YouCat quotes Martin Luther

  • Thread starter Thread starter teamjesusnumber31
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tbh I think that what it says about masturbation (albeit brief) avoids condemning those who struggle with that sin by noting that the Church doesn’t “demonize” the sin, while still describing it as an “offence against love” and appropriately highlights its addictive nature through linking it to loneliness. It’s written in a language and style appropriate for its audience and given that it was approved by the CDF, I fail to see the problem.
When I was baptized at 14 I was gifted the YouCat book by the parish, and with the state of catechizing being what it is, it quickly became my main source of information about Catholicism.

When I read that the Church didn’t demonize masturbation I interpreted that to mean masturbation wasn’t a sin. I think that’s a pretty common way of understanding those words. Thankfully I also had the Compendium of the CCC and discovered the truth just a few days later, but I can nevertheless attest to the fact that whoever decided to word the YouCat like that is guilty of causing me to sin for a little while. So there is a problem.
 
Why wouldn’t they simply use the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
 
I don’t know how thin we need to slice a 7 year age group (teens) but as a parent and educator of children I can tell you that I personally would not use youcat. 8th grade history, English and math are incredibly complicated and yet children manage, I’ll bet as a priest your perspective about the masturbation issue does hold a lot of weight. I’m sure many teens Tell you about their struggles with this particular subject more than anyone else. But my children have no problem understanding the concepts in the other catechisms. Frankly, I find youcat condescending to teens. I also think the language in the part mentioned is troublesome. By saying we don’t demonize masturbation we run the risk of lessening the mortality of it. Not to mention that the reasons the youcat gives are heavy on the social and not the theological with this issue. This topic is debated heavily, and maybe some kids need a less chunky resource but I think it is fair to say that it’s treatment of this particular subject was written and implemented poorly.
I’ve never seen a teen make a great orthodox explanation of their faith using the Youcat. Actually, I’d be amused if that happened!
If teens are exposed to our current world with the complexities of scientific virus data, race wars, and the powers of governments, and somehow have a better grasp on my Netflix account and amazon practices than I do, I think understanding the concept of sexual chastity Doesn’t need to be given with a spoonful of sugar.
 
The purpose of YouCat isn’t to provide a comprehensive understanding of orthodoxy - it’s to provide a basis for learning and growing in understanding of the faith - in other words, a starting off point. That’s why it’s cross-referenced to the Catechism (which is itself simply a summation of teaching and not intended as a starting and ending point for faith development). I don’t agree that ti’s condescending at all. I think it presents teaching is a way that’s geared towards what might be called a purposive approach - helping teens to understanding why the Church teaches what it does rather than just telling them that it’s an “intrinsically and gravely disordered action” - something which most teens (and a fair number of adults) wouldn’t properly understand.

So, as far as this teaching is concerned it’s presented in a way that deliberately avoids condemnation; that’s not about “sugar-coating it” but helping someone struggling with the sin (and what they should expect to hear in the confessional). Like most faith resources, it’s best understood when they have someone to ask questions of and that’s what I find is most lacking - people knowledgeable about the faith, who are willing to listen, accompany and understand where teens are coming from without rushing to judgment, condemnation or criticism.
 
What is YouCat?
Wasn’t that those things they mailed us twenty-something years ago because they thought we’d plug it into our computers to scan barcodes in magazine adds to get to interweb advertisements? And then got mad when someone saw how to cut a trace and scan any old barcode?

I think I still have mine somewhere . . .

:roll_eyes:
I have to wonder how things would have turned out, if there had been an Internet in those days, and if he had created a website — 95theses.com ? — for free discussion of the issues.
Had he posted here, he likely would have been advised (and rightly so) to seek help for his scrupulosity . . .
 
The CCC
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
This is not really hard to explain to someone. It keeps the gravity while also explaining the culpability. If the Youcat is supposed to be a starting off point and one that is easier for younger minds to understand then it fails miserably. It actually does the opposite. Grasping the Youcat’s phrasing and reasoning on this particular issue is quite more nuanced and harder to explain than the CCC. It would require a deeper dive into theology, human relationships and sin than the actual CCC. By just using social reasons and using the phrase “we don’t demonize masturbation” the Youcat digs in the sandbox of ambiguity.
As a parent, catechist, and youth leader, I have a real problem with the treatment of a common subject. Every year on a youth group night, we separate the boys from the girls and the boys hike up a mountain with a Cross. We pray the rosary for all the women (by name) in our lives. Mothers, girls at school, siblings etc. We give them the chastity talk, talk about virtue, honor, control, respect, and of course masturbation.

Now, you certainly know more about the confessional than I do. But as a father, as a parent, our family discusses confession, and chastity matters. If my teen came to me and said, "Father said in my last confession that we should not demonize Masturbation, I would speak to the priest (who probably could not address it at all) and then my child would not be going to that priest for absolution.

Crack open an 8th grade algebra book. Delve into shakespear tradgedies or Homer. Read in depth analysis of napoleon, or asian dynasties. Than plop a youcat down and say, here. The CCC is too hard to understand for you.
 
Last edited:
If a young person asks me about masturbation what I say to them is pretty much what’s in YouCat; I certainly don’t describe it as an “intrinsically disordered act”. Particularly in the context of confession, while I obviously don’t say that it’s a trivial matter or not a sin, I would acknowledge that it’s something which a lot of young people are reticent about discussing and affirm their courage in bringing it to confession and encourage them in their efforts to refrain from it in future.

Sadly, it’s not something which comes up nearly as often as it should when I’m hearing confessions for a group of teens. I think there are two reasons for this: partly, it’s due to normalisation but far more than that I think it’s because teens are embarrassed to bring it up and sacred of what the priest might say if they do. That’s why I like the approach YouCat takes (and it’s also probably why it takes it). That’s not to say that the main Catechism is in any way deficient or inferior but simply that YouCat is intentionally directed towards a particular audience rather than a general one.
 
I take nuggets from your post and leave that which I disagree with. That is so interesting about how it doesn’t come up as much as you would think. Personally, I think it could be several factors but one of which IS the approach that youcat takes, which in this particular issue I think is at odds with the CCC. When a properly catechised person goes to confession they should already have discerned the gravity of what they confess. If they are not confessing this it could be as you rightly pointed out that it is normalized. And the Youcat seems to follow this incredibly soft approach. Now I don’t think the youth should be bombarded with you will go to hell or the horror stories we all have heard happened back in the day. But when a catechism says we don’t demonize masturbation and it can stunt your social life then I am certainly not surprised you don’t hear it in the confessional. With the onslaught of handheld porn one click away. It’s an epidemic of evil!
 
I think it’s important also to keep in mind the milieu of the Church in Austria… which is not doing well… anyone who spends time there or talks with devout Austrians will be aware of that fact. Yes it was approved by the CDF, but…
 
Personally, I think it could be several factors but one of which IS the approach that youcat takes, which in this particular issue I think is at odds with the CCC. When a properly catechised person goes to confession they should already have discerned the gravity of what they confess. If they are not confessing this it could be as you rightly pointed out that it is normalized. And the Youcat seems to follow this incredibly soft approach.
Tbh I very much doubt that those who aren’t confessing it haver even heard of YouCat let alone read it. That aside, YouCat is approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pope Benedict (who’s forgotten more theology than I’ll ever know) so it can’t be said to be at odds with the CCC. Certainly, it takes a different approach but it does that for a reason.
 
I’ve just searched for Topic #409, where is the problem? It clearly says masturbation is a fault against Love (i.e. a sin).
 
It’s the fact that you have to use “i.e. a sin” that is the problem.

How many young people dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves because people are afraid to say “it’s a mortal sin”?

-K
 
When you quote a source, you are not just approving the merits of the statement. If you were, you could rephrase the same point.

By quoting the exact words, however you are also approving of the authority behind the statement.
 
So if I quote Marx to say that his ideas are wrong after, I am approving Marx as an authority?

The other day I just watched that: a traditional Priest giving a presentation and criticizing Luther, Voltaire, Gramsci, etc. by quoting their own crazy ideas. I don’t think the people there thought they were an authority after the presentation ended…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top