F
ForwardProgress
Guest
I believe that it has to do with that bond that is created between two people who have sex. That bond is only meant to be had with one person, not 20.
I would think it’s ok to bond with yourself! HA.
- Status
I would think it’s ok to bond with yourself! HA.
B
buckr02
Guest
I don’t understand how people can think that masturbating does not harm others, it most certainly does. Not only does it completely distort one’s view of the gift of sexuality, it leads to all other sorts of sinning like viewing pornography and can also beef up sex drive and make people very tempted to participate in sexual activity outside of marriage. Not only that, but when it distorts your views on the sexes, it can lead to all other sorts of problems.Masturbation. The ides that something that gives pleasure without harming another person can be so sinful is…well…a stretch
I got hooked on masturbating when I was in seventh grade, when I had no idea it was in any way sinful or really even what it was, thanks to the common attitude that it’s not so bad. After that, porn was inevitably dragged into the picture and now, at 20 years old (that’s around 8 years!), I’m still trying to break free. The addiction has nearly destroyed a relationship with a wonderful friend over the last two years and has caused irreversible damage in that and other relationships (meaning it caused a LOT of stress for this friend that she didn’t deserve - i.e. “harming another”).
I know, I know, “what if they’re not addicted and just relieving stress and there’s no porn” … as I said before, it distorts the true purpose of the gift of sexuality which can later impact our decisions as adults, and can even lead others to think masturbation isn’t so bad, which could lead to getting them addicted (case in point - me) - and leading others to sin is very sinful in itself.
N
Newbie2
Guest
That is true…or if one dwelt on them, that is problematic as well.
B
bilop
Guest
You see, I would hold the opposite.
Don’t get me wrong, fornication is grave matter, but it least it employs the sexual faculties in the correct context; mutual self-giving within a, hopefully, loving relationship. It is a natural act, in the wrong situation.
Masturbation, however, is fundamentally selfish. It twists one’s perception of sex into a sole concern with one’s immediate gratification. Not to mention the association with pornography and fantasy that tends towards the objectification of the opposite sex, especially women.
If you wish to look at Aquinas, in Question 154, Articles 11 & 12,
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm
Masturbation is called “the unnatural vice”.
Aquinas rates fornication among the least of the lustful sins.
His order of severity goes 1) beastiality, 2)sodomy (homosexual) 3) masturbation 4) improper sex acts with a woman 5)rape (the sexual aspect not the violent, which increases its severity) 6) adultery 7) fornication
God Bless
M
MomblessedX3
Guest
Ok…I think this thread has been derailed. The posts here really should be addressed to a 14 year old…
It shouldn’t be a marriage counseling session.
To answer the original question…
I really struggled with the Church teaching regarding infant death and original sin. Oh yes…I can’t forget birth control.
However, my priest had a very good and accurate point when I talked with him about things I wasn’t sure I agreed with. He told me that in regards to what the Church teaches most people disagree only because they don’t really understand the what and they why’s of those teachings. I have found out he is truly correct. The more I learn the more I realize that it was out of ignorance that I didn’t agree. In fat everything I questioned previously…I support fully in context of Church teaching now.
I hope this helps to give you some (name removed by moderator)ut…
It shouldn’t be a marriage counseling session.
To answer the original question…
I really struggled with the Church teaching regarding infant death and original sin. Oh yes…I can’t forget birth control.
However, my priest had a very good and accurate point when I talked with him about things I wasn’t sure I agreed with. He told me that in regards to what the Church teaches most people disagree only because they don’t really understand the what and they why’s of those teachings. I have found out he is truly correct. The more I learn the more I realize that it was out of ignorance that I didn’t agree. In fat everything I questioned previously…I support fully in context of Church teaching now.
I hope this helps to give you some (name removed by moderator)ut…
M
mercygate
Guest
Man! You are exceptional! May God grant you the grace to triumph over this. Our Lady has been known to work miracles. Sounds like you’re already half way through one of 'em! God love you.
T
Tollers
Guest
The Church’s stance on contraception remains one area where I am in disagreement. I have read many of the reasoning, including those of then Cardinal Ratzinger. I wouldn’t say they all fall short, many of them are reasonable, but just too broad.
To be clear, when contraception stands a reasonable chance of leading to abortion, I find the Church’s stance on that form to make good sense. But the use of condoms and vasectomy certainly don’t lead to induced abortion.
When promiscuity is raised as a factor, it seems hollow. Wine, for instance, can lead to bad things, including promiscuity, but in that case there is only a prohibition against the sin, and not the wine.
I have to say also, that I find the logic put forward that a lack of contraception is not harming the “third world” to be rather contorted and not very convincing.
Many of the other concept and rulings, like original sin and the concept of mortal sin I have managed to work out for myself, but this is the one issue where I simply am not just troubled, but very much believe the Church’s teachings are at least partially wrong.
To be clear, when contraception stands a reasonable chance of leading to abortion, I find the Church’s stance on that form to make good sense. But the use of condoms and vasectomy certainly don’t lead to induced abortion.
When promiscuity is raised as a factor, it seems hollow. Wine, for instance, can lead to bad things, including promiscuity, but in that case there is only a prohibition against the sin, and not the wine.
I have to say also, that I find the logic put forward that a lack of contraception is not harming the “third world” to be rather contorted and not very convincing.
Many of the other concept and rulings, like original sin and the concept of mortal sin I have managed to work out for myself, but this is the one issue where I simply am not just troubled, but very much believe the Church’s teachings are at least partially wrong.
G
GraceDK
Guest
buckr02…
yep… fantastic post…
yep… fantastic post…
M
MaxP
Guest
All the teachings related to sex…especially masturbation. Viewing masturbation as a mortal sin is ridiculous. The Church seems very focused on sex.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
Tollers…I in no way mean to offend the Church but I find myself feeling this way also. Especially concerning third-world, over-population, etc.The Church’s stance on contraception remains one area where I am in disagreement…
To be clear, when contraception stands a reasonable chance of leading to abortion, I find the Church’s stance on that form to make good sense. But the use of condoms and vasectomy certainly don’t lead to induced abortion.
When promiscuity is raised as a factor, it seems hollow. Wine, for instance, can lead to bad things, including promiscuity, but in that case there is only a prohibition against the sin, and not the wine.
I have to say also, that I find the logic put forward that a lack of contraception is not harming the “third world” to be rather contorted and not very convincing.
Many of the other concept and rulings, like original sin and the concept of mortal sin I have managed to work out for myself, but this is the one issue where I simply am not just troubled, but very much believe the Church’s teachings are at least partially wrong.
And as far as self-gratification. I would guess that not many young men get thru puberty without it. I have trouble seeing it as a sin unless it dominates, controls and affects your life negatively. I don’t see pornography as a logical next step though. That’s just me. I’m really not comfortable discussing it in a forum, either.
I’m female, btw.
R
rtconstant
Guest
For me its contraception. Obviously contraception that is abortive in nature is wrong no problem there. Also the over all concept of the marital act I get. But the inequity of genders in the act is just strange to me. While the reasoning doesn’t match up to me I can still accept it under the idea of the seamless garment.
But…
…then there is NFP. That one just throws the whole thing out. If NFP wasn’t considered OK I could at least see an over all theme but really throws a wrench into it. By accepting the core teachings on ABC I just don’t think I could feel good about practicing NFP.
But…
…then there is NFP. That one just throws the whole thing out. If NFP wasn’t considered OK I could at least see an over all theme but really throws a wrench into it. By accepting the core teachings on ABC I just don’t think I could feel good about practicing NFP.
R
rpp
Guest
I do not disagree with anything the Church teaches. However, I find I have difficulty in living up to some of the requirements.
Especially “love your enemy”. That is really hard. It seems unnatural, but I will admit, it certainly helps bring me inner peace.
Especially “love your enemy”. That is really hard. It seems unnatural, but I will admit, it certainly helps bring me inner peace.
M
mercygate
Guest
This thread is interesting to me because contraception and masturbation were two things I never had any question about once I “got it” which was about 2 years into our marriage – almost a quarter century before becoming Catholic. Once I intuited that contraception was wrong, the rest fell into place: including NFP.
The confusion over NFP arises when people use it with a frivolous contraceptive intent. Nevertheless it is a very different thing – even with defective intent – to abstain from the marital embrace than to interfere with it using contraptions and medications.
The confusion over NFP arises when people use it with a frivolous contraceptive intent. Nevertheless it is a very different thing – even with defective intent – to abstain from the marital embrace than to interfere with it using contraptions and medications.
B
buckr02
Guest
Why wouldn’t they be? As Mary herself said in her Fatima Apparitions,
"More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”
Seems logical to place great emphasis on it then.
And thanks to those of you who complimented my earlier post
B
buckr02
Guest
To answer the original question, I’d say, as someone already mentioned already, that the only teaching I don’t understand (that I can think of) is infant death and not being baptized.
It has happened in the past that I have had other concerns, but after actually researching the reasoning behind them, was completely turned and began to believe more in the Church. Things such as the Eucharist truly being the Body of Christ and Mary remaining a virgin her whole life. I can safely say now, however, that I don’t have trouble with any of the Church’s teachings, but don’t fully understand some of them.
It has happened in the past that I have had other concerns, but after actually researching the reasoning behind them, was completely turned and began to believe more in the Church. Things such as the Eucharist truly being the Body of Christ and Mary remaining a virgin her whole life. I can safely say now, however, that I don’t have trouble with any of the Church’s teachings, but don’t fully understand some of them.
B
BSHoop96
Guest
okay, please enlighten me. I can’t remember what ABC is.
S
St_Aloysius
Guest
These are great, guys!
Thank you so much for your honesty!
For me, the Church has always been supremely rational in her approach to various issues and for this reason, intellectually I usually have little to no problem assenting. But when it comes to practical living, especially with things like teachings on sexuality, it’s not so easy to say “amen.”
I’ll go a little deeper into some stuff that struck me. Please give me feedback.
The other day in my parish, our youth group was talking. My friend (and crush) started talking about abortion. He said he was morally opposed to it but didn’t think totally illegalizing it was the proper solution. “That won’t stop abortion,” he said. I agreed. I added that, however, making it available like it is now would still be worse. I was upset he tried to defend, in some way, legalized abortion at first–but when I thought about my own issues with Church teachings on sexuality, I started listening and thinking a little bit. Ninety-eight percent of abortions are done as means of birth control–for no other reason. One percent are rape or incest. The other one percent is various other reasons. I thought, “If we could respond to society’s arguments for legalized abortion–which usually centers on rape or incest–and place more sensible stipulations on undergoing the process, we could potentially cut down on 98% of abortions. It’s not all, but it’s a big percentage.”
The discussion went further when a friend shared her feelings on opening the priesthood to women. Of course I quoted the basics: a sacrament is directly instituted by Christ, form in tact, and the form was meant to more fully represent the divine Mystery being celebrated, the Incarnation–God’s becoming man. Then I started thinking about ways to rationalize around this. In Galatians, St. Paul says there is “neither male nor female” “in Christ Jesus,” and I also realized that though the Son did specifically become man, he did so via the Spirit and a Woman–and the actual mystery centers on God taking on human flesh, and to that gender is certainly secondary. What’s more, I garantee choice examples could be cited from the past of woman at least claiming ordinations. It made me think that, as the Church explored this issue, perhaps it was possible–some time in the future–that the priesthood could open up to this as our understanding of the sacrament evolves.
The same thing went for sexuality. “Neither male nor female” carries many implications. Aside from this, nearly all negative scriptural references to homosexuality include allusions to the pagan and cultic practices which it was once associated very closely with. In spite of this, David and Jonathan’s story is told in what seems to be striking contrast (and it’s implications seem deeply at odds with current Church teachings).
The Church teaches that her understanding on matters can “evolve,” can grow.
Well, evolution entails speciation–a sometimes drastically different product, and history tells us (does it not?) that we are often imperfect in our pursuit of truth. I know it seems heretical to say, but it seems to me very possible–some days, inevitable–that the Church arrive at these conclusions sometime in the future.
I wouldn’t have thought so, but what about…?
(1) Teachings on salvation outside of the Church; today Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, etc., can all be saved (it just wasn’t so in the past);
(2) Papal infallibility; now the primacy and special authority of the Bishop of Rome is specifically identified as infallibility (beforehand, the Church didn’t totally share this perception–in fact, few probably did);
(3) Sex; in the Middle Ages, the Church condoned, even recommended, the use of prostitutes are means of alieviating sexual energy and tension (and this was also the primary goal of marriage; sex was just a necessary evil).
We’ve come a long way… What part, exactly, does the Church play in the lives of the faithful? Maybe we have misapplied infallibility on faith and morals… Maybe “faith” entails something more fundamental, maybe “morals” should be reared more towards aligning consciences rather than demanding spiritual and intellectual consent. I don’t know.
What do you guys think about all this?
Thank you so much for your honesty!
For me, the Church has always been supremely rational in her approach to various issues and for this reason, intellectually I usually have little to no problem assenting. But when it comes to practical living, especially with things like teachings on sexuality, it’s not so easy to say “amen.”
I’ll go a little deeper into some stuff that struck me. Please give me feedback.
The other day in my parish, our youth group was talking. My friend (and crush) started talking about abortion. He said he was morally opposed to it but didn’t think totally illegalizing it was the proper solution. “That won’t stop abortion,” he said. I agreed. I added that, however, making it available like it is now would still be worse. I was upset he tried to defend, in some way, legalized abortion at first–but when I thought about my own issues with Church teachings on sexuality, I started listening and thinking a little bit. Ninety-eight percent of abortions are done as means of birth control–for no other reason. One percent are rape or incest. The other one percent is various other reasons. I thought, “If we could respond to society’s arguments for legalized abortion–which usually centers on rape or incest–and place more sensible stipulations on undergoing the process, we could potentially cut down on 98% of abortions. It’s not all, but it’s a big percentage.”
The discussion went further when a friend shared her feelings on opening the priesthood to women. Of course I quoted the basics: a sacrament is directly instituted by Christ, form in tact, and the form was meant to more fully represent the divine Mystery being celebrated, the Incarnation–God’s becoming man. Then I started thinking about ways to rationalize around this. In Galatians, St. Paul says there is “neither male nor female” “in Christ Jesus,” and I also realized that though the Son did specifically become man, he did so via the Spirit and a Woman–and the actual mystery centers on God taking on human flesh, and to that gender is certainly secondary. What’s more, I garantee choice examples could be cited from the past of woman at least claiming ordinations. It made me think that, as the Church explored this issue, perhaps it was possible–some time in the future–that the priesthood could open up to this as our understanding of the sacrament evolves.
The same thing went for sexuality. “Neither male nor female” carries many implications. Aside from this, nearly all negative scriptural references to homosexuality include allusions to the pagan and cultic practices which it was once associated very closely with. In spite of this, David and Jonathan’s story is told in what seems to be striking contrast (and it’s implications seem deeply at odds with current Church teachings).
The Church teaches that her understanding on matters can “evolve,” can grow.
Well, evolution entails speciation–a sometimes drastically different product, and history tells us (does it not?) that we are often imperfect in our pursuit of truth. I know it seems heretical to say, but it seems to me very possible–some days, inevitable–that the Church arrive at these conclusions sometime in the future.
I wouldn’t have thought so, but what about…?
(1) Teachings on salvation outside of the Church; today Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, etc., can all be saved (it just wasn’t so in the past);
(2) Papal infallibility; now the primacy and special authority of the Bishop of Rome is specifically identified as infallibility (beforehand, the Church didn’t totally share this perception–in fact, few probably did);
(3) Sex; in the Middle Ages, the Church condoned, even recommended, the use of prostitutes are means of alieviating sexual energy and tension (and this was also the primary goal of marriage; sex was just a necessary evil).
We’ve come a long way… What part, exactly, does the Church play in the lives of the faithful? Maybe we have misapplied infallibility on faith and morals… Maybe “faith” entails something more fundamental, maybe “morals” should be reared more towards aligning consciences rather than demanding spiritual and intellectual consent. I don’t know.
What do you guys think about all this?
M
MomblessedX3
Guest
Artificial Birth Control
T
Tollers
Guest
In the Gospel Of John (16:13 i think) it says “The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, so that you will know of things which would be too much for you now.” While I have that in quotations, it’s off the top of my head and may not be exact.
I’ve always supposed that when something isn’t particularly clear, the Church would err on the side of caution?
S
Sheeniac
Guest
The Church’s strict stance against euthanasia. I understand it mentally, but very restrained ‘mercy killing’ seems like it can’t be cruel and a sin.
However, I will never join a group called ‘Catholics for Quick and Easy Death’. I will never argue for it, nor do I expect my 2000 year old Church to change her teachings. I know that somehow, I will need to keep revising my thinking.
However, I will never join a group called ‘Catholics for Quick and Easy Death’. I will never argue for it, nor do I expect my 2000 year old Church to change her teachings. I know that somehow, I will need to keep revising my thinking.
- Status