What Constitutes "Full Knowledge" For a Mortal Sin

[aperture]

Simply being aware of Church teaching on the matter that dictates that the matter is a mortal sin?

I’m referring to masturbation; I’ve been abstinent for about 5 months now, as an 18-year-old male (!), and still cannot for the life of me come up with a very good reason. Point-blank: I cannot see it as truly bad. Do I see it as pure and holy? No, but we all do things that are not pure or holy; we are human.

Essentially, at this point I feel that I’m living Pascal’s wager; I only abstain because I’m told failure to do so will condemn me to an eternity of torment. I have seen the Catechism, I have read many arguments against masturbation on these fora, I have prayed almost nightly for several months for God to simply let me know what’s right and still cannot see masturbation as a truly grave matter. I am making a decision that goes against my conscience and feels rather cowardly.

And yet the Catechism says I have “full knowledge”?

If I knew for certain that masturbation was wrong, abstaining would be easy as hell (pun intended).

EDIT: Little more thinking; basically, the root of this problem is that I can’t accept the Church as an infallible authority. I’ve seen the Scripture (“whoever rejects you…”), and from that I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the Catholic Church is made up of perfect successors to the apostles.

 

[Thoma25]

Simply being aware of Church teaching on the matter that dictates that the matter is a mortal sin?

I’m referring to masturbation; I’ve been abstinent for about 5 months now, as an 18-year-old male (!), and still cannot for the life of me come up with a very good reason. Point-blank: I cannot see it as truly bad. Do I see it as pure and holy? No, but we all do things that are not pure or holy; we are human.

Essentially, at this point I feel that I’m living Pascal’s wager; I only abstain because I’m told failure to do so will condemn me to an eternity of torment. I have seen the Catechism, I have read many arguments against masturbation on these fora, I have prayed almost nightly for several months for God to simply let me know what’s right and still cannot see masturbation as a truly grave matter. I am making a decision that goes against my conscience and feels rather cowardly.

And yet the Catechism says I have “full knowledge”?

If I knew for certain that masturbation was wrong, abstaining would be easy as hell (pun intended).

EDIT: Little more thinking; basically, the root of this problem is that I can’t accept the Church as an infallible authority. I’ve seen the Scripture (“whoever rejects you…”), and from that I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the Catholic Church is made up of perfect successors to the apostles.

The Catechism unequivocally states that masturbation is intrinsically disordered and is a grave act. You said you’ve seen the Catechism, and so you know that this is the case. Thus, you have full knowledge. If, after having full knowledge, you dissent from the Magisterium for the sake of your own fallible opinion, then you’re acting with full consent of the will. All three criteria are in effect: grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent of the will.

You say you’re praying to God to tell you what is true. That is precisely why he instituted the Catholic Church: to infallibly teach those truths which are necessary for salvation, and to actively guide its members to their heavenly reward. Consider the Church’s teaching the answer to your prayers, and persevere.

If, however, you’d rather create an absurd argument against valid Apostolic authority for the sake of your lower passions, then you’re welcome to your apostasy. It would be better to have courage in the face of temptation, certainly from the perspective of eternity, but such is the nature of free will.

 

[revert_jen]

EDIT: Little more thinking; basically, the root of this problem is that I can’t accept the Church as an infallible authority. I’ve seen the Scripture (“whoever rejects you…”), and from that I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the Catholic Church is made up of perfect successors to the apostles.

Nobody claims that the successors to the apostles are perfect. Bishops (including the Pope) aren’t impeccable (meaning incapable of sin), and bishops who are not the Pope are individually in no way infallable (incapable of teaching error).

Papal infallibility is also very limited. It says that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church so that the Pope, speaking by virtue of his office as successor to Peter, makes an official statement pertaining to faith and morals, he cannot teach error. If this were not the case, then there is no way to prevent the gates of Hell from prevailing against the Church, as was promised in the Bible.

Without a reliable authority, any useful level of unity in the Church is not possible, and unity of the Church is important (see John 17).

I wasn’t much older than you are when I decided I wanted to be a Protestant instead of the Catholic I had been brought up. When people asked why I was going to the Presbyterian church instead, I said that I didn’t believe in transsubstantiation and I didn’t agree with Papal infallibility. That was not true. I didn’t actually understand either concept the way they are taught in the Church, and it wasn’t the real reason I wanted to leave anyway (although at the time I didn’t know it). I wanted all the rules to be subject to my personal judgement. I wanted to determine what was good and what was evil myself–I didn’t need to inherit original sin (although of course I did); I was committing the same sin myself.

What I realized after I came back to the Church years later, was that I was neither more wise nor more knowledgeable than over 1900 years of holy men and women guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I realised that if I disagreed with the Church about something, there was a good possibility that I was wrong. Please feel free to be more mature than I was and not wait until you have left the Church and messed up your life (temporarily, anyway) to make this realisation.

As for figuring out whether masturbation is sinful, you are going about the thing the wrong way, which may be why you are not having much luck with your prayer. God has already told you completely and clearly what is right, by giving you the teachings of the Church. Does He really need to make a private revelation to every individual about every sin to which they are prone as well? There were a couple of sins I felt the same way about when I returned to the Church, but through the Grace of God (because I surely didn’t deserve it), I accepted the teachings of the Church really, even those where I couldn’t “see” it intellectually. Once I got to the point that I was willing to believe my personal judgement wasn’t the final rule of what is right, God kindly showed me intellectually as well why the Church had been right all along.

As for masturbation itself, it makes sex a matter of physical pleasure only, rather than physical and spiritual unity with a wife, degrading it. It also frequently leads to the use of pornography, and/or objectification of women you know in your mind. It may also lead you to be used to a frequency of sexual gratification that cannot be translated into frequency of marital relations once you are married, which will cause problems in your marriage.

I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh, but I wish someone had said some of these things to me when I was younger. Although I might not have listened, and certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed it, it might have saved me a lot of heartache later.

Best wishes,

–Jen

 

[aperture]

…

You say you’re praying to God to tell you what is true. That is precisely why he instituted the Catholic Church: to infallibly teach those truths which are necessary for salvation, and to actively guide its members to their heavenly reward. Consider the Church’s teaching the answer to your prayers, and persevere.

If, however, you’d rather create an absurd argument against valid Apostolic authority for the sake of your lower passions, then you’re welcome to your apostasy. It would be better to have courage in the face of temptation, certainly from the perspective of eternity, but such is the nature of free will.

And yet the problem is that I’m having a hard time accepting that the Church’s teachings are God-given.

I agree that it would be better to have courage in the face of a wrong temptation than to try to justify it; however, I cannot see masturbation as wrong.

Papal infallibility is also very limited. It says that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church so that the Pope, speaking by virtue of his office as successor to Peter, makes an official statement pertaining to faith and morals, he cannot teach error. If this were not the case, then there is no way to prevent the gates of Hell from prevailing against the Church, as was promised in the Bible.

Without a reliable authority, any useful level of unity in the Church is not possible, and unity of the Church is important (see John 17).

But this is precisely what I’m running up against. Infallibility is a big belief to have; I have never experienced anything than said to me “wow, the Catholic Church is amazing.” I have experienced things that said to me “wow, God is amazing.”

…

What I realized after I came back to the Church years later, was that I was neither more wise nor more knowledgeable than over 1900 years of holy men and women guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, I realised that if I disagreed with the Church about something, there was a good possibility that I was wrong. Please feel free to be more mature than I was and not wait until you have left the Church and messed up your life (temporarily, anyway) to make this realisation.

The only problem with this is, if one strays from the Catholic Church - and I’ve read about a lot of people on here who say they have - one apparently does so with the threat of possible death and eternal damnation forever overhead. It’s like learning how to ride a bike, but with a gun pointed at your head.

As for figuring out whether masturbation is sinful, you are going about the thing the wrong way, which may be why you are not having much luck with your prayer. God has already told you completely and clearly what is right, by giving you the teachings of the Church. Does He really need to make a private revelation to every individual about every sin to which they are prone as well? There were a couple of sins I felt the same way about when I returned to the Church, but through the Grace of God (because I surely didn’t deserve it), I accepted the teachings of the Church really, even those where I couldn’t “see” it intellectually. Once I got to the point that I was willing to believe my personal judgement wasn’t the final rule of what is right, God kindly showed me intellectually as well why the Church had been right all along.

This goes back to my problem with the authority of the Church. Frankly, I’ve seen nothing to convince me that the Catholic Church is any closer to God than, say, Protestantism. I don’t see the Church as special or infallible.

The idea that God somehow doesn’t have the time or energy to show attention to every individual doesn’t make sense, for obvious reasons *

As for masturbation itself, it makes sex a matter of physical pleasure only, rather than physical and spiritual unity with a wife, degrading it. It also frequently leads to the use of pornography, and/or objectification of women you know in your mind. It may also lead you to be used to a frequency of sexual gratification that cannot be translated into frequency of marital relations once you are married, which will cause problems in your marriage.

I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh, but I wish someone had said some of these things to me when I was younger. Although I might not have listened, and certainly wouldn’t have enjoyed it, it might have saved me a lot of heartache later.

Best wishes,

–Jen

These slippery-slope arguments - it leads to being a porn addict, to unhappy marriages - aren’t really true either. Many people masturbate and are porn-free and happily married (incidentally, I agree that porn is bad, but mostly because of the circumstances under which it’s made and consumed).*

 

[vera_dicere]

And yet the problem is that I’m having a hard time accepting that the Church’s teachings are God-given.

Then why stop at masturbation? Why not get out there and have some pre-martial sex, force a few women to abort your then conceived children? Have a few homosexual orgies while you’re at it.

If the Church is right that abortion is wrong, and pre-martial sex is wrong, and homosexual sex acts are wrong, and use of porn is wrong, and adulterly is wrong, and masturbation is a personal extension (or starting point for those things depending wehre you look from), then by all rights, both bibical and theologically driven, masturbation is wrong.

I agree that it would be better to have courage in the face of a wrong temptation than to try to justify it; however, I cannot see masturbation as wrong.

To be brutally and tactlessly honest with you, I think its not that you cannot see that masturbation is wrong, you just dont want to see it as wrong, because truly acknowledging it as a sin personally, will mean you now have to see the full culpilibility of your action. By having these so called “doubts” you seem to be trying to pull the wool over God’s eyes.

Our holiest, wisest and most intelligent Popes have spoken out against masturbation. Again, tactlessly and brutally honest with you, are you claiming you’re smarter and wiser than our late holy father Pope John Paul II?

This goes back to my problem with the authority of the Church. Frankly, I’ve seen nothing to convince me that the Catholic Church is any closer to God than, say, Protestantism. I don’t see the Church as special or infallible.

Then I suggest you check out your bible, the part where Jesus tells Peter “And on this rock [Peter] I shall built my Church”.

Of course, you could also look at how colloussly flawed the orgin of the Protestant sects came about. Anglicanism because one monarch couldn’t or didn’t want to see the Church as infalliable either. He wanted himself a divorce, and to Hell with the Pope who said no.

And we all know how Luther had the wrong end of the stick.

These two men created large Protestant communites and thus, from them began the many schisms and cracks and branching out of the Protestant faiths. All because of two men wanting to go their own way, wanting their own things, despite the Church, in her God given authority, saying otherwise.

The idea that God somehow doesn’t have the time or energy to show attention to every individual doesn’t make sense, for obvious reasons **

And that’s EXACTLY why God cares about all the little thigns about us, especially the big things, like mortal sins. This is the Deity who knows how many hairs are on your scalp. A God like that, He created us for Him to love and for us to love Him back. This is the Holy Fella who said He looks after the sparrows so dont’ worry about stuff cos He’s got our backs.

Nothing is impossible for God. And if He says “don’t audition your finger puppets” through the voice of the Catholic Church, then He has a Hoover good reason.

These slippery-slope arguments - it leads to being a porn addict, to unhappy marriages - aren’t really true either. Many people masturbate and are porn-free and happily married (incidentally, I agree that porn is bad, but mostly because of the circumstances under which it’s made and consumed).

So people you know who are married happily tell you they masturbate and don’t look at porn? You must be like me, everyone tells me everything about their personal lives.

Now, my brother used to think like you did, he woudl try and justify his actions with “Well, I’m a guy, its normal, I have normal urges like other guys, I like to look at pretty women”. ’ [Granted, he was drunk off his arse when he told me this]. And yeah, he got into porn a bit, and I know it was a spiritual struggle for him.

Then he got married. And he found that his masturbation and porn use were hurting his wife, and at the beginning of their marriage they hadn’t understood the grave err of contraception. But they ahd a few “quirks” and got back into their faith more. They’re using NFP now and his addiciton to masturbation and porn are gone.

My brother later told me that had he remained with his old pre-martial habits, his marriage would have ended on the rocks.

But it’s been my experience that marriages where porn and masturbation are used, is both spouses see no problem with it, and use it to objectify the other spouse. Marriages where one spouse is against it, they’re the ones that end in divorce.

So, really, you have marriages where both spouses are in grave spiritual danger, or marriages where one spouse is in grave spiritual danger, and their serious sin is harming their spouse.

However, I will grant you the fact your’e 18, you’re a young fella, its only normal for you to question authority at this stage in your life. I just hope you don’t fall away from the Church while your’e doing it.

 

[jmcrae]

EDIT: Little more thinking; basically, the root of this problem is that I can’t accept the Church as an infallible authority. I’ve seen the Scripture (“whoever rejects you…”), and from that I must respectfully say that I do not believe that the Catholic Church is made up of perfect successors to the apostles.

They don’t have to be “perfect” - they don’t even have to be all that “good.” They just have to keep the line going. Christ does the rest.

 

[andyandely1997]

Even if you are not looking at porn, what are you thinking about while masturbating? I doubt it is virtuous thoughts. “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) Mortal sin might seem pleasurable at first, but eventually, we will become a slave to that sin, if we do not turn to Christ & repent. I know from firsthand experience.

 

[rick43235]

This goes back to my problem with the authority of the Church. Frankly, I’ve seen nothing to convince me that the Catholic Church is any closer to God than, say, Protestantism. I don’t see the Church as special or infallible.

Careful there Dude. You’re starting to use your brain and think for yourself.

 

[aperture]

Then why stop at masturbation? Why not get out there and have some pre-martial sex, force a few women to abort your then conceived children? Have a few homosexual orgies while you’re at it.

If the Church is right that abortion is wrong, and pre-martial sex is wrong, and homosexual sex acts are wrong, and use of porn is wrong, and adulterly is wrong, and masturbation is a personal extension (or starting point for those things depending wehre you look from), then by all rights, both bibical and theologically driven, masturbation is wrong.

But I think masturbation is quite distinct from these things because it does not directly hurt anybody else. Now, it can hurt other people if one lets it become an addiction. However, it is quite a stretch to say that this will assuredly happen.

To be brutally and tactlessly honest with you, I think its not that you cannot see that masturbation is wrong, you just dont want to see it as wrong, because truly acknowledging it as a sin personally, will mean you now have to see the full culpilibility of your action. By having these so called “doubts” you seem to be trying to pull the wool over God’s eyes.

This is one of my least favorite religious arguments - “you don’t want to believe because it would be tough!” I’m having trouble believing because I don’t see the evidence as very persuasive. I am not stupid enough to actually think that something would damn me forever and do it anyway, and try to excuse it. For the record, I’ve confessed past sin, so I’m not trying to get out of confession or something.

Our holiest, wisest and most intelligent Popes have spoken out against masturbation. Again, tactlessly and brutally honest with you, are you claiming you’re smarter and wiser than our late holy father Pope John Paul II?

I don’t know if I’m smarter than Pope John Paul II; what I do know is that being smart doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re doing. Brilliant people make mistakes. I also know that - seeing the Church as I would a secular organization - someone who advances through an incredibly traditional organization doesn’t do so because they’re radically and innovative.

Then I suggest you check out your bible, the part where Jesus tells Peter “And on this rock [Peter] I shall built my Church”.

Of course, you could also look at how colloussly flawed the orgin of the Protestant sects came about. Anglicanism because one monarch couldn’t or didn’t want to see the Church as infalliable either. He wanted himself a divorce, and to Hell with the Pope who said no.

And we all know how Luther had the wrong end of the stick.

These two men created large Protestant communites and thus, from them began the many schisms and cracks and branching out of the Protestant faiths. All because of two men wanting to go their own way, wanting their own things, despite the Church, in her God given authority, saying otherwise.

OK, Jesus entrusted Peter with His Church; to go from that to “the Catholic Church is His Church” is a large leap. However, I will concede that the Protestant comparison was not a good one.

…
But it’s been my experience that marriages where porn and masturbation are used, is both spouses see no problem with it, and use it to objectify the other spouse. Marriages where one spouse is against it, they’re the ones that end in divorce.

So, really, you have marriages where both spouses are in grave spiritual danger, or marriages where one spouse is in grave spiritual danger, and their serious sin is harming their spouse.

Are you really saying that all marriages in which a partner masturbates are deeply troubled?

However, I will grant you the fact your’e 18, you’re a young fella, its only normal for you to question authority at this stage in your life. I just hope you don’t fall away from the Church while your’e doing it.

As I mentioned before, something that frustrates me is that so many people here will talk of how they fell away from the Church for a while, then came back to it, and are stronger for the experience. I can see how that could be true. However, like I said before, it’s like learning to ride a bike at gunpoint. If you make a mistake and then your life ends - and you never know when it will end - then you’re screwed, in terms of the afterlife. There’s no freedom there.

 

[aperture]

Even if you are not looking at porn, what are you thinking about while masturbating? I doubt it is virtuous thoughts. “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) Mortal sin might seem pleasurable at first, but eventually, we will become a slave to that sin, if we do not turn to Christ & repent. I know from firsthand experience.

Understand that I don’t think masturbation is good, rather that it’s not mortal.

 

[jmcrae]

But I think masturbation is quite distinct from these things because it does not directly hurt anybody else. Now, it can hurt other people if one lets it become an addiction. However, it is quite a stretch to say that this will assuredly happen.

I think any psychologist could tell you that anything having to do with stimulating the sex drive is bound to become addictive, rather quickly. Certain kinds of drugs are addictive for precisely this reason - they stimulate the centers of the brain that have to do with the sex drive.

I don’t know if I’m smarter than Pope John Paul II; what I do know is that being smart doesn’t necessarily mean you know what you’re doing. Brilliant people make mistakes.

Not typically in their areas of expertise, though. If the Pope makes errors regarding biological science, or physics, he can be excused because these are not his areas of competency - however, sexual morality is, in fact, within his area of expertise. It’s also something he actually practices, every single day of his life - he is, after all, called to radical chastity and celibacy, and he would know first-hand what the role of masturbation is, in that lifestyle. (Hey - if he didn’t think it was sinful, do you think he would forbid it?)

OK, Jesus entrusted Peter with His Church; to go from that to “the Catholic Church is His Church” is a large leap. However, I will concede that the Protestant comparison was not a good one.

Every single one of Peter’s 266 Successors have been Popes of the Catholic Church.

As I mentioned before, something that frustrates me is that so many people here will talk of how they fell away from the Church for a while, then came back to it, and are stronger for the experience. I can see how that could be true. However, like I said before, it’s like learning to ride a bike at gunpoint. If you make a mistake and then your life ends - and you never know when it will end - then you’re screwed, in terms of the afterlife. There’s no freedom there.

The Confessional is right there for when you make mistakes. Forgiveness is certainly possible. How you die will be a reflection of how you lived - if it doesn’t occur to you to ask for a priest on your death-bed, then the chances are good that you were already very far away from the teachings of the Church, starting from before you got sick or had the accident - it would not be just one lone sin that would send you to Hell, but an accumulation of many sins that finally numbed your soul to any fear of Hell or Judgement.

Put it this way - if you fear Judgement and Hell, you are probably still doing okay. Just make sure to accommodate your fears by going to Confession whenever you need to.

 

[aperture]

I think any psychologist could tell you that anything having to do with stimulating the sex drive is bound to become addictive, rather quickly. Certain kinds of drugs are addictive for precisely this reason - they stimulate the centers of the brain that have to do with the sex drive.

I’m not sure. From what I can tell, something becomes an addiction when it really starts to interfere with the rest of your life. I find it very hard to believe that everyone who masturbates is addicted. Can you please provide some sources for your claim? (I’m not trying to be combative here, I’d really like to see them).

Not typically in their areas of expertise, though. If the Pope makes errors regarding biological science, or physics, he can be excused because these are not his areas of competency - however, sexual morality is, in fact, within his area of expertise. It’s also something he actually practices, every single day of his life - he is, after all, called to radical chastity and celibacy, and he would know first-hand what the role of masturbation is, in that lifestyle. (Hey - if he didn’t think it was sinful, do you think he would forbid it?)

I can understand that someone can be smart and competent in one field and not another. However, the difference between a physicist or biologist and the Pope is that one can claim divine authority for what he says, and the others can’t. Physicists and biologists must produce verifiable work, and therefore their work isn’t so much believed as understood. There isn’t much element of belief (understand that I’m not saying that science is infallible, but that it’s more empirically convincing.)

Every single one of Peter’s 266 Successors have been Popes of the Catholic Church.

But this is just a fiat statement. There isn’t any proof for this, other than people say they were. I can’t help but imagine that, were I not brought up Catholic, I would find this incredibly, incredibly ridiculous, and fairly arrogant.

The Confessional is right there for when you make mistakes. Forgiveness is certainly possible. How you die will be a reflection of how you lived - if it doesn’t occur to you to ask for a priest on your death-bed, then the chances are good that you were already very far away from the teachings of the Church, starting from before you got sick or had the accident - it would not be just one lone sin that would send you to Hell, but an accumulation of many sins that finally numbed your soul to any fear of Hell or Judgement.

Put it this way - if you fear Judgement and Hell, you are probably still doing okay. Just make sure to accommodate your fears by going to Confession whenever you need to.

Another issue that I…take issue with: are we to really say that everyone who dies has decided one way or the other, permanently? A person gets hit by a bus (humorous digression: why is it always buses that become vehicles for sudden, unexpected death. Buses have bad PR), someone who has been struggling with their faith and is currently an agnostic. They wish there was a God, but are grappling with the questions surrounding that. Are you saying that this person has actually decided one way or another? I doubt it; the alternative is that people like this don’t die at the moment of struggle, which can’t be right either. Which opens up a whole other can of worms (namely, why a person’s soul apparently “sets” when they die, but lets not get into that here.)

 

[revert_jen]

I’m not sure. From what I can tell, something becomes an addiction when it really starts to interfere with the rest of your life.

No, something has become an addiction when it is not physically necessary (e.g. breathing) and it is a big wrench to give it up. One of the first signs of an addiction is an increased tolerance. That is the part that leads to porn.

But you can be, for example, a smoker for years and never have it really interfere with your life. It’s nonetheless an addiction for that.

–Jen

 

[aperture]

No, something has become an addiction when it is not physically necessary (e.g. breathing) and it is a big wrench to give it up. One of the first signs of an addiction is an increased tolerance. That is the part that leads to porn.

But you can be, for example, a smoker for years and never have it really interfere with your life. It’s nonetheless an addiction for that.

–Jen

So if you can’t easily give something up, you’re addicted and that is bad? But isn’t something good naturally difficult to give up? Alternatively, if something is difficult to give up, that does not necessarily mean it’s bad. There must be grades of addiction.

The masturbation → porn usage argument is a big assumption.

 

[revert_jen]

So if you can’t easily give something up, you’re addicted and that is bad? But isn’t something good naturally difficult to give up? Alternatively, if something is difficult to give up, that does not necessarily mean it’s bad. There must be grades of addiction.

Not everything that is addictive is bad. I never said it was. For example, exercise can be addictive. Addiction itself is bad, however, because it limits your freedom to make choices based on your thoughts rather than on your body’s demands.

The masturbation → porn usage argument is a big assumption.

Not really. I studied that sort of thing in college, and I have had a couple of friends who were troubled that way and were close enough friends that I heard about some of it. At the beginning, possibly touch is enough. Then you have to start thinking about people you know, or people you’ve seen on TV or whatever, in a sexual way. Then maybe you are remembering particular parts of R-rated movies or the equivalent. Then maybe you have to actually be watching the more explicit parts of an R-rated movie. It frequently does build on from there, to soft porn (these days hardly distinguishable from some R-rated movies), and even onto hard porn.

But the place where you started thinking of women as objects was back in stage 2, where you were thinking about them sexually while manipulating yourself. That is when you start to see women as means to a sexual end, rather than as people. It’s certainly possible to unlearn this, and many men do, but it’s still better if you don’t have to.

–Jen

 

[Thoma25]

And yet the problem is that I’m having a hard time accepting that the Church’s teachings are God-given.

I agree that it would be better to have courage in the face of a wrong temptation than to try to justify it; however, I cannot see masturbation as wrong.

You’re right, that certainly is a problem. Realizing it is a problem to be corrected is the first step toward a real solution.

First, you say that you’re having a hard time accepting that the Church’s teachings are God-given or, in other words, infallible and with binding authority. Yet the Gospels are clear that Christ designated Apostles out of his multitude of disciples, and gave them certain authority; namely, he gave Peter the authority to bind and loose in heaven, calling him the rock upon which he will build his Church. He said that the gates of hell will not prevail against them, but he will send his Holy Spirit and lead them into all truth. He then commissioned them to go throughout the world, baptizing and teaching all men. As he said, those who heard them, heard Christ himself; those who rejected them, rejected Christ. The Apostles were to lead the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and were protected from error and granted the grace of infallibility. This is easily seen by the fact that Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against them; if they were to teach error, however, the Prince of Falsehood would certainly have prevailed. Thus, whatever they as the leaders of the Church officially taught, it was binding and guaranteed to be without error.

The Pope and the Bishops in union with him are the successors of the Apostles, and Apostolic succession is the hallmark of the early Church. It was explicitly taught by the Apostolic Fathers who knew the Apostles personally; for instance, Ignatius of Antioch who was friends with St. John, and was appointed Bishop by St. Peter himself; or Polycarp of Smyrna, both upheld Apostolic succession and passed on the teachings from the Apostles. Because of this fact of Apostolic succession, the teachings of the Magisterium are authoritative and to be held as definitive even today, their certainty being assured by Christ himself, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, the argument “I don’t see masturbation as a sin” is entirely irrelevant, because it doesn’t matter what your fallible opinion may be, or whether you’re limited in your understanding of the eternal consequences of your actions. That’s why the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ to begin with.

If you say you doubt valid Apostolic succession, then where’s your evidence? Let’s be honest with ourselves for a moment. You don’t have any evidence against Apostolic succession. Instead, you’re arguing from an emotional point of view, because your lower nature is trying to prevail over your higher, and you’re torn. So instead of admitting that the action is sinful, your response is to try to overturn 2,000 years of Apostolic succession, uproot the foundations of the Church which Christ founded, and deny the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the promises of Christ, for the sake of the act of masturbation. You’re trying to say that the entire world has been deceived, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox (all of whom are Apostolic), for the last two thousand years; that the gates of hell have prevailed against Christ’s Church, overthrowing its authority, all because you don’t want to see masturbation as being sinful.

The better response would be to admit that you’re a created being with a limited understanding, like the rest of us; and that we’re prone to concupiscence, but with the graces God bestows upon us, we are able to resist and overcome our temptations. If you follow the path of pride, telling the Apostles and their successors, “Infallible guidance or not, I know better than you” for the sake of giving in to your sexual temptations, then you’re doing nothing but harming yourself and repeating the fall of Lucifer, with his cry, “I will not serve.” Take a step back, be honest with yourself, and you’ll see that you’re not really disputing anything; you’re making excuses because of attachment to sin. You’re better than that, and you know it.

 

[aperture]

…big old block of text…

Preface: What I’m about to say basically starts a whole new conversation. I know it seems like I’m just trying to attack the Catholic Church, but what I really want is for my foundation for whatever I believe to be solid. If I see any cracks in my philosophy, I’ve got to address them. Now I am asking myself: but what makes me believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism? Familiarity alone? That is not strong enough.

At any rate, then I must ask: what makes Christianity special when compared to other religions? Most all religions claim some communion with God, and all the major religions claim miracles past and present.

 

[Thoma25]

Preface: What I’m about to say basically starts a whole new conversation. I know it seems like I’m just trying to attack the Catholic Church, but what I really want is for my foundation for whatever I believe to be solid. If I see any cracks in my philosophy, I’ve got to address them. Now I am asking myself: but what makes me believe Christianity over, say, Buddhism? Familiarity alone? That is not strong enough.

At any rate, then I must ask: what makes Christianity special when compared to other religions? Most all religions claim some communion with God, and all the major religions claim miracles past and present.

That’s an excellent question, and there are many others here that could give you a better explanation than I could; but since I’m opinionated, I’m going to give my two cents anyway.

The nature of Christianity is distinctly different from that of other religions, because Christianity is centered upon Divine Revelation. It is God making himself known to man through the Incarnation. Other religions, such as Buddhism and its related sect, Jainism, are the result of man’s own actions. Within Buddhism, it is centered on the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama, which he came to believe after many years of asceticism and meditation. In Jainism, the main focus is on the Jinas, spiritual leaders who lived and taught many thousands of years ago. In either case, it is the result of human effort, and is entirely fallible. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of the Word made Flesh, and is not the product of human effort.

Many religions claim “communion with God” in one form or another, but only the Catholic Church is founded upon the Apostles, in communion with Peter, to make his Divine Revelation and the fullness of the means of salvation available to mankind. Only the Catholic Church maintains the four marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, thus verifying itself as being authentic. I’d say being authentically the Body of Christ whose members receive the Body and Blood of Christ would imply a truer “communion with God” than, say, an Indian ascetic or a line of Jinas who can claim no greater authority than their own fallibility and, in fact, deny God’s very existence.

It is good that you’re questioning what is true; but shouldn’t you hold yourself to the same standard? If you can question whether Catholicism is true because you believe differently, or what makes it more valid than a pagan religion, then shouldn’t you also ask yourself what makes your own views and opinions correct? Why should it be that billions of people over the span of 2,000 years should be wrong, so that you can be right? Or, better yet, what is the real motive of your skepticism, and why are you asking the questions you are. Temptation comes in many forms, and when the fruits of your questioning lead you to accept such things as sexual immorality, and reject Apostolic authority, then you can be certain where it is coming from.

Why not mull over these questions and concerns you have while saying the Rosary? What do you have to lose by spending 15 minutes each evening praying it and contemplating its mysteries for greater understanding? I guarantee it would be more profitable than asking yourself these questions, because if you had the answers you wouldn’t be asking them in the first place.

 

[aperture]

First off, thanks for the measured and courteous response. Now for mine, which I hope is similarly civil:

The nature of Christianity is distinctly different from that of other religions, because Christianity is centered upon Divine Revelation. It is God making himself known to man through the Incarnation. Other religions, such as Buddhism and its related sect, Jainism, are the result of man’s own actions. Within Buddhism, it is centered on the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama, which he came to believe after many years of asceticism and meditation. In Jainism, the main focus is on the Jinas, spiritual leaders who lived and taught many thousands of years ago. In either case, it is the result of human effort, and is entirely fallible. Christianity, on the other hand, is a religion of the Word made Flesh, and is not the product of human effort.

So Christianity is true because it is the only religion that featured a preacher who at the very least claimed that he was God? This seems to be a very flimsy basis for belief. It’s akin to me believing someone who tells an outlandish lie because I believe that a liar wouldn’t be so audacious. Such an idea requires me to accept at face value that Jesus was God. By the same token, the Ramayana, which features Rama assuming human form, is true as well.

Many religions claim “communion with God” in one form or another, but only the Catholic Church is founded upon the Apostles, in communion with Peter, to make his Divine Revelation and the fullness of the means of salvation available to mankind. Only the Catholic Church maintains the four marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, thus verifying itself as being authentic. I’d say being authentically the Body of Christ whose members receive the Body and Blood of Christ would imply a truer “communion with God” than, say, an Indian ascetic or a line of Jinas who can claim no greater authority than their own fallibility and, in fact, deny God’s very existence.

But this line of thought requires me to believe that simply being founded by the Apostles is proof of communion with God. Or, beyond that, that being “One Holy Catholic Apostolic” is a connection to the divine. I still don’t see anything that implies that Christianity is truly “the” religion. Your statements in fact seem to require that a person come to the table already believing that Christianity is “the” religion.

It is good that you’re questioning what is true; but shouldn’t you hold yourself to the same standard? If you can question whether Catholicism is true because you believe differently, or what makes it more valid than a pagan religion, then shouldn’t you also ask yourself what makes your own views and opinions correct? Why should it be that billions of people over the span of 2,000 years should be wrong, so that you can be right? Or, better yet, what is the real motive of your skepticism, and why are you asking the questions you are. Temptation comes in many forms, and when the fruits of your questioning lead you to accept such things as sexual immorality, and reject Apostolic authority, then you can be certain where it is coming from.

Why should it be that billions of Hindus over the span of far longer than 2,000 years would be wrong so that Christians can be right?

It is true that sexual morality spurred this discussion, but that does not make my questions any less real. I am asking because, when I ask myself “Why am I abstaining?” my reasoning does not sound solid, even to me. In fact, it sounds actively cowardly [again, Pascal’s wager.]

Why not mull over these questions and concerns you have while saying the Rosary? What do you have to lose by spending 15 minutes each evening praying it and contemplating its mysteries for greater understanding? I guarantee it would be more profitable than asking yourself these questions, because if you had the answers you wouldn’t be asking them in the first place.

I have prayed - not the rosary, however - for months. I feel no closer

 

[jmcrae]

First off, thanks for the measured and courteous response. Now for mine, which I hope is similarly civil:

So Christianity is true because it is the only religion that featured a preacher who at the very least claimed that he was God?

He did not merely say he was God - he demonstrated miraculous powers, including raising people from the dead in the middle of their own funerals (ie: they were known by the general public to be dead) - okay, so maybe he was just a really, really good doctor? Well, then he raised himself from the dead; not easy to do, if you are not God.

It’s not just him saying so - it’s all of the witnesses agreeing together that it was so (even though they disagree on the details) - even Josephus the historian, who never became a Christian, admitted that there was no explanation for the miracles that Jesus did, and no rational explanation for his apparent rising from the dead - for many days after he had been crucified, says Josephus, this man wandered around in the city of Jerusalem preaching to his followers, and even when we tried to stone them to death and drive them out of the city, they continued to proclaim his teachings, and to say that he had risen from the dead.

By the same token, the Ramayana, which features Rama assuming human form, is true as well.

I’m not familiar with him - what are the dates of his birth and death, and what miracles did he perform? Who were his followers?

But this line of thought requires me to believe that simply being founded by the Apostles is proof of communion with God. Or, beyond that, that being “One Holy Catholic Apostolic” is a connection to the divine. I still don’t see anything that implies that Christianity is truly “the” religion. Your statements in fact seem to require that a person come to the table already believing that Christianity is “the” religion.

Well, at least you’ve realized that you can’t be an honest Christian without believing in the Apostolic Succession.

Why should it be that billions of Hindus over the span of far longer than 2,000 years would be wrong so that Christians can be right?

Hinduism is a catch-all for a wide variety of different pagan religions, each with its own god.

It is true that sexual morality spurred this discussion, but that does not make my questions any less real. I am asking because, when I ask myself “Why am I abstaining?” my reasoning does not sound solid, even to me. In fact, it sounds actively cowardly [again, Pascal’s wager.]

Even atheists abstain from sexual activity, for the sake of their clarity of mind and for the mental health benefits.