Why does it feel good if it is wrong?

[fix]

These things are not inherently wrong.

I said they were wrong outside of marriage and I said masturbation is intrinsically wrong.

They can be used in a wrong way, but are not wrong in and of themselves. And, to my understanding, what was being discussed was not masturbation, but foreplay.

Then we agree.

 

[Disciple96]

I am a catechumenate in RCIA and I feel that my faith is strong, though I do have doubts occasionally that I try to answer without giving up my faith. But this is one question I thought of recently that I haven’t been able to effectively answer myself, so I thought I’d get some help.
My question is, if it is wrong to perform sexual massaging of the breasts, clitoris, and/or genitalia, or the sensitive regions of a man, why does it feel pleasurable to do so? If those things are done with love for the other person in mind, even with the exclusive intent of giving the other person pleasure, why is it wrong? And, if God intended it to be wrong, why would he make it feel good?
I hope this question isn’t immature; it’s just something I’ve been contemplating. Thanks for any answers.

---

(I’m going to focus on the question of why illicit pleasure feels so good and leave for now the question of whether or not those pleasures you list are in fact illicit.)***

I think God allows us to experience illicit pleasure when we do things we know we shouldn’t to teach us a lesson. We are free to choose to disobey Him and the more we do so, because we like how it feels, the more we are likely to keep doing so. And the more distance will open up between us and God, just like what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden. We have to listen to God and obey Him and remain faithful. Then, at the end of our lives here in this place of trial, we will experience a joy that is higher than anything we could ever experience here on earth. It’s up to us to decide which is more important to us, temporary and illicit pleasure now or eternal and licit joy then.

I think we will also experience much joy now if we will look to God as the source of our joy instead of looking to our fellow creatures for what only God can really give.

 

[budgie2]

I think some literature on sex has been written by celibates and looks down on the marriage vocation. Yes, it’s wrong for a celibate as they would be betraying their vows and may constitute an extra marital relationship. I wouldn’t trust a celibate to teach me the joy of sex although there are priests who say that sex is a blessing. There’s nothing wrong with it aslong as it’s with the right person.

 

[Disciple96]

I’ve read literature written by celibates, but I have never read anything by one who is celibate who looks down upon sex between those who are married. Celibacy is not something we are all called to. Chastity is. We are called as Christians to treat our bodies and our lives as gifts from God. We cannot use our own bodies or the bodies of others as playthings or simply as toys for our own pleasure. Sex is not entertainment but a beautiful, holy, sacred blessing, a blessed gift to be shared between sacramentally married husband and wife to further their commitment to each other, to deepen their bond of love for each other, and, if God so wills, to bring another human being into this world.

To the OP: Openness to new life and not using one’s body as a toy are the main reasons why masturbation is not acceptable. You might look into reading a good book on the moral teachings of the Church, or JPII’s Theology of the Body, life issues, etc. As a catechumen you might be surprised at how reasonable and how freeing the Church’s teachings really are. Your dignity as a human being might be grander than you have hitherto realized.

 

[Gil_M]

I haven’t posted in quite awhile, but after seeing your question, I had to chime in. You are presenting a very good question and the responses have been spot on. The pleasure associated with married love is legitimately there to bind the two into one. It is not an oxymoron.
In fact, I have a corollary to your question that has perplexed me for years. When procreation is no longer possible, is married sex sinful ?
Clearly it is not, but then what does that say about sharing pleasures with your wife when procreation is no longer a part of the equation?
What is morally acceptable and what is not?

 

[Disciple96]

I haven’t posted in quite awhile, but after seeing your question, I had to chime in. You are presenting a very good question and the responses have been spot on. The pleasure associated with married love is legitimately there to bind the two into one. It is not an oxymoron.
In fact, I have a corollary to your question that has perplexed me for years. When procreation is no longer possible, is married sex sinful ?
Clearly it is not, but then what does that say about sharing pleasures with your wife when procreation is no longer a part of the equation?
What is morally acceptable and what is not?

Well, since the Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation, that wouldn’t be sinful. The Church actually teaches that sexuality is a blessing, a gift from God that helps the married couple form a bond of love that grows over time. So married sex would not be sinful just because they were no longer considered able to have children.

 

[Seatuck]

I think some literature on sex has been written by celibates and looks down on the marriage vocation. Yes, it’s wrong for a celibate as they would be betraying their vows and may constitute an extra marital relationship. I wouldn’t trust a celibate to teach me the joy of sex although there are priests who say that sex is a blessing. There’s nothing wrong with it aslong as it’s with the right person.

Would you only trust a doctor who had the very same illness that you seek medical attention for ? Or would you expect that he/she learned about it’s treatment in medical school.How about a mental illness? If you should happen to develop one would you only seek help from a psychiatrist who had it too?
It’s the same situation. Priests can certainly learn about human sexuality and marriage. They do not live in a bubble.

Read Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla. He clearly understood human sexuality, its develpment and it’s pleasures.The churches teaching on sexuality has been passed down for 2 Thousand years even through the times when we had a married priesthood. In some Rites we still do and they teach the same teaching.

 

[budgie2]

I’m not saying that I don’t trust any celibates but I have read some negative books written by celibate priests on sexuality and sex before marriage although not exclusively. There’s one called Love and Sexuality published by CTS in Britain. A celibate could have some experience of relationships between different sexes such as husband and wife even if he has not had one, from his parents or his brother and sisters. Also everybody has a sexuality and even though you’ve taken the vows of celibacy you still have to use your sexuality responsibly. However, not every celibate has had the experience of falling in love with a member of the opposite sex and everything may come down to morals but there may be a lack of respect for emotions which are important in relationships. Falling in love with somebody could make you feel weaker and that other person has influence over you, if it’s a serious relationship touching may also feel nice. However, sex still leads to babies and for the sake of responsible parenting we should try to wait till marriage. Sometimes it depends on the commitment of both people and inexperience of both. We’re living in a sexually aware culture and if the other member of the couple is sexually aware this makes abstinence harder.

 

[divinedisciple7]

These are all great answers to your question. Just in case you are wondering why there seems to be such a huge outcry that human physicality, sensuality and all such related things and actions within their appropriate context are not wrong but you have had it understood to be is because of this: the idea that “the flesh” or sex and/or sexuality is inherently evil comes from America’s puritan heritage. These come from the truly conservative protestant communities. Those that ran away from the Church of England to create a “pure”, “righteous” and “holy” society by denying or restricting these naturally good tendencies even when done within their proper context.

God bless in the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus,

Manuel

 

[jeffman88]

Why do cookies taste have to taste so good if they’re so bad for you?

Who knows. Drugs make you feel good, but they’re certainly not good for you.

I think the thing to keep in mind is there are lots of ways to feel happy and fulfilled, but sometimes it only makes us feel really good for just a few moments, then we need more and more. That’s when things may start to get out of hand.

For what you’re refering to, don’t do anything you’ll regret later. It’s easy to get caught up in the moment, but think about what it might lead to, if anything.

I would like to agree with you but your a bit wrong. Cookies are not bad for you. They are not good if you eat a ton of them in a short period of time but cookies can be good for you. The same goes with drugs. The drugs may be bad for us but it’s the shot of dopamine that makes us crave them. This is why many people like masturbating. Because it gives you a major shot of dopine. The advvantage to masturbation though is that there are really no physical side affects lioke with drugs, so people are quicker to do it. You say that if you masturbate you want more and more. How would be married change this? Sex is a sign of love for something. It’s true that you should not have sex with another person until you are married because you may be giving them the wrong idea. Yet you are supposed to love yourself so showing yourself that you love yourself by masturbating is not bad. To love and do good to others you must first love yourself and masturbating might be a way to do this. We all need self control, masturbation shouldn’t stop you from doing other things in life because then it’s an addiction but that doesn’t mean you need to throw it out all together.

 

[liberation]

God bless you on your journey as you go through RCIA.

Whenever a sex act is devoid of one of the two elements of its proper order-- life-giving or love-giving, then it is indeed disordered and sinful. The act must always be both. Contraception is not life-giving, masterbation is not life-giving, anal intercourse is not life-giving, rape is not love-giving, adultery/fornication are not love-giving (unity of spouses).

Therefore, infertile couples, even married ones, should not have sex. Once a man has radiation treatment or a woman reaches menopause, they are done, and so is their spouse – forever.

Hard-hearted person, you make the Catholic Church seem sex-obsessed and banal. It’s interesting how you synthesize that nonsense from the extant scriptures. It says more about you and your forbears in the church than it says anything about Jesus’ will.

By the way, neo-Shaker guy, there is no “e” in “masturbation.”

 

[fix]

Therefore, infertile couples, even married ones, should not have sex. Once a man has radiation treatment or a woman reaches menopause, they are done, and so is their spouse – forever.

Hard-hearted person, you make the Catholic Church seem sex-obsessed and banal. It’s interesting how you synthesize that nonsense from the extant scriptures. It says more about you and your forbears in the church than it says anything about Jesus’ will.

By the way, neo-Shaker guy, there is no “e” in “masturbation.”

There is a vast moral difference between an act that is willed and one that is not willed. One who is sterile through no fault of there own, as in* indirect *sterilization, is not equivalent to one who directly sterilizes oneself.

And, Catholics do not self interpret Scripture as if it were the sole authority.

 

[liberation]

There is a vast moral difference between an act that is willed and one that is not willed. One who is sterile through no fault of there own, as in* indirect *sterilization, is not equivalent to one who directly sterilizes oneself.

And, Catholics do not self interpret Scripture as if it were the sole authority.

Willed? Willed by whom? Two criteria were listed that make it OK to have sex, and an infertile person, regardless of marital status. An infertile person cannot make a baby,and if you’re not trying to make a baby, you have no business having sex, according to the hair-splitting Pharisees of the Church.

I could never understand why the Church has been so obsessed with sexual matters, like the evangelical Baptists. The Catholic Church’s continual sex scandals, and the way they were handled by the hierarchy, make it all the more ironic. Coddling pedophile priests while railing against birth control and non-priest homosexuals.

Hypocrites, look at the divorce rate in the Catholic church. It’s nothing to be proud of.

The hard-hearted irrational ideology of the Church has driven away many Europeans, and it is having the same effect in the U.S., where half or more of the Church members disagree with the pope’s sex pronouncements. First you make them cafeteria Catholics, then the cognitive dissonance becomes too great, and you drive them away altogether.

Is that the pope’s intention?

 

[fix]

Willed? Willed by whom?

Willed by the person who directly sterilizes themself in some way. As in getting a vasectomy.

Two criteria were listed that make it OK to have sex, and an infertile person, regardless of marital status. An infertile person cannot make a baby,and if you’re not trying to make a baby, you have no business having sex, according to the hair-splitting Pharisees of the Church.

Any marital act is by definition unitive and procreative as long as the act is not altered. So, a women who has is indirectly sterile through cancer treatment, as one example, has not altered the act in any way. Her acts are unitive and procreative. They are ordered toward life.

I could never understand why the Church has been so obsessed with sexual matters, like the evangelical Baptists. The Catholic Church’s continual sex scandals, and the way they were handled by the hierarchy, make it all the more ironic. Coddling pedophile priests while railing against birth control and non-priest homosexuals.

The Church is not obsessed by sex, our culture is. The Church is only transmitting what is True. The problem is we refuse to hear it.

Hypocrites, look at the divorce rate in the Catholic church. It’s nothing to be proud of.

How does the divorce rate prove Church teaching is false? All that means is that humans are sinners. No surprise.

The hard-hearted irrational ideology of the Church has driven away many Europeans, and it is having the same effect in the U.S., where half or more of the Church members disagree with the pope’s sex pronouncements. First you make them cafeteria Catholics, then the cognitive dissonance becomes too great, and you drive them away altogether.

Is that the pope’s intention?

The Church drives no one away. We walk away because the other road is wider and easier.

My question to you is why would submitting to Christ’s teaching, through His Church, be bad? Would it make one feel guilty? Or, would we be mad because our desires are not fulfilled?

My, humble, suggestion is recommend yourself to the Blessed Mother.

 

[liberation]

Willed by the person who directly sterilizes themself in some way. As in getting a vasectomy.

Any marital act is by definition unitive and procreative as long as the act is not altered. So, a women who has is indirectly sterile through cancer treatment, as one example, has not altered the act in any way. Her acts are unitive and procreative. They are ordered toward life.

Ordered toward life? What do you mean, “ordered toward life”? How does a woman who chooses to get a hysterectomy then have sex that’s ordered toward life? Where do you draw the line on choice anyway? A hysterectomy is not always a cut-and-dried thing. What if a woman has a 50-50 chance of survival if she doesn’t have a hysterectomy? How about a 90% chance? Where do you draw the line, where you decide who gets to have sex?

The Church is not obsessed by sex, our culture is.

How does one exclude the other? The Church is a product of its culture, plus a a self-perpetuating hierarchy, an organism that is concerned with its own survival above all else.

It seems that a lot of priests, and a number of nuns, are obsessed with sex. It seems that the Church has attracted people to its ministry who are fighting their own demons, such as a sexual attraction to children, or homosexuality. They think that the environment of the Church will somehow “cure” them; instead it provides a ready supply of would-be victims, vulnerable people. And how does the Church react? By denying. By minimizing. By blaming the victims.

The point is that the Church’s obsession with sex has led to no good. The Church is plagued by sexual scandals, half of Catholic marriages (in the U.S. and Europe) end in divorce, over half don’t care what the pope thinks about birth control.

You are telling a married woman that if she wants sex, she needs to have a baby? Why don’t you just mount video cameras in people’s homes so they can make sure the flock is towing the line? I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding priests who would be more than happy to man the video screens.

And you say that the Church is not obsessed with sex? Most woman to the pope: “Shut up and mind your own business, old virgin guy”.

The Church is only transmitting what is True. The problem is we refuse to hear it.

Oh, right, the Church owns the truth, even when it reverses itself. Truth seems to be mutable. I have news for you: the pope is not God, although he is the godhead of a huge organization of vast wealth. If you don’t think politics plays a part in its administration, then you don’t know the history of the Church.

How does the divorce rate prove Church teaching is false? All that means is that humans are sinners. No surprise.

You are full of condemnation for humanity. Apparently you think God’s creation is deeply flawed. He must have known exactly how things would turn out from the time of creation – or do you think he was not omniscient, or that he was a poor engineer?

The divorce rate shows that the Catholic church and its methods are a failure in the real world, regardless of how much joy debating them gives the cardinals. There is something very wrong with the message if it has no effect. Or maybe God’s creation is completely evil and should be swept into hell?

There is more to life and marriage than sex, and how and when and why people have sex. A lot of hard Catholics don’t comprehend that. They have nothing on their mind but birth control and abortion, and would vote for a Nazi if he were against abortion.

The Church drives no one away. We walk away because the other road is wider and easier.

You are thoroughly brainwashed. You are incapable of believing that the Church ever makes mistakes, that its human leadership ever does wrong.** You** are the problem with the Church. The Church is not God.

My question to you is why would submitting to Christ’s teaching, through His Church, be bad? Would it make one feel guilty? Or, would we be mad because our desires are not fulfilled?

The Church is more concerned with its own propagation than any Christian message. Go read the New Testament and see what Jesus concerned himself with. He never talked about homosexuality or abortion (was there no Aramaic or Greek word for it?), but he spoke a lot about compassion. Compassion is an element sadly lacking in the Church. Look how they handled the priest sex scandals, and the decades-long scandal in Ireland? They’ve driven most of the young people away from the Church. They are not stupid. They know what hypocrisy is.

The handling of Cardinal Law of Boston was an outrage. He should have been put in prison rather than given a promotion to the Vatican. That was the end of the road for a lot of Boston-area Catholics. The Church showed its true colors.

My, humble, suggestion is recommend yourself to the Blessed Mother

My humble suggestion is that you get a clue. I might as well tell a brick that it should stand up and walk. You are so brainwashed that you think the Church and everything about it is perfect. You are incapable of critical thought.

 

[fix]

Ordered toward life? What do you mean, “ordered toward life”?

It means exactly as it is stated. The marital act, by its very nature, is ordered toward life. Man and woman come together in a particular way that is designed to be ordered toward life. That one may be subjectively sterile through no fault of their own does not alter that act.

How does a woman who chooses to get a hysterectomy then have sex that’s ordered toward life?

If it was chosen to treat pathology then the object chosen was medical care, not direct sterilization. If she engages in the marital act it is still ordered correctly as ordained by God.

Where do you draw the line on choice anyway? A hysterectomy is not always a cut-and-dried thing. What if a woman has a 50-50 chance of survival if she doesn’t have a hysterectomy? How about a 90% chance? Where do you draw the line, where you decide who gets to have sex?

The line is determined by the object chosen. Is the object of the act to treat pathology or to intentionally suppress fertility. Not that hard to determine.

How does one exclude the other? The Church is a product of its culture, plus a a self-perpetuating hierarchy, an organism that is concerned with its own survival above all else.

The Church is the bride of Christ, it is not a product of the culture. We are all sinners, but that does not invalidate what is true.

It seems that a lot of priests, and a number of nuns, are obsessed with sex. It seems that the Church has attracted people to its ministry who are fighting their own demons, such as a sexual attraction to children, or homosexuality. They think that the environment of the Church will somehow “cure” them; instead it provides a ready supply of would-be victims, vulnerable people. And how does the Church react? By denying. By minimizing. By blaming the victims.

How does that prove the teaching on sexual ethics is untrue?

The point is that the Church’s obsession with sex has led to no good. The Church is plagued by sexual scandals, half of Catholic marriages (in the U.S. and Europe) end in divorce, over half don’t care what the pope thinks about birth control.

No, people are sinners. The teaching is true or false regardless of how any person acts.

You are telling a married woman that if she wants sex, she needs to have a baby?

No, I have not said that, nor does the Church claim that.

Why don’t you just mount video cameras in people’s homes so they can make sure the flock is towing the line? I’m sure you’ll have no trouble finding priests who would be more than happy to man the video screens.

Why don’t you follow the argument rather than set up straw men?

Oh, right, the Church owns the truth, even when it reverses itself. Truth seems to be mutable. I have news for you: the pope is not God, although he is the godhead of a huge organization of vast wealth. If you don’t think politics plays a part in its administration, then you don’t know the history of the Church.

Actually, most do not know the history of the Church. They have a cartoonish notion of history that is mostly distorted.

You are full of condemnation for humanity. Apparently you think God’s creation is deeply flawed. He must have known exactly how things would turn out from the time of creation – or do you think he was not omniscient, or that he was a poor engineer?

The divorce rate shows that the Catholic church and its methods are a failure in the real world, regardless of how much joy debating them gives the cardinals. There is something very wrong with the message if it has no effect. Or maybe God’s creation is completely evil and should be swept into hell?

There is more to life and marriage than sex, and how and when and why people have sex. A lot of hard Catholics don’t comprehend that. They have nothing on their mind but birth control and abortion, and would vote for a Nazi if he were against abortion.

You are thoroughly brainwashed. You are incapable of believing that the Church ever makes mistakes, that its human leadership ever does wrong.** You** are the problem with the Church. The Church is not God.

The Church is more concerned with its own propagation than any Christian message. Go read the New Testament and see what Jesus concerned himself with. He never talked about homosexuality or abortion (was there no Aramaic or Greek word for it?), but he spoke a lot about compassion. Compassion is an element sadly lacking in the Church. Look how they handled the priest sex scandals, and the decades-long scandal in Ireland? They’ve driven most of the young people away from the Church. They are not stupid. They know what hypocrisy is.

The handling of Cardinal Law of Boston was an outrage. He should have been put in prison rather than given a promotion to the Vatican. That was the end of the road for a lot of Boston-area Catholics. The Church showed its true colors.

My humble suggestion is that you get a clue. I might as well tell a brick that it should stand up and walk. You are so brainwashed that you think the Church and everything about it is perfect. You are incapable of critical thought.

I will ask the Blessed Mother to pray for you.

 

[liberation]

The line is determined by the object chosen. Is the object of the act to treat pathology or to intentionally suppress fertility. Not that hard to determine.

The world is a simple place for the non-thinker. What if a woman has her ovaries removed because there is a 20% chance that she will eventually get ovarian cancer, based on her family history? What if it’s 5%? What if her risk is no different than that of any other woman? Can that woman ever have sex again?

What about a woman whose medical condition is such that if she were to get pregnant, her life would be in great peril? Is that woman never to have sex again, or should she, and throw her fate into the hands of God? Is it right to tempt God?

The Church is the bride of Christ, it is not a product of the culture. We are all sinners, but that does not invalidate what is true.

Every cult, whether religious or political, has its slogans. “The workers control the means of production.” “The Church is the Bride of Christ.” Jesus never spoke of having a bride, real or figurative. It’s amazing how quickly his ideas were co-opted and perverted into a grand political organization, the type of thing he did speak out about. He said you didn’t need a middleman to talk to him. He was against the rules-for-rules-sake of the Pharisees.

How does that prove the teaching on sexual ethics is untrue?

It proves that the Church is ineffective. How can the “Bride of Christ” be so feckless, and so obviously political?

You are the ones making claims. It is incumbent upon** you** to prove those claims. It is not up to me to prove the negative. Otherwise, prove that I’m not a pink unicorn with a computer.

No, people are sinners. The teaching is true or false regardless of how any person acts.

You fail and then you blame everyone else for your failure. God made people as they are. He knew who would be a “sinner” (in your mind), who would do what, when, and why. The history of the Church is to be in opposition to the people, like any fascistic dictatorship. I don’t suppose you’re familiar with Church-Government partnership throughout most of the Church’s European history. It’s no surprise that Pius XII so easily made peace with Hitler.

The Church has made a lot of mistakes, but you are blind to them. The faculty of critical thinking has been pushed out of your brain, replaced with cult-like brainwashing.

I said> You are telling a married woman that if she wants sex, she needs to have a baby?
No, I have not said that, nor does the Church claim that.

Oh, I’m sorry, she needs to be* trying* to have a baby. Thank you for that clarification, Pharisee.

Why don’t you follow the argument rather than set up straw men?

You are in denial if you don’t think the priesthood is more full of perverts and deviants than the population at large is. I assure you that there are many priests who would love to watch people having sex, although many of them would prefer men with men, or children.

Your only argument is that the Church is right because you believe it is, and that everything that the Church says is true because it’s true – because you believe it. You must be a very special person.

Actually, most do not know the history of the Church. They have a cartoonish notion of history that is mostly distorted.

And many only know the sanitized, cartoonish version of Church history that they learned in Sunday school, where the Church is always the superhero, even as the bodies piled up.

I suggest you jackasses obsess less over what type of sex your neighbors have, and worry more about the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of civilians dying every year in pointless wars (oh, right, already-born human life is not so sacred), or the millions who die of preventable diseases or starvation. Bill Gates is doing something about it. The Catholic Church rails against condoms. Which one is doing the work of Jesus, and which one is doing the work of the devil? Then there was Mother Teresa, who seemed not to understand sterile procedure, who likely killed more than she saved, and who herself went to California when she needed medical care. Of course, the Church canonizes her.

You cannot demonstrate that your beliefs are correct. You cannot point to history as evidence – on that basis they are an utter failure. Not only are your beliefs wrong, they are a cancer on humanity.

I will ask the Blessed Mother to pray for you.

You can pray for whomever you want, until the cows come home, but it won’t change that fact. Maybe the Virgin will appear on a piece of toast and explain things to you. We can only hope.

Has it ever occurred to you that Jesus said that he is the way, and that you don’t need an intercessory agent to deal with him? You’re going to ask the mother of Jesus to petition his son on my behalf? Why don’t you just send a telegram? While you’re at it, maybe you’d like to send one to Zeus and Vishnu as well, and perhaps they can have a word with God.

Polytheist belief is a major sin, if Matthew is to be believed.

 

[fix]

You are wrong on so many items I can’t bother to correct each one. I always ask folks who hold positions like you if they would at least attempt to refute Church teaching by first accurately stating Church teaching rather than substituting their erroneous propaganda and claiming it is Church teaching.

 

[ODGarza]

THESE THINGS ARE NOT WRONG!!!

This link is for a Busted Halo article on oral sex, but it can be applied to all forms of foreplay

bustedhalo.com/features/what-does-the-church-teach-about-oral-sex/

For the record, I agree with you and thanks for posting this article link, BUT on the flip side here is another article I ran across on another Catholic.com Forum thread which stands in direct opposition to everything Mike Hayes states about Oral Stimulation.

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

This article is REALLY conservative but just as convincing…