Masturbation Ii

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831985' date='Apr 11 2009, 07:51 PM']But that's wishy-washy logic. One could easily argue that alcohol defeats the purpose of drinking, since we drink in order to hydrate ourselves, but alcohol dehydrates; and we eat in order to sustain ourselves, but alcohol is toxic.

No, really, we drink alcohol not because it has anything to do with the purpose of drinking or eating, but because it tastes and feels very good, and it helps spending a pleasant evening with friends by removing a fraction of our inhibitions and timidity.

And we masturbate not because it has anything to do with sexual intercourse, but because it feels good and relieves tension.

And again, if it was "grave matter" then doing it should have some negative consequences other than in a figurative sense.[/quote]
Actually, the original purpose of alcohol was for nutrition (it was part of the grain/food ration for the pyramid workers), to have a drink that was safe when clean water supplies were more scarce, and for religious purposes. That it makes one feel good or removes inhibitions is a secondary effect, a bonus, if you will.

[quote]Unless it's a compulsive behavior, masturbation doesn't make you a slave.[/quote] What I meant is that just doing something because it "feels good" isn't a good enough reason to justify it.

[quote]Sure, it can mean boredom or insatisfaction in the couple, so in any case they should talk about it. But if they both accept it, there's no harm to the relation. It doesn't prevent them from having very fulfilling sexual intercourse, on the contrary it might help by allowing them to know better what they find exciting and what they don't.[/quote] That logic could be applied to contraceptives - if they're both OK with it, why is it wrong? The answer is that, as I said, and as the quote from the CCC shows, it frustrates the purpose of sex, which is both unitive and procreative. They can also know better what they find exciting by engaging in intercourse with their spouse and talking about what they like - masturbation isn't necessary for that.

[quote]On perseverance vs God's grace; I've waited too long for God's grace. In the end, I was always the one who willed and acted, and when I "abandoned myself", nothing happened. At best, it's some kind of supernaturally infused optimism. In my opinion, it's nothing else than wishful thinking.[/quote]
As I said, waiting on God's grace doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. But His grace is a definite help. And His grace isn't just some passive thing, but, [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#II"]to quote the CCC again[/url], "a participation in the life of God". It requires cooperation on our part, and frequent reception of the Eucharist, and the grace received from doing so, certainly helps (in my experience).

God bless.

[Dr_Asik]

Hi again,

[quote]Actually, the original purpose of alcohol was for nutrition (it was part of the grain/food ration for the pyramid workers), to have a drink that was safe when clean water supplies were more scarce, and for religious purposes. That it makes one feel good or removes inhibitions is a secondary effect, a bonus, if you will.[/quote]Do you really mean that ?

Anyway. First, alcohol wasn't invented by the Egyptians. Secondly, if it was ever used for nutrition, it still objectively failed at that purpose, since alcohol is actually toxic even in small amounts. Third, in our culture, everyone drinks alcohol for its taste and physiological effects. Fourth, if I told you masturbation had a religious significance in some primitive culture, I doubt you would see that as a very convincing argument in its favour.

So my point remains. Alcohol clearly defeats the purpose of drinking, yet it's morally acceptable (and even good) in moderate amounts. It is in this respect perfectly comparable to masturbation, hence masturbation shouldn't be considered a grave matter.

[quote]What I meant is that just doing something because it "feels good" isn't a good enough reason to justify it.[/quote]But if it feels good and is otherwise harmless, then it should be morally acceptable, and certainly not "grave sinful matter".

[quote]That logic could be applied to contraceptives - if they're both OK with it, why is it wrong? The answer is that, as I said, and as the quote from the CCC shows, it frustrates the purpose of sex, which is both unitive and procreative. They can also know better what they find exciting by engaging in intercourse with their spouse and talking about what they like - masturbation isn't necessary for that.[/quote]You're not going to convince me with a comparison to contraceptives because I'm rather favorable to their use, like most Catholics (and most Catholic priests for that matter).

I never said masturbation was necessary, I said it wasn't harmful and potentially beneficial.

[quote]As I said, waiting on God's grace doesn't mean we sit back and do nothing. But His grace is a definite help. And His grace isn't just some passive thing, but, to quote the CCC again, "a participation in the life of God". It requires cooperation on our part, and frequent reception of the Eucharist, and the grace received from doing so, certainly helps (in my experience).[/quote]I can't argue with your experience. But grace only has nice words to show for itself. "participation in the life of God"? You think being a mentally healthy, honest and charitable person is unaccessible to humans unless God infuses some supernatural force into them ? I think that's absurd. But that would be another debate in itself.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832019' date='Apr 11 2009, 08:48 PM']Anyway. First, alcohol wasn't invented by the Egyptians. Secondly, if it was ever used for nutrition, it still objectively failed at that purpose, since alcohol is actually toxic even in small amounts. Third, in our culture, everyone drinks alcohol for its taste and physiological effects. Fourth, if I told you masturbation had a religious significance in some primitive culture, I doubt you would see that as a very convincing argument in its favour.[/quote]
Yes, I'm well aware the Egyptians were not the inventors of alcohol - it was just an easy example with which I am familiar. As far as I am aware, though, alcohol was originally created for it's nutritive value. Though if I am wrong, then I apologise. And as you point out, though, the original purpose is really a pointless discussion, so I shall move on.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832019' date='Apr 11 2009, 08:48 PM']But if it feels good and is otherwise harmless, then it should be morally acceptable, and certainly not "grave sinful matter".[/quote] Is it harmless to separate orgasm from the unitive & procreative aspects of sex? I'm not speaking of harm to physical health, but spiritual and social. Regardless, something feeling good does not make it morally good.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832019' date='Apr 11 2009, 08:48 PM']You're not going to convince me with a comparison to contraceptives because I'm rather favorable to their use, like most Catholics (and most Catholic priests for that matter). [/quote] To be blunt, it is not the majority opinion that matters. It is not my opinion that matters, either. The Church has spoken on this, has taught infallibly on this, and that is what matters. I do, of course, think it behoves all Catholics to learn the reasoning behind the teaching. Christopher West's books are very helpful in that area, in my personal opinion and experience.

Good night and God bless.

[Dr_Asik]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1832047' date='Apr 11 2009, 05:20 PM']Yes, I'm well aware the Egyptians were not the inventors of alcohol - it was just an easy example with which I am familiar. As far as I am aware, though, alcohol was originally created for it's nutritive value. Though if I am wrong, then I apologise. And as you point out, though, the original purpose is really a pointless discussion, so I shall move on. [/quote]Yes, let's not extend on the subject. By the way, you're right that alcoholic beverages have been used for their nutritive value at some point in history : "Beer made during early days, was in fact highly nutritional and was considered a good option in place of bread or grain as it could be stored for longer period of time." Today, however, "no alcoholic beverage contains any vital nutrient in amounts that make a significant contribution to the diet." [url="http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientInfo/alcohol-nutritive-value.htm"]http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientIn...itive-value.htm[/url]

[quote]Is it harmless to separate orgasm from the unitive & procreative aspects of sex?[/quote]According to all the latest research, there is no mental or social harm associated with masturbation. Sure, sex is for union and procreation, but that doesn't mean any usage of sexual functions out of sexual intercourse is bad. Just like drinking beer, although missing the purpose of drinking, is morally good if done with moderation.

[quote]To be blunt, it is not the majority opinion that matters. It is not my opinion that matters, either. The Church has spoken on this, has taught infallibly on this, and that is what matters. I do, of course, think it behoves all Catholics to learn the reasoning behind the teaching. Christopher West's books are very helpful in that area, in my personal opinion and experience.[/quote]Humanae Vitae is infaillible ? That's just a word. No one cares about Humanae Vitae. The attitude of the Catholic Church with Humanae Vitae is exactly that of the scribes and doctors Jesus denounced. It's not what comes in or out of us that makes us impure, it's what lies in our heart. If you wear a condom you're not Catholic ? Because the Church said you can't and if you reject one particular moral precept you don't have faith in the Church? That's all very logical, indeed. The scribes and doctors were very logical about intepreting the law of Moses too, and the law of Moses was from God. Although I thought the coming of Christ marked the end of those heartless, overly strict morals, based on nothing but words and ignoring the reality. To hear some in the Church today, it seems we're still where we were 2000 years ago.

A nice day to ya.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Dr_Asik

[Innocent]

Hi, Dr_Asik! Thanks for replying.

Wish you a Holy Easter!

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']It's more natural for a man to experience orgasm at least from time to time. It relieves tension, both physical and psychological.[/quote]

But that already naturally happens with wet dreams.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']direct your interests towards things other than your immature sexuality. Make friends, get into sports, a chess club, music, etc. As long as you feel loved and have varied interests, in time you'll all but forget you've ever had a tendency towards masturbation and realize you've become an adult, free and strong.[/quote]

Sure, and it's certainly possible to have a "both/and" approach - do all these constructive things as well as develop a good understanding of Church teaching on this matter. I've seen it happen in some of my friends, and I assure you, it is possible. Many of my Catholic friends when I was a teenager knew that masturbation and lustful thoughts were wrong, and they knew the teaching of my friends. We were never burdened by excessive guilt - we just tried to repent as sincerely as possible and go to Confession. We knew we had to overcome it and we also knew we had to spend our time usefully - i.e., work at our school studies - and we did both. What's the problem here?

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']I disagree. Eat something fat ? bad, you'll die of heart disease. Smoke ? bad, you'll die of a billion million different diseases at the same time. Have "unprotected" sex ? bad, you're putting yourself and your partner in danger. Eat meat ? bad, vegetables are more eco-friendly. Hold hands with another guy ? bad, that's for gays. Believe in God ? bad, that's for retards. Drink alcohol ? bad, you've just increased your chances of getting cancer by 5 - 20%. Society is just as restrictive as it ever was, the restrictions have just changed places. If you don't conform to the current social mold, you'll be repressed in various subtle and pernicious ways, just like it always have been.[/quote]

That is certainly food for thought. I've never thought of it that way.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']Speaking from personal experience, I really don't believe in any of that. Teenagers typically feel rejected and incompetent. They need to realize, not that they have a "fallen nature", which just adds oil to the fire, but that with perseverance they can be successful in life just like everyone else. They need to realize, not that God is merciful, but that their parents and those who care about them are merciful. God is not a shelter for your personal problems. If you think others reject you, learn to accept their pardon. If you have trouble accepting yourself, learn that you are just as good as any other and you're going through a normal although difficult part of your life. "The power of God's grace." Don't make me laugh. God's grace is the most indefinable and imaginary thing. It doesn't help to think some mystical force will help you get out of your misery. You need to make the efforts needed to get out of it, and once you've succeeded, you should be proud of yourself and think you have proved yourself, not that you're still as shitty as ever but that in His immense (and arbitrary) mercy, God gave you some support.[/quote]

See, here's the rub: If it's personal experience we're going to refer to, then you'll just quote yours and I'll just quote mine and we'll most likely never get to a common ground.

God's grace is not a mystical force. It's is something that definitely requires co-operation, and nothing less than our whole-hearted co-operation will do. This is certainly something that a teenager can understand without much difficulty. It is quite easily explained at a school-level catechism class. But perhaps it depends upon the local culture. Perhaps it's easier for teenagers of my place and time and less easy where you live. But it's still possible.

God is not a place to hide from our problems, you say. Very well. I didn't say He was either. And I assure you from personal experience, it's possible to get teenagers to understand all this.

As for, "not that you're still as shitty as ever but that in His immense (and arbitrary) mercy, God gave you some support." that looks too close to Total Depravity and is certainly not Catholic theology. It is possible for a teenager to understand that as we co-operate with grace, we grow in holiness. We are not "as shitty as ever."

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']A teenager needs to build self-esteem and trying to force through his skull a theory that he's of a fallen nature and he'll never get out of it, but God will through his mercy give him the supernatural power to do something good out is life, is not a recipe for success. A teenager needs to learn to believe in himself.[/quote]

It's not that "he'll never get out of it." The Good News is that he CAN get out of it. A teenager needs to learn to believe in God as well.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']He did not equate lust to adultery. He said "whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery in his heart." Obviously, committing "adultery in your heart" isn't equivalent to committing adultery plain and simple, otherwise there wouldn't be any stable marriages at all: any time your spouse would catch you looking at another woman, she would say you've cheated her and leave. Jesus also said "But I say unto you, whoever has hatred in his heart has already committed murder." Should we jail people who have hatred in their hearts ? This is ridiculous.[/quote]

Yes, but below you write: " The origin of all evil is in the heart (as opposed to external "impurities" like the jews believed)"

So "adultery in your heart" is not a small insignificant matter.

Christ's standards are very high. In fact, without grace, un-reachably high. No one is denying that.

Such cases of divorces where one of the major problems is pornography/masturbation addictions by the spouse do happen.

And it's not that we must jail those who are anger. Christ just revealed to us the truth about how harmful lust and anger are. Now that we know how harmful they are we can work towards gaining a better custody of our heart.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']Jesus wanted to say two things :
- The origin of all evil is in the heart (as opposed to external "impurities" like the jews believed)
- Don't think yourself too holy just because you've not commited this or that sin (like when he said "he who is without sin, shall throw the first stone").[/quote]

Can't disagree. Especially with the second part. Many times I've caught myself being guilty of that.

In closing, I just want to suggest to you that a teenager learning the teaching of the Church on lust does not necessarily become burdened with guilt and get trapped in a cycle. The situation is not so gloomy as you think it is. But perhaps our experiences were different and we're just talking past each other.

And, as you say, it is also true that the urge decreases with time. That's a good thing, indeed.


Another thing. A grave matter does not inevitably invite harsh punishments from God on account of the possibility of reduced culpability. So your arguments of "Will God throw them into hell?" and "Must we throw every angry person into jail?" don't help the discussion much.

In fact, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2352"]the section on Chastity, where masturbation is discussed[/url], ends this way:

[quote]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.[/quote]

So you see, the Church does not say to every teenager, "You masturbated? You're going to burn in Hell!"

Come, give teenagers some credit. They are capable of at least some level of mature thought and action, from my experience. Surely enough to deal with this matter. You speak of the need for the teenager to learn self-mastery. The Church teaches the same thing. It's not just waiting for some mystical power to zap you one fine morning and suddenly free you from this. It requires a lot of work on our part, too, and what you say - spending time constructively - is also involved in this.

P.S. By the way, are you a medical doctor? If so, can I ask you your opinions on the subject of this [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=84023"]thread of mine[/url]?

Edited April 12, 2009 by Innocent

[Dr_Asik]

Thank you Innocent ! I wish you a happy Easter too.

[quote]But that [orgasm] already naturally happens with wet dreams.[/quote]For one thing, wet dreams is not a reliable mechanism. Nobody knows if it really serves the purpose of renewing semen or relieving sexual tension. It is less frequent among those who masturbate frequently, but the correlation might go either way: maybe masturbating alleviates the need for wet dreams, or having more wet dreams alleviate the need for masturbation.

Also, why would wet dreams be ok and not masturbation? I know what Saint Augustine said : because you're not responsible for the former. Still, whether it's triggered consciously or not, it's the same thing. The very existence of wet dreams is proof that there's nothing unnatural with having an orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. Masturbation simply replicates that natural behavior.

[quote]Sure, and it's certainly possible to have a "both/and" approach - do all these constructive things as well as develop a good understanding of Church teaching on this matter. I've seen it happen in some of my friends, and I assure you, it is possible. Many of my Catholic friends when I was a teenager knew that masturbation and lustful thoughts were wrong, and they knew the teaching of my friends. We were never burdened by excessive guilt - we just tried to repent as sincerely as possible and go to Confession. We knew we had to overcome it and we also knew we had to spend our time usefully - i.e., work at our school studies - and we did both. What's the problem here?[/quote]What modern psychology says is this. All teenagers experience a tendency towards masturbation. As they grow into adults, this tendency weakens.

So, I guess it's normal for a teenager to feel like masturbation isn't something they want to keep doing into adulthood, but it's a rather uninformed and confused opinion. It needs clarifying.

The mainstream modern approach on this is to tell them it is harmless normal behavior, and that many adults masturbate regularly and it's not causing them any undue anxiety or whatever. So they'll live with it and maybe stop masturbating naturally, or keep doing it more or less frequently, whatever fits their character most.
The Catholic approach is to tell them it is a grave sin, because the purpose of sex is sexual intercourse inside marriage, opened to procreation and union. So they'll all think they must stop doing it urgently; some will have it relatively easy, some less, some will repeatedly fail. It can be a very stressful experience.

I think that first of all, while the first approach is based on empirical studies, the Catholic doctrine is based on authorative teachings. Yes this sounds cliché, but in this case the cliché is warranted. There are precious few doctors out there who will tell you you should stop masturbating. The Catholic doctrine simply can't hold its ground. It's nice words and ideas and nothing actually supported by evidence.

Secondly, it creates unecessary guilt. Some will be ok with that, like your friends, very good for them. But I don't think it can be good. There's nothing positive around stigmatizing normal teenage behavior. Yes, some day they must become adults and the sooner the better. But in the meantime, they are what they are.

[quote]That is certainly food for thought. I've never thought of it that way.[/quote]The older generation will always say the new generation has no sense of morality. My grandparents said that of my parents, and my parents say that of me (not really me, but figuratively speaking ). And if you read books from the early XXth century, oh my God, they all think their contemporaries has no morals whatsoever and society will soon collapse under its own corruption. I've read similar thoughts in medieval litterature, I think it's Aquinas who mentions how people don't believe in God anymore or practice religion...


[quote]God's grace is not a mystical force. It's is something that definitely requires co-operation, and nothing less than our whole-hearted co-operation will do. This is certainly something that a teenager can understand without much difficulty. It is quite easily explained at a school-level catechism class. But perhaps it depends upon the local culture. Perhaps it's easier for teenagers of my place and time and less easy where you live. But it's still possible.[/quote]"Whole-hearted cooperation" sounds a lot like a "Complete dedication", and I think it's enough if someone has a complete dedication to something in order to obtain it. If it helps him to think he's somehow "cooperating" with "something" that's "not a mystical force", good for him ! Placebos can be very effective.

Yes, I was thought all of that, and from a young age, and I read quite a bit of theology. And there are excellent Catholic groups for the youth here, I've frequented a few, some for many years. This is Montreal, QC, Canada.

[quote]As for, "not that you're still as shitty as ever but that in His immense (and arbitrary) mercy, God gave you some support." that looks too close to Total Depravity and is certainly not Catholic theology. It is possible for a teenager to understand that as we co-operate with grace, we grow in holiness. We are not "as shitty as ever."[/quote]And what is "growing in holiness"? Acquiring virtues? Getting... more grace?

[quote]It's not that "he'll never get out of it." The Good News is that he CAN get out of it. A teenager needs to learn to believe in God as well.[/quote]The better and true news is that he doesn't have to get out of it. Masturbation is not a disease, and it's not a depravation. To teach someone that God can help him in an obscure intangible way to get rid of a NORMAL tendency that should largely dissappear by itself is pure nonsense!

[quote]Yes, but below you write: " The origin of all evil is in the heart (as opposed to external "impurities" like the jews believed)"

So "adultery in your heart" is not a small insignificant matter.[/quote]Certainly not. And we know the dangers of unrestrained lust. Broken families, pornographic addictions, loss of self-esteem... but masturbation simply doesn't figure on that portrait, except when it becomes compulsive.


[quote]Such cases of divorces where one of the major problems is pornography/masturbation addictions by the spouse do happen.[/quote]Yes and others are broken by a tv or video game addiction, or food addiction, or any other compulsive behaviors. Any compulsive behavior is unhealthy and will lead to social problems among others.

But masturbation is not necessarily compulsive. And if both partners know and respect that, there's no reason it should cause problems. Of course if one is trying to hide it, and not talk about it, and the other won't ever accept it, then that's a personal problem, with nothing to do with masturbation in particular.


[quote]So you see, the Church does not say to every teenager, "You masturbated? You're going to burn in Hell!"[/quote]It's grave matter. If you've masturbated, you've done something very evil, that's the definition of "grave matter".

I'm very happy with how an official document like the CCC manages to dilute "grave matter" into "very minimum moral culpability". It goes to show by what hoops one must through to preserve millenial infaillible doctrine and at the same time accomodate modern psychology. Not that it makes much sense : "You've done something [i]very evil[/i] [u]repeatedly[/u], but you're not really guilty of anything and it won't have any consequences for anyone. Just confess it."

Seriously now, my point is not to mock Catholic doctrine, that would be rude. I just think that saying that masturbation is intrinsically evil, and not only that, but very evil (grave matter), simply isn't true, and as such it can't help anyone get a better understanding of himself. I'm glad to see that the CCC leaves ample room to remove accusations of mortal sin, and so masturbation becomes the only very evil act one can commit without ever being guilty of a mortal sin. At some point that doctrine needs to be clarified and the term "grave matter" removed. And hopefully the term "sin" too, but I'm not that optimistic.

[quote]Come, give teenagers some credit. They are capable of at least some level of mature thought and action, from my experience. Surely enough to deal with this matter. You speak of the need for the teenager to learn self-mastery. The Church teaches the same thing. It's not just waiting for some mystical power to zap you one fine morning and suddenly free you from this. It requires a lot of work on our part, too, and what you say - spending time constructively - is also involved in this.[/quote]Agreed on the most part. I've already indicated elsewhere in this post my divergent views.

P.S. Sorry, "Dr_Asik" is just a pseudonym I find cool, I'm no doctor at all. I've checked your thread and I don't have much to say about it, due to ignorance.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Dr_Asik

[Innocent]

[b]EDIT: I wrote this before you posted the above post. So I'm sorry if it mentions something you've already responded to above. I really don't have time now to go over it and correct it now.

Also, no hard feelings. I don't want to get you frustrated on Easter morning. Hope you have a nice day. [/b]


[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1831923' date='Apr 11 2009, 11:45 PM']"The power of God's grace." Don't make me laugh. God's grace is the most indefinable and imaginary thing.[/quote]


With all due respect, it must be pointed out that if that's the premise you're going to start from, then of course, you will have very little common ground with Catholics on this board.

[b]If[/b] that premise is true, then of course, the Church is silly to teach on matters of sexual morals and you are correct to disdain her teachings. And Catholics obedient to the Church are simply stuck in a medieval mindset of blinkered self-delusional thinking.

But the point is that this is a Catholic BBS and most of us here are convinced that God's grace is real and effective. That's the premise we start from.

So we'd be starting from different premises and the discussion would be totally unproductive, and there would be little point in continuing this discussion. The result would only be frustration on both sides.

Thus, I cannot escape concluding that, in reality what is going on here is an argument about the premises of the effectiveness of grace and the validity of the teaching authority of the Catholic Magisterium, which does not properly belong on this thread.

As for the point about "How can it be grave matter? It's effects are not so pronounced," again it's a matter of culpability. Sometimes several venial sins can have a cumulative effect on a soul more than a mortal sin. The effects of actions on the spiritual life are not always so easily visible. And sometimes an action involving grave matter may not even have much of an impact, since the culpability of the person who does it may be reduced, and thus the damage done to the interior life is not as great as it would have been if the culpability were more. It is certainly possible that several cases of uncontrollable masturbation during early youth can fall under this.

But that does not stop lust being a grave matter.

It also does not do away with the need for spiritual growth into an adult interior life.

As one grows and matures, hopefully, one can come to an understanding of the gravity of lust and co-operate with grace through the Sacraments, and with the support of good friendship and by productive activity that directs energy towards something good, gain self-mastery over one's impulses.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Innocent

[Dr_Asik]

Hi Innocent,

no hard feelings, indeed. I must look more emotionally involved than I thought. I'm pretty serene actually.

No, I don't believe in grace and a few other large chunks of Catholic doctrine. But I think I can have a reasonable discussions with Catholics on masturbation. After all, most of the Church's moral teachings are just based on natural law, and we should find agreement on these grounds. Sure, I'm not going to be very impressed with references to the authority of the Church or to the effects of grace, but I don't think the discussion has to start with those premises. And seriously if all the sexual doctrine of the Church was solely based on authority and couldn't be argued beyond that, well first you wouldn't see me here, and secondly I don't think the Church would have many adherents at all.

I'll continue the discussion tomorrow, it's 1:00AM here.

[Innocent]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832367' date='Apr 12 2009, 10:47 AM']The very existence of wet dreams is proof that there's nothing unnatural with having an orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. Masturbation simply replicates that natural behavior.

What modern psychology says is this. All teenagers experience a tendency towards masturbation. As they grow into adults, this tendency weakens.

So, I guess it's normal for a teenager to feel like masturbation isn't something they want to keep doing into adulthood, but it's a rather uninformed and confused opinion. It needs clarifying.

The mainstream modern approach on this is to tell them it is harmless normal behavior, and that many adults masturbate regularly and it's not causing them any undue anxiety or whatever. So they'll live with it and maybe stop masturbating naturally, or keep doing it more or less frequently, whatever fits their character most.
The Catholic approach is to tell them it is a grave sin, because the purpose of sex is sexual intercourse inside marriage, opened to procreation and union. So they'll all think they must stop doing it urgently; some will have it relatively easy, some less, some will repeatedly fail. It can be a very stressful experience.

I think that first of all, while the first approach is based on empirical studies, the Catholic doctrine is based on authorative teachings. Yes this sounds cliché, but in this case the cliché is warranted. There are precious few doctors out there who will tell you you should stop masturbating. The Catholic doctrine simply can't hold its ground. It's nice words and ideas and nothing actually supported by evidence.

Secondly, it creates unecessary guilt. Some will be ok with that, like your friends, very good for them. But I don't think it can be good. There's nothing positive around stigmatizing normal teenage behavior. Yes, some day they must become adults and the sooner the better. But in the meantime, they are what they are.

The older generation will always say the new generation has no sense of morality. My grandparents said that of my parents, and my parents say that of me (not really me, but figuratively speaking ). And if you read books from the early XXth century, oh my God, they all think their contemporaries has no morals whatsoever and society will soon collapse under its own corruption. I've read similar thoughts in medieval litterature, I think it's Aquinas who mentions how people don't believe in God anymore or practice religion...


"Whole-hearted cooperation" sounds a lot like a "Complete dedication", and I think it's enough if someone has a complete dedication to something in order to obtain it. If it helps him to think he's somehow "cooperating" with "something" that's "not a mystical force", good for him ! Placebos can be very effective.

Yes, I was thought all of that, and from a young age, and I read quite a bit of theology. And there are excellent Catholic groups for the youth here, I've frequented a few, some for many years. This is Montreal, QC, Canada.

And what is "growing in holiness"? Acquiring virtues? Getting... more grace?

The better and true news is that he doesn't have to get out of it. Masturbation is not a disease, and it's not a depravation. To teach someone that God can help him in an obscure intangible way to get rid of a NORMAL tendency that should largely dissappear by itself is pure nonsense!

Certainly not. And we know the dangers of unrestrained lust. Broken families, pornographic addictions, loss of self-esteem... but masturbation simply doesn't figure on that portrait, except when it becomes compulsive.


Yes and others are broken by a tv or video game addiction, or food addiction, or any other compulsive behaviors. Any compulsive behavior is unhealthy and will lead to social problems among others.

But masturbation is not necessarily compulsive. And if both partners know and respect that, there's no reason it should cause problems. Of course if one is trying to hide it, and not talk about it, and the other won't ever accept it, then that's a personal problem, with nothing to do with masturbation in particular.


It's grave matter. If you've masturbated, you've done something very evil, that's the definition of "grave matter".

I'm very happy with how an official document like the CCC manages to dilute "grave matter" into "very minimum moral culpability". It goes to show by what hoops one must through to preserve millenial infaillible doctrine and at the same time accomodate modern psychology. Not that it makes much sense : "You've done something [i]very evil[/i] [u]repeatedly[/u], but you're not really guilty of anything and it won't have any consequences for anyone. Just confess it."

Seriously now, my point is not to mock Catholic doctrine, that would be rude. I just think that saying that masturbation is intrinsically evil, and not only that, but very evil (grave matter), simply isn't true, and as such it can't help anyone get a better understanding of himself. I'm glad to see that the CCC leaves ample room to remove accusations of mortal sin, and so masturbation becomes the only very evil act one can commit without ever being guilty of a mortal sin. At some point that doctrine needs to be clarified and the term "grave matter" removed. And hopefully the term "sin" too, but I'm not that optimistic.

Agreed on the most part. I've already indicated elsewhere in this post my divergent views.

P.S. Sorry, "Dr_Asik" is just a pseudonym I find cool, I'm no doctor at all. I've checked your thread and I don't have much to say about it, due to ignorance.[/quote]


I am getting too involved on this topic, and I can't afford to be stressed now. I think I'll stop participating on this thread (for today, that is) after this.

Just some points.

1. The Catholic approach on all things is to raise the bar high - very high. So of course doctors won't tell you to stop masturbating. My doctor actually recommended me to masturbate regularly! I restrained myself from punching him on his nose. (j/k)

2. The purpose of revelation is to tell us what we can't find out through reason. Thus the conclusion that masturbation is grave matter, drawn from revelation. The basis for accepting it is simply going to be because the Church authoritatively teaches it. If one can't do that, there's nothing more to be said.

3. It is possible to help a person get out of this habit without burdening him with a large amount of guilt. On this point a problem exists, but it exists in the lack of sufficient spiritual directors and, of course, parents who have the ability to counsel and support youth and help him overcome it and gain self-mastery without merely being trapped in guilt. That, I will admit, is indeed a real problem.

4. Just to provide an alternative perspective, during the recovery period for a member who joins Sexaholics Anonymous he is told not to masturbate too. In all fairness, you can say that this only deals with problematic cases where masturbation is allied with other destructive behaviour like pornography use and illicit sexual relations. However, if masturbation is a healthy behaviour in itself, wouldn't they tell him to just do it in moderation? You could, of course, be consistent and say that SA is on the wrong track, too, just like the Church.

On the other hand, there are several members in the SA who got there by an uncontrolled habit of masturbation which didn't go away when they became adults. So you see, there is some evidence for the problematic nature of masturbation.

5. The difference between wet dreams and masturbation is volition. The problem is not about having an orgasm outside the marital embrace, it's about wanting to have it.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Innocent

[Innocent]

[i]In which I break my above resolution to stop participating here today. [/i]

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832416' date='Apr 12 2009, 11:22 AM']After all, most of the Church's moral teachings are just based on natural law, and we should find agreement on these grounds.[/quote]

You're right there. Have to give you credit for your grasp.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832416' date='Apr 12 2009, 11:22 AM']And seriously if all the sexual doctrine of the Church was solely based on authority and couldn't be argued beyond that, well first you wouldn't see me here, and secondly I don't think the Church would have many adherents at all.[/quote]

Not all teachings, of course. (e.g., adultery) But some teachings, you must admit are not that clear from Natural Law alone.

E.g. Natural Law (of which, according to the Church, the Ten Commandments is an expression) says one must have chastity.
But is masturbation an offence against chastity? From your very posts above, it is seen that this is not very clear from unaided reason alone.


Anyway, thank you for being respectful towards the Church though you don't adhere to all her teachings. And for your logical consistency in calling yourself "Almost Catholic" while you are unable to give full assent.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Innocent

[Archaeology cat]

Happy Easter, Dr Asik.

[quote name='Dr_Asik' post='1832367' date='Apr 12 2009, 05:17 AM']Also, why would wet dreams be ok and not masturbation? I know what Saint Augustine said : because you're not responsible for the former. Still, whether it's triggered consciously or not, it's the same thing. The very existence of wet dreams is proof that there's nothing unnatural with having an orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. Masturbation simply replicates that natural behavior.[/quote]
Just wanted to interject a quick note here. As Innocent said, the problem is consciously desiring and choosing to have an orgasm outside of intercourse. Since a wet dream is not a conscious act of will, it does not meet the criteria, as it were, for mortal sin. To give a more extreme example, it is grave matter to have an abortion, thus committing murder, but the woman is not in grave sin if she has a miscarriage. Again, murder is grave matter, but accidentally killing another in a hunting accident is not. These are extreme, and tragic, examples, but the point is that it must be a conscious act of will in order to be mortal sin.

And with that, I believe I'll sign off before getting sucked into the conversation again. God bless.

[Aloysius]

Dr, you make much of the concept that the desire to masturbate is a natural inclination... but what you fail to recognize is that the guilt felt after masturbation is also a natural inclination. this is why the modern approach insists upon pretty much beating into their heads that it's a natural thing and it's OK and not to worry about it... the secular approach taps into the desire which is already present within the person, while the Catholic approach taps into the guilt which is naturally experienced, which is present in the child before the child has heard anything one way or the other about the concept of masturbation but has simply discovered it. if there was no guilt naturally experienced, modernist psychologists wouldn't be recommending that parents make so many efforts to reaffirm that it's simply natural and there's nothing wrong with it. if there was no natural inclination to feel guilty and shameful about it, we wouldn't have to try to convince the children not to feel guilty and shameful about it. and it is not merely culture that causes the guilt, it is a natural physiological bio-chemical reaction of the brain to the action. so we come to a point in which it would seem that human nature, in its experience of natural maturation, comes to two warring passions; and the Church throws down her lot with the passion of guilt while the seculars throw down their lot with the passion of desire.

the problem is that the human mind interprets sexual experiences in a specific way. in an orgasm, there is dopamine released in the brain that makes it a pleasurable experience; of course, this occurs with things like chocolate or drugs as well... but it is an intense temporary surge; more importantly in the orgasm, there is also a chemical in the brain released called "ocytocin". this chemical is inherently a social chemical. in ordinary sexual intercourse, it is released in a way that inextricably links you with the person you are having sex with, that when your brain recognizes that person it recognizes a link to them (with multiple sexual partners, this ability to link with someone is gradually diminished as your body no longer responds to the same amount of oxytocin telling your brain to consider them special... ie you start to build up a tolerance to the social-bonding drug inherent to sexual intercourse)... oxytocin is released in social situations always, mostly either in sexual experiences or in birth... it creates mental links between people making them bond with them and trust them more; that when the mind receives a signal that that person is around it wants you to connect to that person; when it receives the message that that person broke up with you, it'll hurt you even worse because of the bio-chemical way that your brain was attached to them.

the release of oxytocin in the mind in a self-pleasuring experience is not a healthy thing, and tends to produce the immediate experience of social shame and guilt about the act because one's brain expects to be attached to the concept of someone; either a lover or an offspring, because of the effect of the oxytocin... when there is nothing for that attachment to hold onto, the attachment interiorizes and all that bonding and trust that your brain was told to engage in is directed at yourself or nothing at all... it produces natural shame and guilt. this is what Leviticus tapped into when it said one who spills his seed is "unclean" until morning; many of the categories of "unclean" to the ancient Hebrews meant socially disconnected; and masturbation disconnects people socially in a big way because oxytocin is a social chemical in the brain... its release is counterproductive when there is no social bond being formed.

Oxytocin is not released in the brain during a non volitional act like masturbation; or, rather, it is not released in the brain during an act in which the body does not receive any signals of social interaction to which it ought to respond with bonding/trust/social chemicals. the brain does not receive signals of someone stimulating you (masturbation is designed to trick the body into believing that you are being sexually gratified by an outside source, the hands represent that source, so oxytocin is released; but the body has no exterior stimulus and is not receiving any false signals of social interaction and will then not release this chemical when a nocturnal emission occurs)

[Dr_Asik]

Hi Aloysius,

You present a challenging and interesting theory. May I ask you what your sources are? I did a quick Google search on oxytocin and didn’t find anything in support of your thesis. Wikipedia’s article states that “The relationship between oxytocin and human sexual response is unclear.” Microsoft Encarta states the functions of oxytocin are simply "Triggers contraction of the uterus during labor; Stimulates milk letdown for breast-feeding after childbirth".

Also, this doesn’t seem a mainstream theory since masturbation is generally seen as harmless by medicine.

Finally, you don’t take into account that an essential part of masturbation is fantasies. If one is missing a sexual partner during orgasm, the social emotions will be projected on an imaginary person, not on the subject as you mentioned.

=======================
Hi Innocent,

[quote]1. The Catholic approach on all things is to raise the bar high - very high. So of course doctors won't tell you to stop masturbating. My doctor actually recommended me to masturbate regularly! I restrained myself from punching him on his nose. (j/k)
2. The purpose of revelation is to tell us what we can't find out through reason. Thus the conclusion that masturbation is grave matter, drawn from revelation. The basis for accepting it is simply going to be because the Church authoritatively teaches it. If one can't do that, there's nothing more to be said.[/quote]So what you’re saying is that masturbation is only wrong for the faithful? It’s harmless in nature, but it’s incompatible with faith? Somehow, I have a hard time believing that. I might be excessively positivist, but I’ve seen most of Catholic moral teachings to be in continuity with natural law and not ritual or otherwise arbitrary restrictions.

[quote]3. It is possible to help a person get out of this habit without burdening him with a large amount of guilt. On this point a problem exists, but it exists in the lack of sufficient spiritual directors and, of course, parents who have the ability to counsel and support youth and help him overcome it and gain self-mastery without merely being trapped in guilt. That, I will admit, is indeed a real problem.[/quote]Granted.

[quote]4. Just to provide an alternative perspective, during the recovery period for a member who joins Sexaholics Anonymous he is told not to masturbate too. In all fairness, you can say that this only deals with problematic cases where masturbation is allied with other destructive behaviour like pornography use and illicit sexual relations. However, if masturbation is a healthy behaviour in itself, wouldn't they tell him to just do it in moderation? You could, of course, be consistent and say that SA is on the wrong track, too, just like the Church.[/quote]I won’t comment on Sexaholics Anonymous as I’ve never heard of them before. Although, I believe pornography can be a serious and destructive addiction, in the same league as marijuana. I don’t have any difficulty admitting that a withdrawal therapy might involve cutting all use of sexual fantasies including masturbation. In a similar manner, alcoholism isn’t treated by telling the addicted to use moderation, because that’s precisely what he’s incapable of. In these cases of total dependency, there’s little alternative besides stopping “cold turkey”, as they say, and for several months. If the treatment is successful, later the subject can start drinking/masturbating again and learn to use moderation.

Again, even if there’s an inherent danger of addiction in any gratuitous, stress-relieving behavior, we can’t infer from that the behavior is intrinsically evil.

[quote]5. The difference between wet dreams and masturbation is volition. The problem is not about having an orgasm outside the marital embrace, it's about wanting to have it.[/quote]That doesn’t make much sense to me. If there’s no problem with having an orgasm outside the marital embrace, why would there be any problem wanting it?

Edited April 13, 2009 by Dr_Asik

[Nihil Obstat]

Dr_Asik,
I'm not going to comment on any of your arguments on this thread, but let me ask you this:
why have you chosen not to suspend your own doubts and in Faith trust in the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium?
It's clear to me that your own faith is an ongoing series of conscious choices and rational movements. Why do you accept many but by no means all of the Church's teachings?

[Dr_Asik]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1833251' date='Apr 12 2009, 11:16 PM']Dr_Asik,
I'm not going to comment on any of your arguments on this thread, but let me ask you this:
why have you chosen not to suspend your own doubts and in Faith trust in the infallible teaching authority of the Magisterium?
It's clear to me that your own faith is an ongoing series of conscious choices and rational movements. Why do you accept many but by no means all of the Church's teachings?[/quote]I have the greatest respect for the Catholic religion. As I read the Catechism and other books, I realised how deep it is, how well it adresses the fundamental questions of human life, how respectful it is of nature and reason.

Some issues started bugging me though. At first I thought I would eventually find answers and shouldn't doubt anything coming out of the Magisterium. As Aquinas said, rejecting one article of faith immediately makes you a heretic. But the more I investigated into those issues, the more absurd they seemed to me. I gave up my faith altogether. I'm presently trying to see what good I can take out of the Catholic religion without having faith, or if there's no chance I was mistaken on those issues. I've recently decided to ask all these questions here as there seems to be some very knowledgeable Catholics on this board. You'll see me in Questions & Answers forum for a while.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Dr_Asik