Why is masturbation not focused on in the mass media or in science?

[Rau]

You are part of the problem. Matter of factly condoning it. Masturbation is cheating.

If single it is premarital sex.
If married it is adultery.
It is also contraceptive.

It is bad for self esteem because deep down inside we know it’s wrong.

It causes mental and spiritual harm. It encourages fantasies which can lead to disappointment with reality and more problems.

Shame on you. A modernist. A relative secularist. A professional. Encouraging masturbation. Celebrating masturbation. How ordinary. Try being extraordinary.

The catechism provides more than enough latitude. But it is a sin.

I find nothing odd or unacceptable about a psychologist declaring that his profession finds no basis nor means within its expertise to “treat” one who masturbates.

 

[migueltojose]

I find nothing odd or unacceptable about a psychologist declaring that his profession finds no basis nor means within its expertise to “treat” one who masturbates.

me neither…

 

[migueltojose]

The original question is: Why is masturbation not focused on in the mass media or in science?

I would say because it is still stigmatized and for good reason.

It is usually accompanied with guilt. It is seen as a moral and physical weakness. It is seen as selfish and obviously self serving. An admission of being incapable of achieving a sexually satisfying socially acceptable heterosexual relationship. (Despite the popularity of making homosexuality an issue, we are overwhelmingly heterosexual, hence, while homosexuality may be socially acceptable to some, heterosexuality is most certainly socially acceptable to practically all.)

How many creatures are capable of such a thing. Doesn’t that speak volumes.
People generally don’t want to discuss their private intimate sins. Maybe an uncharacteristic display of respect for privacy.

I would say it’s a question that either lacked insight and forethought, or more likely, wanted to continue the clamor about sexual issues knowing that they’re a controversial hot button. In which case I would hope there is some value.

And by the way Catholic teaching on all matters sexual is absolutely beautiful. There are numerous Papal encyclicals on many of these topics, direct or indirectly, that are sound and true.

And lastly, about all those psychiatrists and doctors… well for one they are all subject to groupthink and weighing popular opinion. I mean their patients come from a base and the base is not practicing Catholic. It’s called economic survival. Who’s their master? And per Bishop Sheen… a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it.

 

[Burdock]

I’m certainly not going to teach my children that a mortal sin is a good thing.

It is a normal stage of development for most people is all im saying.

 

[Burdock]

Not everyone in the Church has always been of the opinion that contraception is a moral evil. The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control produced a report in 1966 which proposed that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves which methods to use. If Paul VI had decided differently and accepted their recommendation, Catholics would be allowed to use contraception.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Commission_on_Birth_Control

And what a shame he didnt. Pope francis could change this couldnt he? If he wanted to.

 

[Rau]

It is a normal stage of development for most people is all im saying.

Masturbation is an act, not a stage of development.

If you mean: “No need to go to the psychologist” - I agree.
If you mean: “It’s a practice common among most young unmarried teens/young adults” - I agree.

If you mean: “It’s a necessary stage in human development, a benchmark that needs to be achieved” - I disagree. But feel free to make your case.

 

[Rau]

And what a shame he didnt. Pope francis could change this couldnt he? If he wanted to.

How would that work? Would Francis write an encyclical stating that Paul’s encyclical was in error in certain ways and set forth corrections? How would one choose which Pope to believe? There is no precedent for such a thing.

 

[Burdock]

Masturbation is an act, not a stage of development.

If you mean: “No need to go to the psychologist” - I agree.
If you mean: “It’s a practice common among most young unmarried teens/young adults” - I agree.

If you mean: “It’s a necessary stage in human development, a benchmark that needs to be achieved” - I disagree. But feel free to make your case.

Sorry I phrased that incorrectly, I mean that it is normal when one starts to have sexual awareness as an adolescent, a phase for some, it should not be taught as evil, that in itself can cause psychological harm.

 

[Rau]

Sorry I phrased that incorrectly, I mean that it is normal when one starts to have sexual awareness as an adolescent, a phase for some, it should not be taught as evil, that in itself can cause psychological harm.

How should a teenager feeling aroused be advised? “Enjoy yourself”?

 

[Burdock]

How should a teenager feeling aroused be advised? “Enjoy yourself”?

Well they certainly shouldnt be told its evil, I doubt many teenagers would say much to their parents about it anyway.

 

[Rau]

Well they certainly shouldnt be told its evil, I doubt many teenagers would say much to their parents about it anyway.

But what would you advise your son?

 

[Burdock]

But what would you advise your son?

Well if I had a son, I have adult daughters, I would tell them not to worry about it, as long as they were not completely obsessed with it.

 

[Thorolfr]

How would that work? Would Francis write an encyclical stating that Paul’s encyclical was in error in certain ways and set forth corrections? How would one choose which Pope to believe? There is no precedent for such a thing.

That’s why the notion of papal infallibility allows the Catholic Church to paint itself into a corner. If a pope makes a decision or a statement on a matter of faith or morals which turns out to have been wrong, the church has a hard time explaining how such a thing could have happened. Take the issue of slavery, some forms of which the Catholic Church at one time supported (i.e. "permissible ‘just slavery’”):

Father John Francis Maxwell in 1975 published “Slavery and the Catholic Church: The history of Catholic teaching concerning the moral legitimacy of the institution of slavery”, a book that was the product of seven years research. It recorded the instances where slavery was sanctioned by Councils and Popes and also censures and prohibitions that have been recorded throughout the history of the Church. He explains that what appears to the layman, not familiar with the intricacies of Church teaching and law, to be contradictory teaching, often involving the same Pope, is actually only a reflection of the common and longstanding concept of permissible “just slavery”, and “unjust slavery” which was subject to condemnation. He shows by numerous examples from Council and Papal documents that “just slavery” was always an acceptable part of Catholic teaching right up until the end of the 19th century when the first steps were taken to place all forms of slavery under the ban. Since “just” slavery had been allowed by previous Councils and Popes he saw the declaration of slavery as an unconditional “infamy” in the Second Vatican Council pastoral constitution “Gaudium et spes” as a correction to what had been previously allowed, but not promulgated as infallible teaching. Pope John Paul II in his encyclical “EVANGELIUM VITAE” (1995),when repeating the list of infamies that included slavery, prefaced the passage in “Gaudium es spes” with “ …Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience…”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

 

[Rau]

That’s why the notion of papal infallibility allows the Catholic Church to paint itself into a corner. If a pope makes a decision or a statement on a matter of faith or morals which turns out to have been wrong…

Were error possible, then claiming infallibility would be foolish. But Jesus gave the Church teaching authority, and I know you know your Bible well enough to recall the passages.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Were error possible, then claiming infallibility would be foolish. But Jesus gave the Church teaching authority, and I know you know your Bible well enough to recall the passages.

I’d assume you’d know history well enough too to know of several events throughout history which place that claim in a dubious position at the best. Slavery, Ursury, Natural Family Planning vs older readings of Casti Connubi, the infallible teachings on how the bible was formulated and in which order the books were written now almost universally rejected by academia since the late 18th/early 19th century…

Certainly there is room for a doctrine to develop, but an entire 180 on the matter of usury (the Vatican Bank is infamous in the financial world for its dubious business practices) along with the tribute extracted from other states by the autocratic the Papal State and the later so-called “unholy alliances” with right wing parties/dictators throughout Europe in the 20th century is another matter. Slavery of some form was absolutely fine too (indeed lets not forget how hard Catholic organizations often fought protestants over this) and it was a matter of faith to agree…Until around the time of Vatican II where it became a matter of faith to condemn it.

Forgive me, while I can see why Catholics might still believe him to be I can see many rather valid reasons why the Orthodox and everyone else even from an early stage were rather skeptical.

 

[Rau]

I’d assume you’d know history well enough too to know of several events throughout history which place that claim in a dubious position at the best. Slavery, Ursury, Natural Family Planning vs older readings of Casti Connubi, the infallible teachings on how the bible was formulated and in which order the books were written now almost universally rejected by academia since the late 18th/early 19th century…

Certainly there is room for a doctrine to develop, but an entire 180 on the matter of usury (the Vatican Bank is infamous in the financial world for its dubious business practices) along with the tribute extracted from other states by the autocratic the Papal State and the later so-called “unholy alliances” with right wing parties/dictators throughout Europe in the 20th century is another matter. Slavery of some form was absolutely fine too (indeed lets not forget how hard Catholic organizations often fought protestants over this) and it was a matter of faith to agree…Until around the time of Vatican II where it became a matter of faith to condemn it.

Forgive me, while I can see why Catholics might still believe him to be I can see many rather valid reasons why the Orthodox and everyone else even from an early stage were rather skeptical.

Your take on history is different to mine! These are quite hashed topics and the disputes typically revolve around differing understanding of what the things spoken about actually are.

 

[Rau]

Well if I had a son, I have adult daughters, I would tell them not to worry about it, as long as they were not completely obsessed with it.

But, where does the line get drawn dividing what you’d find fine from what is morally dubious? If the child masturbating alone is fine, would it still be fine with a friend? Does the lack of privacy cause a line to be crossed? Were they to touch each other…is that the thing that crosses the line?

The moral standing of the act should be judged alone and not confused with how the person will be judged.

 

[Burdock]

But, where does the line get drawn dividing what you’d find fine from what is morally dubious? If the child masturbating alone is fine, would it still be fine with a friend? Does the lack of privacy cause a line to be crossed? Were they to touch each other…is that the thing that crosses the line?

The moral standing of the act should be judged alone and not confused with how the person will be judged.

Well I wouldn’t think that an adolescent cwould want to do something like that in front of a friend, hadn’t thought about that.

 

[Burdock]

But, where does the line get drawn dividing what you’d find fine from what is morally dubious? If the child masturbating alone is fine, would it still be fine with a friend? Does the lack of privacy cause a line to be crossed? Were they to touch each other…is that the thing that crosses the line?

The moral standing of the act should be judged alone and not confused with how the person will be judged.

Well I wouldn’t think that an adolescent cwould want to do something like that in front of a friend, hadn’t thought about that.

 

[Thorolfr]

But, where does the line get drawn dividing what you’d find fine from what is morally dubious? If the child masturbating alone is fine, would it still be fine with a friend? Does the lack of privacy cause a line to be crossed? Were they to touch each other…is that the thing that crosses the line?

The old “slippery slope” argument