purpose of contraception! … I digress, hahah. It’s just frustrating to read people endlessly discuss and argue sometimes.

It’s like a game show, almost. It’s like sex between a married couple has become a death-defying activity. Apparently, theologists will say absolutely any act, expressive of conjugal love or otherwise is appropriate - Oh, but watch out! If the husband’s not fast enough to getting his wife’s vagina - he’s just conducted grave matter! “Open the gates of hell!” But, at the last moment before he ejaculates, he is rewarded with remaining purely sanctified if he reaches her in time. Sounds rather silly, no?

 

[yellow8yellowM]

In my opinion this description misses the most important point of all: intent. If you have sex with the intent of conjugal love and the intent of keeping the possibility of a pregnancy open, then if you don’t reach your wife in time, it is not a mortal sin.

If you have sex with the intent of simply stimulating eachother and hoping get to your wife in time just to satisfy the requirement of not committing a mortal sin, then what? If you get there in time, I would venture to say this is not a mortal sin but still a defiance of God’s will. If you didn’t get there in time, in with this intent, I would say it is certainly a mortal sin.

Thinking about the intent keeps it very simple.

It’s like a game show, almost. It’s like sex between a married couple has become a death-defying activity. Apparently, theologists will say absolutely any act, expressive of conjugal love or otherwise is appropriate - Oh, but watch out! If the husband’s not fast enough to getting his wife’s vagina - he’s just conducted grave matter! “Open the gates of hell!” But, at the last moment before he ejaculates, he is rewarded with remaining purely sanctified if he reaches her in time. Sounds rather silly, no?

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I am much older than you, and married, but still fight with this issue. The best advice I can give is that if you truly want to solve the problem, you have to change your environment. Remove as many of the temptations from your life as possible. For example, stay away from the computer or TV at night. Stay away from the beach. Control what you can, and do your best when you cannot.

If you leave temptations in your life, then you are not truly ready to solve the problem.

Help me out guys, I’d love to hear from you!

Nick

 

[Nate13]

It’s just that, and this goes with the whole confusion of the Catechism’s various definitions on sexuality-related subjects, if the Vatican did indeed make extensive revisions, we’d end up in a violent whirlpool of do’s and don’ts. This, in turn could cause more discussion and confusion on what is and isn’t permissible. On a side note, It was very unnerving to me while reading these forums when I found out that oral sex was not sinful, as long as the man finishes the act in the vagina. In my opinion, it’s kinda silly that actions that do not express conjugal love can be justified just by completing them in the vagina, and for that reason, I think theologians are getting their brains too worked up as to what is right and wrong in every situation. Why have so many Catholic’s gone so darn technical in interpreting the moral actions of what goes on in the bed room between a married couple??? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! How can we condemn anything that goes on between a married couple if they didn’t take pills or put on condoms??? They should be congratulated that they are not buying into artificial contraceptives so long as they are not intentionally avoiding vaginal intercourse for the purpose of contraception! … I digress, hahah. It’s just frustrating to read people endlessly discuss and argue sometimes.

Haha I agree with you. Unfortunately common sense has jumped out the window in many cases. I would much rather have the case though that people are too worried about the morality of their actions, than the opposite though.

 

[Kamonian_Wax]

Thinking about the intent keeps it very simple.

Yeah, Nate, I spoke to my Dad on this and now it makes a lot of sense. I thought at first you mean’t when you said “intent” was that the couples were intending to perform the procreative act, but that was still a little foggy in my head at first. What you’re saying really comes to life when the couple performs other acts explicitly for the intent of enjoying them and finishing them, therefore completely avoiding conjugal love. I get it, thanks a bunch, because now it makes sense why it would be a sin.

Thanks!

 

[Luxmundi]

This is entirely too confusing. Here we are, lay-people, trying to interpret a “gravely disordered action.” It’s interesting that the catechism doesn’t use mitigating circumstances to murder or adultery. It doesn’t even characterize those sins as “gravely disordered actions” but rather “grave sins”. One can’t lesson the sin of adultery with “habit” or anxiety". There are many things out there which would be considered “gravely disordered actions”. Try picking your nose or scratching your butt in public. Pretty disordered I’d say. But in private when we’re all alone and we get that little itch or feel a booger blocking the nasal passage and…scratch and pick away!!! Not so disordered when done in private. I’m not jusifying masturbation in any way, I just wish there were more clarity on the severity of the sinfulness of it instead of we “lay-theologians” trying to subjectively define a “gravlely disordered action.” The truth is, NONE of us are viewing this thread by accident. Yep, just like the old closet booger picking butt scratchers you know we all are…

 

[Luxmundi]

Excellent point, Jag. It’s not like I can get permission from the priest to not have to go to confession anymore and just give into the temptation regularly. That’s totally ludicrous. I think it would be great to seek advise, but it’s still annoying that I end up asking a human, and many many priests have different views. So at the end of the day, I’m still uncertain. I’d love it if the Vatican just published an extremely thorough definition.

It’s just that, and this goes with the whole confusion of the Catechism’s various definitions on sexuality-related subjects, if the Vatican did indeed make extensive revisions, we’d end up in a violent whirlpool of do’s and don’ts. This, in turn could cause more discussion and confusion on what is and isn’t permissible. On a side note, It was very unnerving to me while reading these forums when I found out that oral sex was not sinful, as long as the man finishes the act in the vagina. In my opinion, it’s kinda silly that actions that do not express conjugal love can be justified just by completing them in the vagina, and for that reason, I think theologians are getting their brains too worked up as to what is right and wrong in every situation. Why have so many Catholic’s gone so darn technical in interpreting the moral actions of what goes on in the bed room between a married couple??? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! How can we condemn anything that goes on between a married couple if they didn’t take pills or put on condoms??? They should be congratulated that they are not buying into artificial contraceptives so long as they are not intentionally avoiding vaginal intercourse for the purpose of contraception! … I digress, hahah. It’s just frustrating to read people endlessly discuss and argue sometimes.

I couldn’t agree more. I have exactly the same issue with respect to receiving the Eucharist and it keeps me from frequent reception during the week. Perhaps the reason the magisterium describes this sin with such latitude is because there’s probably not one of them who hasn’t been guilty of it at some point in their life.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

It’s interesting that the catechism doesn’t use mitigating circumstances to murder or adultery…One can’t lesson the sin of adultery with “habit” or anxiety."

In order for something to be a mortal sin there has to be full consent and full knowledge and grave matter. The catechism says that masturbation is always grave matter, but the mitigating circumstances are the full knowledge and full consent. It also lays out mitigating circumstances for prostitution (Paragraph 2355).