|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: eternal damnation for a wank?
|
Mechtilde
Shipmate
# 12563
|
Posted
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I know exactly what he'd say: "Why are you bringing this up?"
Or, still more likely: "Well, how nice for you. Can we get back to your confession now?"
Does make me appreciate being Anglican -- this from one who's had a good sniff at Rome. I don't mean that to be a criticism of those who've chosen Rome over Canturbury or anything else. There are some excellent reasons to do so. But for me, at least, the whole area of teachings on sexuality are a big reason to stay put.
--------------------
"Once one has seen God, what is the remedy?"
Sylvia Plath, "Mystic"
Posts: 517 | From: The cloud of unknowing | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
"Why are you bringing this up?"
He must have the gift of celebacy.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. I know exactly what he'd say: "Why are you bringing this up?"
Or, still more likely: "Well, how nice for you. Can we get back to your confession now?"
Can't imagine mine saying any different
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
2352 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."[137] "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."[138]
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 or even extenuate moral culpability.
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
2352 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."[137] "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."[138]
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 or even extenuate moral culpability.
Now with some comments!
The reason we are having the discussion is because our catechism does state the above, so it is reasonable to want to discuss the implications.
To me there is much to be considered in the last paragraph, which to me says that while masturbation falls short of the ideal situation i.e. only sex within marraige, there are various reasons that the act in itself might not entail significant moral responsibility.
One example I can think of is say where one partner in a marraige has a much lower sex drive than the other. Masturbation might be a way of avoiding destructive discontent in the marraige. This does not in itself make the act right but could reduce moral responsibility.
The catechism is in fact far less black and white than people are portraying and this is widely recognised pastorally within the Church.
One could say that at least the RCC has the balls to make a statement about a fairly common human activity. Most other churches simply avoid the issue and while people are sniping at the RCC sticking its head above the parapet,I'm sure that if anyone actually stood up at say a baptist or salvation army meeting and said boldly "maturbation is no sin" they would meet a fair degree of opposition.
On the subject of masturbation being a way of reducing the possibility of prostate cancer, I was once shocked to hear somone say that it was most healthy for men to ejuculate every 2-4 hours. While contemplating the enormity of this fact I realised that they had sais "every 24 hours" - phew!
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mechtilde
Shipmate
# 12563
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
"Why are you bringing this up?"
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
He must have the gift of celebacy.
Well he is quite old and frail, and certainly celibate. So I doubt I'm "bringing anything up," in that sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
One could say that at least the RCC has the balls to make a statement about a fairly common human activity.
Yes, and I often admire the RCC for its clear teaching on matters the AC prefers to leave alone. But then, I often admire the AC for leaving alone things the RCC feels it has to intervene in. This is one of those times.
--------------------
"Once one has seen God, what is the remedy?"
Sylvia Plath, "Mystic"
Posts: 517 | From: The cloud of unknowing | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
If I could comment on a couple of statements made by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RC position is that the purpose of sex, and hence of orgasm and for men ejaculation of semen, is the unity of flesh of husband and wife (in principle open to new life)
My understanding is that this is the basic reason for sexual activity, but later Ingo says this:
quote:
While it is true that according to the RCC not every sexual act must be aimed at procreation (that is, being explicitly intended to result in children), every sexual act must be open to procreation (that is, the sexual act must be such that children could result if both partners were fertile, and the partners must not have made themselves infertile by artificial means). And while sterility is not an impediment to marriage, complete impotence is...
So, a distinction is drawn between natural and human impediments. But it doesn't fit with the former. Sexual intercourse involving an infertile person cannot have the required purpose of being, in principle, open to the possibility of procreation.
If a couple know that one of them is infertile they know that they cannot "aim" their act at creating new life. Therefore they should abstain. The RCC response to this seems to be "well, if the impediment is natural we'll pretend it's different or that it Doesn't Matter". It is a very techical and unsatisfactory distinction worthy of a late Victorian law lord.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I felt it was better to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
Leo, that's just what I thought, and furthermore, I felt that like many things it probably didn't matter because it wasn't much discussed. And, as an aside to Multipara, I never felt much angst at all.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manx Taffy
Shipmate
# 301
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
One could say that at least the RCC has the balls to make a statement about a fairly common human activity.
Yes, and I often admire the RCC for its clear teaching on matters the AC prefers to leave alone. But then, I often admire the AC for leaving alone things the RCC feels it has to intervene in. This is one of those times. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I think in having one statement in the catechism the RCC is not so much intervening in the matter as just putting forward its opinion. Pastorally I don't think it would be common for the church to intervene.
In 2007, to the vast majority of people this topic seems so minor but only 30 years ago to my parents generation it would have been quite common belief to see masturbation as fundamentally immoral - even among non-christians.
Thereore it is only very recently that masturbation has come to be seen as amoral and given its prevalence and the speed at which the RCC revises the catechism it is hardly surprising it still has a small statement tackling the matter.
Posts: 397 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
marsupial.
Shipmate
# 12458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: I can find that the purpose of eating is to maintain the energy levels of my body, and that the pleasure I get from eating good food is ordered towards this purpose (by nature I feel this pleasure so that I eat). If I eat and then vomit it all out, so that I can eat some more - as the Romans did - I'm doing something sinful: I'm now ignoring the original purpose of eating - maintaining my life - and only try to maximize the pleasure.
Is chewing gum a mortal sin? How about swallowing gum (assuming it has essentially zilch nutritional value)? Why not?
I suspect these "perverted faculty"-style arguments really miss the point of why we get worried about sexual morality. The basic issue is that the sex drive is the source of powerful, non-rational urges and pleasures which can be destructive both of ourselves and of our relationships with others if exercised in the wrong ways. And the question of what's permissible and what's not has to be addressed in light of the reasons we worry about sexual morality in the first place.
On the "addiction" point--isn't the Catechism basically redefining a natural human urge as an addiction? Their use of "addiction" strikes me as nonstandard, at any rate.
Posts: 653 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
I'm not entirely convinced of the arguments against masturbation from Natural Law. I think that the RCC is only trying to find an objection to it that is consistent with its objections to everything else.
Masturbation is considered a sin, in my opinion, because of its common use in pagan rites. It's the way non-Christian cults behaved, and the Christians needed to show not only that they were different, but also that they were better than the pagans.
In Mesopotamian cosmology, the River Tigris flows with Enki's ejaculate; in Egyptian cosmology the pantheon is created when Atum masturbates, Osiris resurrected himself by a hand job and bore himself a son off the wrist, and at the festival of Min (beginning of the harvest) farmers would masturbate in their fields. In Greek mythology, Hermes taught Pan to wank when he was pining for Echo. There is also the story of Metro and Coritto, in which an olisbos (dildo) is shared.
It was very important to the Christians that they showed a completely unique outlook to morality - hence the development of anti-homosexual teaching, and the prohibition of masturbation.
Just an idle thought...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the coiled spring
Shipmate
# 2872
|
Posted
quote:
Could you just clear up for me, whether you mean Mormons, or morons?
Thanks PB4S
Any way you like sunbeam
[ 23. June 2007, 08:44: Message edited by: the coiled spring ]
--------------------
give back to God what He gives so it is used for His glory not ours.
Posts: 2359 | From: mountain top retreat lodge overlooking skegness | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why are we even having this thread? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Because it is not officially resolved by the churches in the same way it is often unofficially handled?
I remember talking with a schoolmate of mine. He said, I want to go to confession. What do you wnat to confess, I asked. Masturbation and looking at porn were mentioned, among others. Do you feel you regret doing those things, I asked. No, he said, they are normal. Then why on earth go to confession, I asked. It was like Homer Simpson, when he found a Roman Catholic priest, he made his confession, mentioning, at one point, "and I masturbated six billion times". lol. As if God has a list of sins which He handles in a legalistic way and we can get absolved again in a legalistic way. lol. Even funnier was the fact that my friend wanted to go to confession to a certain Orthodox priest of African origin that is somewhat known for his strictness. Why on earth go to someone that will tell you off for something you have no regrets about? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I remember talking to an Orthodox priest about the way Orthodoxy and Catholicism handle sexual ethics. Don't get confused, he said. We essentially believe the same things, at an official level. But our lack of central governance allows that every priest says whatever he personally thinks on these issues.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The desire to be "punished" perhaps adds a certain piquancy to the act? It's not an unknown sexual dynamic.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):
Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?
[ 23. June 2007, 11:13: Message edited by: Trin ]
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Why not...
Have you ever seen a little kid playing with itself?
Might have been a bit awkward while he was wrapt in swathing bands, but, hell, the custom in pre-nappy days was for the younger kids to run about pantless until housetrained.
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):
Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?
Yes
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Who knows? But I wouldn't say "no" just because he was who he was. The sexuality of Jesus is not something many Christians feel comfortable addressing. It doesn't bother me at all. "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (St. Gregory Nazianzen, my patron).
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In reference to my previous post, though until the question was asked it was not something it had occurred to me to devote any thought to. But to me it is a bit like asking me if imagine that Jesus scratched his arse, not something I fantasise about but I assume, given he was a 33 year old human being (with added extra metaphysics) at the time of his death, it is something that willhave happened.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Filius Luciferi
Shipmate
# 12571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
Sounds to me like that young man may be (emphasis on "may") afflicted with scrupulosity. Most unpleasant for the sufferer.
Not as unpleasant as a bad case of 'Lover's balls!' the only known cure for which is a quick romp under the covers with the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (depending on ones 'orientation') or a quick Indian hand jive round the scrotum pole. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Albatross about my neck was hung...
And I don't give a shit! :)
Posts: 152 | From: Hades, Home of the 7/7 Bombers! | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
In order to examine whether Jesus masturbated or not (or whether this is something He could have done), we first need to examine why people masturbate. Then, after we have shed light in the reasons why people masturbate, we can see whether they applied to Jesus.
So, what do you think? And what about Jesus' sex drive? Did he have one? And what would this mean in the case of Jesus? How would it get expressed?
It's a pity that no satisfying official church positions exist on how sexuality works and what it means. We end up with DIY-like solutions, and I don't know how satisfying that is. I mean, I want solutions that are the result of the church working as a church, I want consensus reached after robust dialogue. I guess, though, that the ways ordinary people live their lives are indicative of what the majority thinks about this issue, even though no official discussions were held.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
My own private and unofficial view on the issue is that masturbation is a non-issue sin-wise for the vast majority of the people that are not interested in reaching theosis anyway. It can be a both positive (a way to deal with frustration, to explore sexuality, to be a more balanced and healthy individual) and negative (when guilt is involved, often imposed by the inidivudal's environment) experience.
Things, imo change when one seeks the conscious union with God. In this case the causes for frustration itself need to be addressed and resolved (not just frustration) and this takes a lot of inner work (both conscious and subconcious). Also, man's specifications get to play a particular role. If man is created with a deep existential centre that feeds on messages of love, then where those messages come from, and what their quality is, play an important role when man seeks God.
Needless to say that if these things are important for us to come into union with God, they do not apply to Him that is God the Son Himself and is in no need to come in union with God because He is and have always been in union with God in His individuality.
I guess the Orthodox tradition has a lot to say on pleasure (and, as far as I know, a relation is drewn between pleasure and pain), but I don't think I have it all cleared out in my mind.
Instinctively, I would say that Jesus Christ did not masturbate. Anyways, do we know anything about whether masturbation was that often practiced by first century Jewish boys that were brought up in their religious environment? Or do we just arbitrarily assume that the percentages we know from studies in our societies can be applied universally?
Hm, now that I think of it, the sex life of the prophets and just men of the Old and the New Testament will be interesting to take into account. I mean, those that did not regret having done something... what they thought was the God-like way to live thir lives as far as their sexuality was concerned. How many got married? How many remained celibate? How many were married to more than one woman? And so on...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scarlet
Mellon Collie
# 1738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet. Personally, I do not think that masturbation would have been considered 'grave matter' in the first place, had it not been for the incorrect suppositions about biology (such as thinking it 'spilt' souls) and lack of knowledge of human psychology and sexuality in the first place.
First to say that I am responding as one who does not consider the act of masturbation to be anything I need to mention to my priest in confession. He's a stern legalist converted from Lutheranism...I'd be too embarrassed and I'd much prefer to just stop participating in the sacraments than face him in this conversation. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Moreover, I think God should be much more concerned with how I'm treating my sister...and the fact that I barely pray. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
But I think saying that masturbation can be a tranquilzer of sorts...relief of depression and strong physical discomfort...and using that as any justification is a false reassurance. Shooting IV opiates or drinking alcohol to excess meet all these expectations of anxiety relief, mask depression, what all, but the confession of those would assuredly require some priestly attention.
I cannot view God as one who sits around dropping all our sins into little jars; one labled "grave sins", the other labeled "minor infractions". If I did, I'd just have to give up on the faith because this God would be too unloving.
A good priest in my dream world would counsel and advise on more spiritually appropriate and healthy ways to find anxiety and depression relief. (Such as praying, not that that ever worked for me). In actuality, if you dig into the Orthodox faith, depression itself (sloth) is a sin. Which is why I don't read the church fathers...
OK, I've just gone around a perfect circular argument.
[ 23. June 2007, 14:59: Message edited by: Scarlett ]
--------------------
They took from their surroundings what was needed... and made of it something more.
—dialogue from Primer
Posts: 4769 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Anyways, do we know anything about whether masturbation was that often practiced by first century Jewish boys that were brought up in their religious environment? Or do we just arbitrarily assume that the percentages we know from studies in our societies can be applied universally?
I reckon boys will be boys in any society.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's a pity that no satisfying official church positions exist on how sexuality works and what it means. We end up with DIY-like solutions... and I don't know how satisfying that is.
Ha! "Do It Yourself" solutions !!
Schoolboy snigger.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Scarlett-
"Sloth" is not depression. In theological terms, it is willful, serious negligence of responsibilities - whether spiritually (such as a neglect of prayer, virtue, worship) or in, for example, such matters as neglect of one's children's care.
I think I can guarantee you that your priest, especially if he previously was RC (where sacramental confession is still mandatory), is not going to hear anything from you (or anyone else) which will make him sit up and whistle.
As I said earlier, I do not believe masturbation would ever have been considered "grave matter" had there been the level of knowledge of biology and psychology which there is today. What I was setting forth, with the example of depression or anxiety (as illustrations of the last paragraph in the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church), was impediments to use of reason and will, on the Thomistic model. God's mercy is not in question (even if I thought masturbation was 'grave matter,' which I do not, I would think many sins are far more serious than those involving sex). The sort of argument I was expressing (though I'm no longer RC, I was for about 40 years) had to do with what sins had to be confessed before one could return to communion.
I'm a causuist, as was Alfonso Liguori. (His sound approach was considered very lax during the 19th century - especially by Anglo Catholics who were contemplating hearing confessions and saw Alfonso as admitting too many cases where circumstances could reduce culpability. Obsessions with sexual sins, not to mention establishment of male purity societies, was not a Mediterranean - or usually RC - affliction.) If there is grave matter (and someone believes this is), the lack of reflection and consent could still prevent its being classed as a grave sin (that is, one which must be confessed before receiving communion.)
I did not think the day would come when I agreed with Andreas, but he made a good point about theosis. There are many pleasures, thoughts, actions, and so forth which, though not sinful in themselves, can be distractions to those advanced in the spiritual life. Masturbation could be such a distraction. It also could be indicative of immaturity. I'm not recommending that everyone place a daily wank on the schedule - only saying that I do not consider masturbation to be essentially sinful. Trouble is (here showing my weary side), once anything is established as 'grave matter,' it's rather like having a written constitution for a nation (that this is so in Ireland, where Catholicism was very legalistic for over a century, is purely coincidental) - a bit easier for the constitutional lawyers, but a nuisance because it cannot be changed.
Alfonso Liguori (bishop of the diocese next to that of my family's) would have had quite enough to keep him busy in an area where guilt is hardly epidemic, and a defence for murder is 'the bastard had it coming.' It's unlikely he ever heard many worries about such sexual sins as masturbation.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):
Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?
Because I don't think masturbation is sinful, whether Jesus did it or not is of no possible interest to me. I don't find it necessary to give it brain space at all.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact). I would assume that you would feel obliged to work through the math of the student to find the error.
Well, in practice, what usually happens is that one of the steps in the calculation, while appearing superficially reasonable, turns out on closer examination to be erroneous. Because it's maths and not morals, the student can usually be shown why it's erroneous, and the student and the lecturer don't come to fisticuffs.
The assertion that masturbation is `adultery with oneself' seems reasonable enough at first glance. To me, anyway. It doesn't seem glaringly wrong, anyway.
But when one gets into a detailed examination of what adultery is, what its mens rea amounts to, I think the argument fails. And that's quite apart from the fact that, as an argument, it only applies to that segment of the population which are in a position to commit adultery.
Adultery is immoral, surely, because one simply cannot divide one's intimate attentions between two or more people and still do full justice to either of them. If it were possible for humans to do this -- as it maybe for monkeys and bears -- then we would have no concept of adultery, or marriage for that matter.
If the same elements that make adultery sinful are also present in masturbation, then maybe masturbation is sinful. But my feeling is that, in the majority of instances, they are not.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Isn't lust much wider than lustful thoughts? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[ 23. June 2007, 20:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
What about mutual masturbation between husband and wife, specialy if normal intercourse is not always possible
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
AffirmingCatholic
Shipmate
# 10586
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?
Sure. I think for most people there is an element of fantasy involved; however, I think it's completely possible for one to simply think, "Wow... this feels really good". Or, as a friend of mine in college once told me, "I admit I'm a two-pump chump. I'm done before I even have time to think about anything".
Posts: 161 | From: Kinston, NC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Isn't lust much wider than lustful thoughts?
Please explain what you mean by this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Audrey Ely
Shipmate
# 12665
|
Posted
Do the Eastern Orthodox say masturbation is a sin?
Audrey
Cambridgeshire
Posts: 1432 | From: Cambridgeshire, England | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Etheldreda (I know, Audry!)
Some do, some don't. I don't.
The Orthodox don't have "A-Whapping-Great-Big-Manual-With-Everything-In-It-You-Could-Ever-Possibly-Want-To-Ask." This is not because we can't agree or because we can't be bothered doing it, it's just not how we operate. Of course there are penitentiaries and we refer to them ... but they all have some provisionality attached to them coz (as they say) "one size doesn't fit all." The key bottom line in Orthodoxy is ... "What counsel will help this person find salvation?"
pedantic mode on >>>
I am Orthodox but "western." "Eastern" is a misnomer. Orthodoxy is not confined to the "east" geographically or even spiritually.
pedantic mode off <<<
[ 24. June 2007, 14:48: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AffirmingCatholic
Shipmate
# 10586
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The key bottom line in Orthodoxy is ... "What counsel will help this person find salvation?"
Ah, how interesting. I don't know why, but I had this notion that the Orthodox were extremely legalistic.
--------------------
Ama, et fac quod vis
Posts: 161 | From: Kinston, NC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?
Are lustful thoghts the same as sexual fantasies?
I'm not sure they are. I meant my analogy about violence seriously. Most Christians would think that reading a thriller novel or watching a war film is not the same as the sin of anger, even though some of the enjoyment of both comes from contemplating the idea of violence.
Can a Christian, without sin, cheer at the end of The Magnificent Seven?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?
What Fr Gregory said. (and, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) , by the way Fr G).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
Thereore it is only very recently that masturbation has come to be seen as amoral and given its prevalence and the speed at which the RCC revises the catechism it is hardly surprising it still has a small statement tackling the matter.
This would be the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the French edition of which was published in 1992, the Latin in 1997, at the bidding of John Paul II, and of which no prior edition exists, would it?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Affirming Catholic:
Ah, how interesting. I don't know why, but I had this notion that the Orthodox were extremely legalistic.
Funny, I've always had a similar notion of Roman Catholics...
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: I can find that the purpose of eating is to maintain the energy levels of my body, and that the pleasure I get from eating good food is ordered towards this purpose (by nature I feel this pleasure so that I eat). If I eat and then vomit it all out, so that I can eat some more - as the Romans did - I'm doing something sinful: I'm now ignoring the original purpose of eating - maintaining my life - and only try to maximize the pleasure.
One of the problems with this kind of argument, at any rate when applied to masturbation and the like, is that it assumes that any use of a faculty that is not ordered towards a goal is ipso facto ordered against it.
Which is false, at least when it's us doing the "ordering". If on a long train journey I use my ticket as a bookmark, that doesn't harm its function as a ticket, even though the ticket is ordered towards proving to the guard that I've paid and not to finding my place again when I come back from the toilet.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I don't want to put words in IngoB's mouth Ricardus but I suspect that he might be getting at "self-orientated pleasure for pleasure's sake" ... not multifunction. However, if this is the case should not people cease from reading joke books?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Ricardus
I find middle-ages teleology pretty simplistic... The Universe is even much more complicated than we can imagine, let alone fitting the pious imagination of the Roman Catholic scholastic theologians...
Dear MouseThief
I'm not an expert on lust, but I would think that thoughts, are only one aspect of lust... It seems to me that it's a much wider experience... Impersonal-blind burning due to unresolved issues sounds more like what I have in mind. Heck, one can even lust after his wife, when he sees her as an object for his own satisfaction...
Dear AffirmingCatholic
Some Orthodox can be legalistic... And that's a sign that you should run away from them... Father G. is pretty spot on here. The Church is composed of individuals, and our individuality is to be respected... It is sacred. our freedom, our particular needs, all that SHOULD be taken into account by any religion. I don't agree with father G. that this is how Orthodoxy is though... I think that this is how Orthodoxy SHOULD be. Note that as far as I know, father Gregory's opinion on wanking is a rare public expression of a positive stance on masturbation from an Orthodox point of view.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Yes you are! As far as boldness is concerned, I think that transparency is vital for us Christians. Let us be open with ourselves and each other. Then we will have made a giant leap towards salvation.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't want to put words in IngoB's mouth Ricardus but I suspect that he might be getting at "self-orientated pleasure for pleasure's sake" ... not multifunction. However, if this is the case should not people cease from reading joke books?
Well, exactly. But whether or not function was what IngoB was getting at - and it still looks that way to me - I was reacting to the argument against masturbation that I have always heard from Catholics, including such luminaries as St Thomas Aquinas.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
quote:
Repeatedly posted by Many People:
Masturbation is not sinful.
So either
A: You claim that masturbation is readily seperable from lust.
B: You do not view lust as sinful.
Which are you going with?
[ 25. June 2007, 09:42: Message edited by: Trin ]
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trin:
quote:
Repeatedly posted by Many People:
Masturbation is not sinful.
So either
A: You claim that masturbation is readily seperable from lust.
B: You do not view lust as sinful.
Which are you going with?
Both.
I don't think that lust is a necessary pre-requisite for masturbation, although I concede that it may sometimes be present.
And I don't think it is necessarily sinful to lust, although lust is a weasel word. If I say that I lust after my wife, I think I am using the word properly, and I don't see my lust as a sin.
I'm sure that lust can amount to a sin in some circumstances. But for the morality of masturbation to reduce to your stark A/B choice, you'd first have to show that (1) the word `lust' is properly applied to what passes for a person's mental state while doing it, and (2) that lust, so defined, is a sin.
[ 25. June 2007, 10:19: Message edited by: CrookedCucumber ]
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I think that a wife would have every reason to be disappointed if her husband didn't lust after her in a cherishing reciprocal sort of way, (and vice versa). What CrookedCucumber said, .
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I'm sure you will have seen this before but it's worth a re-airing ...+
"A Timely Warning"
Ahem.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Masturbation being sinful seems rather pointless, since the chances of everyone being able to refrain from doing it, all of the time seems to be to be sub-negligable.
If God gets his knickers in a twist about men and women masturbating than he must be very petty indeed. In the great scheme of things, having a quick solo shuffle under the duvet hardly seems to rank espaically highly on the list of awfulness, really. About the same as going to a Spice Girls "concert" or wearing socks with sandals.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
