Wrong views about Mortal Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St.Thomas St.Alphonsus would agree along with St.John. Paul II and the Magesterium of the Church as I cited in the CDF document. Its clear Catholic teaching. Masturbation has akways been grave matter and intrinsically evil…God Bless
 
It is NOT in the CDF document as “intrinsically evil”.

IX

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts.[21] The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man’s innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.

Continued…
 
On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people’s moral capacity.

In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual’s practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual’s care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue.

Screenshots, with overlap:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
The document you cite does not include the term “intrinsically evil.” I am still left to wonder why it was cited since it was not pertinent to our dialogue.
 
CCC 1755 The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

It seems obvious to me that if something is in itself disordered, meaning it goes against order, it is in itself directly against what is good… therefore evil.

As I understand, the object of an act can be morally good, neutral or evil. I don’t see how an act which is in itself gravely disordered could have an object that is neutral or good.

And again, if there is an applicable difference between the two to the topic at hand, I don’t see it…
 
Last edited:
Again, why is masturbation not specifically stated as “intrinsically evil” in any document, if it is? The CCC isn’t normally ambiguous, and the CDF went out of its way to clarify points on sexual morality.

Of all the things I thought I’d find myself discussing on this forum, I have to admit this is not one of them. Good heavens.

I’m serious when I say God Himself will eventually have to explain to me how this is equal to murder and rape.
 
Last edited:
Evil merely means that an act privates or disorders a good or goods. Ontological evil does not exist inside or outside of God’s created order.
 
Last edited:
All of your posting is proving my point.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Now according to Christian tradition and the Church’s teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.” (Persona Humana, X)

Maybe you think intrinsic evil is akways a mortal sin, thats not what intrinsic evil means. If a sin is intrinsically evil, it means that the object of the act is evil and therefore a sin no matter the intention or circumstance. So the sin of masterbation is intrinsically evil but may not akways constitute a mortal sin, but sometimes a venial sin because of culpability which is what is talked about in your posts.
 
Last edited:
TheOldColonel said:
Evil merely means that an act privates or disorders a good or goods
Click to expand...
Isn’t this what we’re talking about? The act is intrinsically disordered, and is “essentially contrary to” the proper purpose of the “use of the sexual faculty,” which is found in marriage.
 
Last edited:
Now there’s a thought I didn’t have. Connotation of the word outside of its assumed definition or “usual” definition. Good one, Colonel.
 
No, you’re saying it states something it doesn’t. You said it said it is. It doesn’t. I’m thinking the whole thing is semantics. And again, I doubt masturbation is on the same level as rape and murder - both of which are assuredly evil.

I’m not talking about “mortal sin”. I’m focusing on the word evil here, its use, and its noticeable absence.

I’m with the Colonel on this. I’m thinking it’s a semantic problem with the word itself.
 
Last edited:
If you dont call something evil that is evil you are doing a discredit to youself and to others.
 
As it’s not stated as being such, I won’t think of it as such. Murder? Yes. Rape? Yes.

Is it disordered? Probably. I have a medical background and education that says otherwise, but that’s my situation to deal with and no one else’s.

As I’ve said, I’ll answer it eventually if I must. I’m sure all of us have our hedges and “uh, maybe nots” that we’ll be answering to in the end. Welcome to the human condition.
 
Last edited:
You are quite correct. There seems to be a severe lack of the common ground and common usage of technical language required for a fruitful dialogue. As I recall, my Moral Theology professor considered these a must.
 
You might begin your study by considering the important differences between intrinsic and extrinsic evil. Otherwise, the topic will continue to produce in you the puzzlement I see you struggling with in your own words and mine.
 
Last edited:
Go look up intrinsicly disordered in other Church documents. Its the same as intrinsically evil. I can go into the saints writings and more but you already have your mind made up. Peace be to you.
 
Pup7 said:
rape and murder - both of which are assuredly evil.
Click to expand...
So then what is it that makes these evil as opposed to simply disordered? It perhaps seems more obvious to the average person, but I don’t see how that means things which might not be so obvious are not evil.

Besides, the Catechism does clearly state that masturbation is a sin; even if it were not gravely sinful in itself (although it is, and it is even labelled “gravely disordered,” clearly grave matter), evil does not apply only to grave sins-- sin is itself evil.

EDIT: 2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
 
Last edited:
So if a person commits mortal sin, confesses it, but later the root cause of that sin is found to have been caused by psychiatric problems, the Church says it wasn’t really mortal sin? Does that mean the penitent gave a wrong confession?
 
If the penitent confessed in good faith, there is no fault.

I’m not going to claim to know anything about psychology, but it all depends on whether there was agency enough for proper consent to the action, I imagine. Things like this would need to be assessed by experts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top