Masturbation is it a Sin?

[Glenda_J (imported)]

ALL,

Many times, in discussions about human sexuality, we find references to Paul’s letter to Corinth, specifically 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. I could cite the Greek text, but to keep it simple, lets look at the NIV version. (As good a translation as any.)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders; nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Although frequently used to damn homosexuals, we note that heterosexuals are cited as much as anyone. Point being irresponsibility in sexual behavior. Considering the possibility of getting a sexually transmitted disease, I wonder why anyone would go to a prostitute (male or female). I will also venture that the best sex is with someone you have good and deep feelings for otherwise. My opinion.

This thread is about masturbation and clearly there is nothing here in that regard. You can, of course, think good or awful thoughts while masturbating. But, then, you can think good or awful thoughts anytime.

Regards, Glenda

[moi621 (imported)]

It seems civilization always trys to police, pleasure.

Who one may have sexual relations.

How one may have sexual relations.

Drug use.

"No, No, No pleasure for YOU unless YOU do it with approval" says the history of civilization.

So they even try regulate, masturbation. Threatening various demise or punishments for the sin of pleasuring oneself.

Moi

"Priests keep man away from God." Tolstoy.

[A-1 (imported)]

Well first off let me say I'm RC. And I don't think masturbation by itself is a sin.

That said, you have to understand that the RC Church approaches sexual matters from the standpoint of Natural Law which is itself rooted in the philosophy of St. Thomas of Aquinas, who in turn was largely influenced by Aristotle who thought that in essence, a man's ejaculate contained more or less fully-formed embryos, with the woman being a mere incubator. So that, by masturbating, one would be killing babies, a form of abortion.

Taken on the basis of this primitive (mis)understanding of human reproduction, then prohibiting masturbation made perfect sense.

Aquinas refined our understanding of Natural Law (has nothing to do with "natural" in the biological sense; it means in the sense that God has inscribed a law on the hearts of humans so that those who examine their consciences carefully, basically follow God's law requiring that we do good even if they aren't really believers). In his view, the sexual act performed in the normal way (male to female vaginal intercourse) caused a couple to become, physiologically, a single unit. Two people being needed for the sex act was as natural as breathing being necessary for life.

When you think of it, that makes perfect sense. There is no other physiological process, among mammals, that requires two individuals. Breathing, digesting, etc, can all be done by an individual without the help of others.

But in copulating, a man, and a woman, actually form a single physiological unit; sexual intercourse can't happen with one's self! And it doesn't matter whether the act is fertile or sterile; they are still engaging in a process that actually requires two individual to perform it. That's why, when talking about things sexual matters, the issue of whether an act between a man or a woman is sterile or fertile is actually a red herring from the POV of Natural Law. A post-menopausal couple engaging in intercourse is engaging in a perfectly natural act. Even if it doesn't lead to reproduction, it is happening in the manner of its design.

Taken in that light, masturbation, and any other form of sexual gratification (for the male) that does not result in, well, ejaculation inside the female, is seen as using the sexual faculty against its nature. For Aquinas, using the sexual faculty for, say, self-gratification (or same-sex unions) makes as much sense as breathing through the oesophagus or swallowing through the windpipe. Seed was meant to go in one place and one place only.

When it comes to nocturnal emissions, these are not willed but happen spontaneously and therefore no guilt is attached to it. On the other hand, masturbation is a willful act. I can go into detail about venial vs. mortal sin, and I happen to believe that for most, masturbation is a venial sin (it happens in spite of ourselves), and when it is compulsive, it is a psychological disorder which mitigates the guilt from sin. But I won't go too far down that road!

Where, however, I think the theory on the sinfulness of masturbation breaks down is that to impregnate with healthy, fresh sperm requires regular ejaculation. So masturbation may in fact be nature's way of maintaining the health of sperm so that when you do impregnate there is a lesser chance of birth defects from "old" sperm. Moreover there is some evidence that frequent masturbation especially when young is protective against prostate cancer.

It's also entirely inhuman to expect one to never, ever masturbate. It ain't going to happen. I also think it's a natural way of discovering one's sexuality, and it's a healthy means of sexual expression when one doesn't have a willing partner or is of an age or in a social circumstance that makes intercourse inadvisable. Philosophically, Aquinas' reasoning is perfectly logical.

So if you ask me, the RC "official" view on masturbation is in fact perfectly logical. What it isn't though, is human. Or even within the natural capacity of humans.

That said, I think masturbation is a "sin" when it is compulsive, or used as a means of avoiding normal marital relations, or is used as the main form of sexual gratification when normal, natural, licit sexual opportunity exists. On the other hand, if one's spouse is ill, or unavailable (say when traveling), it is far preferable to cheating! I also don't think anything is wrong with using it as a means of sexual variety with one's partner!

YMMV. By no means the "official" Church view. But the RC Church does require you to use your conscience, and to follow a well-formed conscience even if it goes against official teaching. Mine happens to say that the Church's view of masturbation is founded on an entirely flawed view of the human physiology of reproduction.

From a personal standpoint I have to say I find masturbation less satisfying than normal sex. And I found normal sex most gratifying when it was fertile, that is, we were attempting to have a baby (which was successful). Oddly, it was very much a powerful, very much spontaneous feeling and I remember remarking how powerful it was at the time; I never in my life felt more "virile". Remarkably, I felt this and noticed it in a period when I was more or less atheist/agnostic. Which does support the view that there is a "natural" law on the hearts of men that makes us distinguish right from wrong regardless of whether we are "believers" or not.

In any case does it really matter anymore? The new religion is Global Warming. Where I used to feel guilt over sexual matters, I am now made to feel guilty if I forget to bring reusable shopping bags when I buy groceries, or when I drive my car... humans seem to have this propensity to want to control others... once it was sex, now it is driving my car.

Well, Neothomism is part of the philosophy that has been embraced by the RC church (which is the predecessor of ALL of the others in the Western world) and the part of control of sexuality IS a big issue with these folks.

It is interesting that you have come to the realization that religion in general represented by your religion in particular has some "flawed views". Kind of knocks the "infallability" ideas in the head, huh?

They forbid heterosexual sex and hide homosexuality. Isn't it about time that there was a reasonable religion that stopped condemning people?

Basically, all of this is control. They want you not to masturbate, but they don't want you to have sex, either. They preach chastity and fuck like rabbits and have lots and lots of children. People get frustrated and then that is when they really get twisted and displace their sexuality and/or guilt upon inanimate objects, innocent people (usually children), defenseless people or animals or decide to make others miserable by getting their jollies abusing physically.

Next thing you know your are so pissed off you want to cut off all of your "junk" and join the good ole' E.A.

...so maybe then you are better off...?

Then, when nothing else is left there is always the "MENTAL MASTURBATION" provided by ejaculating you opinions all over this message board. You see, this place is just DRIPPING with fertile thoughts, albeit in the embryonic stage, but fertile nonetheless.

In the immortal words of Saint Augustine...

Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.

...I guess to cure this "MENTAL MASTURBATION" he will have to strike all of us dead. Maybe that is what St. Augustine was talking about...

[thekinkykid (imported)]

Interesting post. I think the idea of "wanted to expand" doesn't really make sense, because why wouldn't priests be allowed to marry and have children? I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I can answer this one for you, if a bit late. They loved the demographic spreading of their faith but they didn't want to pay for it. Once the priests were definitely 'institutionalized' in the 'modern' RCC around the X-XI century, allowing them to marry and have children would have meant *paying* to raise those children. It was much better to promote reproduction in the general populace but forbid it between Church members, and thus they enforced celibacy as mandatory.

Several religions, (jainism?) believe that even killing bugs or small creatures by stepping on them can effect your afterlife, so it's possible that they thought masturbation would as well.

Western religions (Christianism, Judaism, Islam) are definitely not about these niceties. We're far more about burning stakes and holy wars.

[Pair1981 (imported)]

Glenda, this is a thread about a subject which is a bit of a tinderbox in the arenas of sexual ethics and religion.

When I was younger, one theme that was reiterated was the need for me to be chaste. "Chaste" is the root of the word "Chastity." Chastity is the moral virtue which regulates, among other things, the use of sex. Sex is something men and women experience on physical and psychic (of the soul) dimensions. Physically, this includes the penis, vagina, clitoris, hormones, etc. Psychically, this includes passions (loosely called emotions), the mind (specifically, as in its phantasms) and the will (which both decides and acts). As a moral virtue, Chastity takes all of these factors and rightly orders them so that a man and woman are not inordinately sexual. Biochemically, I have urges. Spiritually, I have a longing. Where should these lead?

Two immediate wrong answers are the next person's bed and to an addiction.

I have a Catholic education with a Degree in Scholastic Theology. My favorite Theologian is St. Thomas Aquinas. An abstract of his sexual teaching I read in School basically argued that masturbation is a barrier to Matrimony in that self-pleasure precludes finding it with someone else, hopefully, one's spouse. That is to say, masturbation is unchaste and pleasure is meant to be shared with a person by his or her partner. This is the issue. It was argued before that population was the issue. This is absurd on the merits of it simply because, if the Church were purely in the business of building population, then they would not have a stink about Matrimony. People would be left to screw at will and pop out babies. Since this is not the case, the topic begs further examination.

That being said, let us proceed with the Matrimony issue.

Even before finding a spouse, one is to be chaste. Not everyone is, but the point many Theologians make is that sex is to be discovered between spouses. It is a gift and supposed to be something new which is built upon as the marriage progresses. That is to say, the spouses would learn each other's bodies and erogenous zones and the pleasure would only increase from there. But pleasure is seen in context of a couple. Plus, inherently, even before the wedding bells, there is a requirement of mutual love. Elaboration on this is not germane, but, suffice bto say, "one does not have to screw despite biochemistry or psychic disposition."

Be that as it may, the relationship progresses. Ding! Dong! The rice is thrown. Now, a man and woman are married. In the state of Holy Matrimony, as a general norm and desire of the Church, the spouses share love physically and emotionally. Masturbation is self-indulgence; and this has no place whatsoever in Matrimony. Masturbation is even unnecessary under these conditions because the spouses are supposed to indulge each other sexually, and freely at that. If a spouse deny the other when fully capable of taking care of the other spouse, it is sexual abuse; and it does not matter why (see below for further information). If masturbation be part of their sexual routine, so be it as a part of the coitus (e.g., in foreplay), not in its place. However, a man should no longer have a need to satisfy himself when he's married. Otherwise, he has married the wrong woman. The same standard applies to a woman. She no longer should have a need to satisfy herself when she's married. If she finds herself complaining about his size or that he may not know this or that in bed or that he is unsatisfying, then maybe she should not have married him. In this department, a little common sense goes a long way. Lastly, both husband and wife are responsible in this department as they voluntarily married.

Biblically, married couples may abstain for a period. However, it is no license to masturbate during this time. Couples are to be faithfully chaste. However, some husbands do diddle a bit. I can only hope that this is to manage their hormonal drives.

Enter Christ. His teaching is of adultery in the heart. Specific to the topic, masturbation which comes from a fantasy not of one's spouse is adultery. Adultery in the heart is that easy! It does not require a full fledged affair. Christ's lesson: Adultery begins in the heart and manifests externally.

Masturbation, therefore, is seen as a threat to Holy Matrimony in that it is self-pleasure with no partner required. An exception could be made for Rosie Palmer and her 5 sisters, but, in the definition of "partner" I reference, this does not fit.

As an addendum, I wish to clarify about the statement that withholding sex is sexual abuse. I have heard many reasons for this, some of which I list here:

1. "I am upset with my spouse." Well, it is written not to let the sun go down on your anger. That is to say, stop being a baby (for both guys and girls) and talk about the minor issues and irritations. Matrimony requires maturity. From experience, make-up sex can be the hottest. However, in cases of adultery or serious abuse, I would advise separation of bed and board as both are breaches of trust and love.

2. "I think he/she..." Sure, let's take punitive action without certain knowledge that he/she actually did it. Let's withhold sex based on what we think is the truth, and, at that, only because we think it is. Worse yet, this becomes "I know he/she..." still without proof or merits.

3. "I want to control." Well, this does not always work. For example, a man not run by his penis and a woman not run by her vagina would be able to withstand this one. I am an example of such a man; and this drove my ex-wife nuts as she couldn't control me. However, this thinking poisons the rest of the relationship. And for all the efforts of the control freak, he or she usually ends up with lonliness and dejection in divorce.

4. "I have issues." (Fear, past abuse, Daddy/Mommy issues, etc.) My first question: Why did you get married? The reason why I ask this is that, under common sense, these issues should be resolved before Marriage, or at least work should be in progress. Why? Because these issues often are projected on the other spouse; and both sexes are guilty of this. Yet, we must remember that, in any case, spouses are to be mutually supportive.

To be germane to the topic, these excuses have been offered also as reasons to masturbate, since coitus is wittheld for no real valid reason, and thus is sexually abusive. Masturbation defeats what Marriage represents; so, if you want to masturbate, don't get married. Better yet, if you want to play games, don't get married.

The widowed elderly are a different case for a different thread probably on a different site.

In summary, masturbation is definitely a sin in marriage unless mutually agreed upon, otherwise it has no place.

[A-1 (imported)]

Dear Pair 1981,

So; what if you and your partner masturbate each other?

What then?

In the immortal words of Saint Augustine...

Oh Lord, give me chastity, but do not give it yet.

[Khaled_88 (imported)]

I was brought up a Catholic and even 50 years ago there seemed to be no consensus about masturbation. One priest said that he didn't view it as a sin, whereas another did. If you're a Christian why believe in what is written in the Old Testament? Christ said there were only 2 commandments: (1) To love God (2) To love your neighbour. He saved a prostitute from death by stoning when that was the accepted Old Testament punishment, so I don't think he would have been too upset about mere masturbation. Also, the early Christians stopped circumcision and allowed the eating of pork. From what I've heard, many Jewish people regard the Old Testament more as an historical document of their people. Different laws were enforced at different times in their history. Also, no mention of masturbation in the Ten Commandments.

I find it strange just how 'hung up' on the Old Testament many Christians are. Also, 'Corinthians' is written by Paul who never met Jesus. Paul himself admitted that and would advise in his letters what was just his opinion, and what Christ himself had said -- like, don't take what I'm writing to you as the 'Gospel Truth', listen first to Jesus. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ is most concerned about pride, greed, not helping one's neighbour etc; no mention of sex.

[Pair1981 (imported)]

To answer the query:

Mutual masturbation can be, in certain Catholic circles, one of two things: (1) a voluntary, mutual, satisfying and fulfilling exercise which ought lead to actual intercourse or (2) an unnatural sex act.

It depends on the viewpoint of the Priest in question. However, if he be consistent with that of the Magisterium, then he must condemn masturbation outside of marriage as a form of adultery (see the Catechism).

Most old guard Priests consider masturbation under any circumstances an unnatural sex act as it can not directly lead to procreation as coitus can.

Generally, as regard husband-wife marital relations, the Magisterium has, as of late, stayed out of the bedroom.

[Khaled_88 (imported)]

If masturbation is a sin, then just about every person on Earth is a sinner. Why turn a natural, bodily function into a sin? Just the same, making it a sin can be an effective method of control -- the young person feels guilty and loses self-confidence and self-esteem. Such a person is easier to control. In reality, how many celibate priests did/do refrain from masturbation?

When I was young, just to eat meat on Friday was a sin, deserving of Eternal Damnation in Hell. The punishment for murder was the same. When I was old enough to think about it, it just didn't add up or make sense, somehow.

[A-1 (imported)]

To answer the query:

Mutual masturbation can be, in certain Catholic circles, one of two things: (1) a voluntary, mutual, satisfying and fulfilling exercise which ought lead to actual intercourse or (2) an unnatural sex act.

It depends on the viewpoint of the Priest in question. However, if he be consistent with that of the Magisterium, then he must condemn masturbation outside of marriage as a form of adultery (see the Catechism).

Most old guard Priests consider masturbation under any circumstances an unnatural sex act as it can not directly lead to procreation as coitus can.

Generally, as regard husband-wife marital relations, the Magisterium has, as of late, stayed out of the bedroom.

Kind of odd, isn't it?

Certain sex acts are allowed while others are not, depending upon the opinion of a Priest?

I wonder what kind of reaction nudity generates.

Your last point is a relief for the devout, I would bet. I am wondering what a medically recommended hysterectomy for a woman or an orchiectomy for a man would be considered.

Especially in light of the fact that the orchiectomy was performed on children for the sake of maintaining a church choir but female sterilization was not allowed even for the "mentally handicapped".

Of course, Catholicism is not the only religion who considers birth control a sin, but it probably IS the most main-stream with such a doctrine.