Is masturbation a sin in the catholic religion ?

newtlover

i need this info for a friend

Soul Winner

Pulls up chair. This should be good

Kenno90

i'm not sure it's a sin , i think it's a taboo topic though

Mickeroo

Every sperm is saaaaaacred,every sperm is gooood!
If a sprem gets waaaaaasted God get's quite iraaaaate!

Fanny Cradock

Behave, folks.

Fanny Cradock

It has been discussed before, OP. There might be something in this thread that specifically addresses the question from a Catholic perspective.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055280829

Fighting Irish

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It has been discussed before, OP. There might be something in this thread that specifically addresses the question from a Catholic perspective.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055280829

.

You guys need to stop asking the same questions over and over

AtomicHorror

J C wrote:

bankers

I know the question has been asked before and the guy should maybe have done a search, but does it have to be brought down to this level? Seriously?

Edit: How did I end up before the post I quoted?

J C

newtlover wrote: »

Is masturbation a sin in the catholic religion ?

...used to be ....

....don't know if it is anymore.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Edit: How did I end up before the post I quoted?

...you must be psychic ....or something!!:eek::D

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pulls up chair. This should be good

....WHY do you need to pull up a CHAIR ????:D:eek::)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I know the question has been asked before and the guy should maybe have done a search, but does it have to be brought down to this level? Seriously?

...you've become fierce grumpy.... ever since yourself and Darwin were thoroughly 'spanked' over on the Creationism thread!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Fanny Cradock

JC, it's good that you have decided to venture out of the creationism thread, but you don't have to make up for all the yeas lost posting outside of it in one thread.

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

JC, it's good that you have decided to venture out of the creationism thread, but you don't have to make up for all the yeas lost posting outside of it in one thread.

...good advice....I think ????!!!!:D

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

...good advice....I think ????!!!!:D

Yes, it really is great advice. If you know what I mean...

:eek:

postcynical

newtlover wrote: »

i need this info for a friend

Yes it is still sinful. I think Kelly gave the link in the other thread to the official teaching.

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Akrasia, here's what the catechism has to say about it:

A few naive reasons why I consider it sinful (I notice not all Christians consider it sinful and these can probably all be sincerely rebutted):

1. It degrades our own bodies treating them like meat rather than spiritual houses.
2. It weakens the will, encouraging lustful thoughts. It's a powerful act which removes God from the focus of our actions/thoughts.
3. With fantasies, it dehumanises other people, treating them as meat provided for our sexual gratification
4. It's an abuse of our sexuality (which is a highly valued gift from God)
5. It's a selfish act which puts our pleasure before God. As such it inhibits our growth with God.

Basically it's an action that puts the world/self in prime position. As such it's a sin against yourself and God. In thought, it can also be a sin against others.

Overblood

There's no way masturbation can be a sin. God made you didn't he? Why would he give you the power to masturbate if he didn't want you to do it? And since he made you in his own image...

Sam Kade

newtlover wrote: »

i need this info for a friend

Yeah right;)

philologos

Overblood wrote: »

There's no way masturbation can be a sin. God made you didn't he? Why would he give you the power to masturbate if he didn't want you to do it? And since he made you in his own image...

It's not the masturbation that is seen as the sin, it is the lust that is the problem (Matthew 5:28) . Idolising people for sexual purposes is the problem.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the masturbation that is seen as the sin, it is the lust that is the problem (Matthew 5:28) . Idolising people for sexual purposes is the problem.

wat about wet dreams then? they a sin too??

Some of these posts really are ridiculous imo

Phototoxin

There's no way masturbation can be a sin. God made you didn't he? Why would he give you the power to masturbate if he didn't want you to do it? And since he made you in his own image...

We have the power to kill and rape too..

We have free will.

Mickeroo

Phototoxin wrote: »

We have the power to kill and rape too..

We have free will.

HAH! I can't believe someone just compared having a **** to killing and raping.
It's completely natural, everybody does it from time to time(if you're a teenager maybe more ) and there's nothing wrong with it. Also,wanting to mate with an attractive member of your sexual preference is completely natural too. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot.

OK-Cancel-Apply

newtlover wrote: »

i need this info for a friend

I like your sense of humour

Overblood

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the masturbation that is seen as the sin, it is the lust that is the problem (Matthew 5:28) . Idolising people for sexual purposes is the problem.

But isn't that how babies are made? Doesn't the bible tell you to go forth and multiply? How can you have sex without lust? Do you have to fill in a form or something?

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

HAH! I can't believe someone just compared having a **** to killing and raping.

Nobody did compare them. Phototoxin, quite logically, used the extreme examples of murder and rape to demonstrate the falsity of the argument that something must be OK if God gave you the ability do it. That in no way means that he compared or equated different acts.

Please try to think about someone's post before you actually reply to it.

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

But isn't that how babies are made? Doesn't the bible tell you to go forth and multiply? How can you have sex without lust? Do you have to fill in a form or something?

The Christian ideal is for sexual intimacy to be a giving of love between a man and a woman who have covenanted to spend the rest of their lives together in marriage. That is how babies are supposed to be made.

Much sexual lust is essentially selfish where we want our desires and cravings to be met and the other person is there to be used or exploited in order to satisfy our own desires. That is about taking rather than giving.

PDN

MODERATOR'S WARNING

Due to the amount of trolling in this thread I'm getting sick of having to delete posts and issue yellow cards. Take note, all and sundry, from now on it's red cards.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Much sexual lust is essentially selfish where we want our desires and cravings to be met and the other person is there to be used or exploited in order to satisfy our own desires. That is about taking rather than giving.

Where is the line drawn then?
The vast majority of people I know that are having sex regularally are doing so willingingly with each other some with multiple partners-all consentual.

Who gets to decide? Are we to say they don't know their own minds and we know better? ie that they are sinning because of this lust?
They are enjoying it.

I'd rather not go down the road that people can enjoy harmfull things like hurting people or killing people or whatever like a previous example here.
Thats just silly in my opinion and not related as it's not consentual.

What of mutual masturbation where both people fancy each other and others ? Is God not involved there either? I mean it takes trust between 2 people to be consentually intimate with each other and around each other like that.
Does trust not come from God?

philologos

rarnes1 wrote: »

wat about wet dreams then? they a sin too??

Some of these posts really are ridiculous imo

No, actually the Jews had laws of ritual cleanliness concerning that. However the difference between wet dreams and masturbation is that one occurs naturally during your sleep and you have no control over it, and the second is objectifying someone and treating them as a sexual object and coveting them which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.

See this for more info:
http://www.gotquestions.org/wet-dreams.html

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Nobody did compare them. Phototoxin, quite logically, used the extreme examples of murder and rape to demonstrate the falsity of the argument that something must be OK if God gave you the ability do it. That in no way means that he compared or equated different acts.

Wait, that's exactly what he did.

Fair enough, I don't agree that just because you are able to do something there's nothing wrong with it but rape and murder are a LOT different to masturbation. It's quite frankly a ridiculous way to try and justify this notion that masturbation is wrong. I don't know about you, but I'm not naturally compelled to go around raping and killing people. It was a shoddy analogy,that's all.

Overblood

So is it a sin or not?

Phototoxin

In terms of catholicism yes it is a grave and mortal sin.

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

Wait, that's exactly what he did.

Fair enough, I don't agree that just because you are able to do something there's nothing wrong with it but rape and murder are a LOT different to masturbation. It's quite frankly a ridiculous way to try and justify this notion that masturbation is wrong. I don't know about you, but I'm not naturally compelled to go around raping and killing people. It was a shoddy analogy,that's all.

That's not what he did at all. And it wasn't an analogy. Nor was it sloppy. It was a good example of Reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate the falsity of an argument by demonstrating that one or more of the argument's premises lead to absurd results.

Overblood advanced an argument that masturbation must be OK because God gave us the power to do it. That argument relies on the premise that, if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right.

Reductio ad absurdum is the simplest way of demolishing such a transparently silly argument. You can demonstrate that the argument's premise (if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right) is false by citing an action that we all agree is immoral yet where God has given us the power do it. Obviously the point here is that you don't use an example that is comparable to the action (masturbation) in Overblood's original argument. For reductio ad absurdum to work effectively you deliberately pick actions that best show the absurdity of the argument - actions that are extreme and which are no way comparable to the original action in Overblood's argument. Murder and rape were great examples for Phototoxin to use as reductio ad absurdum in this case, not because they are comparable to masturbation, but precisely because they are obviously not comparable.

I actually get depressed when posters, presumably from Ireland with a supposedly adequate educational system, can't follow this very simple logical argument and, when confronted by an example of reductio ad absurdum, accuse someone of comparing or equating actions. Don't they teach anyone how to think properly in schools anymore?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I actually get depressed when posters, presumably from Ireland with a supposedly adequate educational system, can't follow this very simple logical argument and, when confronted by an example of reductio ad absurdum, accuse someone of comparing or equating actions. Don't they teach anyone how to think properly in schools anymore?

I've recently had to assume that some folk around here deliberately play dumb. I think its the only explaination. Lots of missing the point, or meaning of the point followed by attacks like 'you're not very Christian'. It seems to be happening alot more frequently.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

That's not what he did at all. And it wasn't an analogy. Nor was it sloppy. It was a good example of Reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate the falsity of an argument by demonstrating that one or more of the argument's premises lead to absurd results.

In fairness I personally think it is a shoddy analogy regardless of how you justify it by using argumentative theory.
You are comparing on the one hand something that someone does with ones own body for pleasure with something that one does to someone else which is harmful.
If you want to make comparisons, then you should compare like with like. Therefore masterbation should be compared with something that is carried out on ones own body - not one someone elses without their permission.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I've recently had to assume that some folk around here deliberately play dumb. I think its the only explaination.

Out of interest, are you referring to me? If so, I should point out that I'm not playing dumb to annoy you (I do have better things to do with my time ), but instead, I'm asking simple questions because they're the questions that are most likely to get a simple, straightforward answer.

JimiTime wrote: »

Lots of missing the point

Have you considered the possibility -- however remote -- that you may not be explaining yourself as clearly as you sincerely believe you are?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, are you referring to me?

Not specifically no. You would be one of a number IMO.

.Have you considered the possibility -- however remote -- that you may not be explaining yourself as clearly as you sincerely believe you are?

'However remote':D TBH, I have considered it very much. This forum is not only a place I enjoy reading and commenting, it helps me develop my thoughts and express them more clearly, so I'm always concious of such things. I read over my own posts all the time if someone has missed the point, to see if I've not explained things clearly enough. The thing is, I am not the only one I observe this happening to, and it seems to be the same posters.

A case in point is in the post just above yours:


'In fairness I personally think it is a shoddy analogy regardless of how you justify it by using argumentative theory.
You are comparing on the one hand something that someone does with ones own body for pleasure with something that one does to someone else which is harmful.
If you want to make comparisons, then you should compare like with like. Therefore masterbation should be compared with something that is carried out on ones own body - not one someone elses without their permission.'

I mean, it completely misses the point. A very, very simple point. Its like PDN's post didn't exist. Now thats in response to a very concise, easy to understand post by PDN. So its not just me.

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Don't they teach anyone how to think properly in schools anymore?

well they still teach us about God and Satan and their minions flying about on this planet, so I guess no, no they don't teach us how to think properly, you are correct.

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

well they still teach us about God and Satan and their minions flying about on this planet, so I guess no, no they don't teach us how to think properly, you are correct.

Stop your trolling.


Here - have a yellow.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

In fairness I personally think it is a shoddy analogy regardless of how you justify it by using argumentative theory.
You are comparing on the one hand something that someone does with ones own body for pleasure with something that one does to someone else which is harmful.
If you want to make comparisons, then you should compare like with like. Therefore masterbation should be compared with something that is carried out on ones own body - not one someone elses without their permission.

I nominate you for the Oscar for stupendously and spectacularly missing the point.

Nobody made an analogy. Nobody made comparisons. Nobody wants to make comparisons.

Overblood's argument was nothing to do with a distinction as to whether someone was doing something to themselves or to others. It was based on the risible premise that, if God gives you the power to commit an act, then that act must be morally OK.

Phototoxin's response was neither arguing for or against the morality of masturbation - it simply and effectively skewered the faulty premise on which Overblood's point relied.

I have to admit that I'm really struggling here. Are there really people out there who reason so poorly so as to be genuinely unable to see that Phototoxin made no comparison between masturbation and murder & rape?

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I nominate you for the Oscar for stupendously and spectacularly missing the point.

Nobody made an analogy. Nobody made comparisons. Nobody wants to make comparisons.

Overblood's argument was nothing to do with a distinction as to whether someone was doing something to themselves or to others. It was based on the risible premise that, if God gives you the power to commit an act, then that act must be morally OK.

Phototoxin's response was neither arguing for or against the morality of masturbation - it simply and effectively skewered the faulty premise on which Overblood's point relied.

I have to admit that I'm really struggling here. Are there really people out there who reason so poorly so as to be genuinely unable to see that Phototoxin made no comparison between masturbation and murder & rape?

Ok - for a start, we don't need lectures on reasoning from someone who believes there is a being that is lord over us all who nobody in the history of human existence has ever seen. Its like getting a lecture about staying fit from a fat bloke. (Thats an analogy by the way).

I totally understand what you were getting at. I made the point that if you were going to make comparisons (and a comparison it was whether you claim otherwise or not) at least make reasonable ones. It is not unreasonable to assume that god may have allowed people to do whatever pleasurable acts they want with their own bodies (based on the fact that masturbation is pleasurable) while not allowing harmful acts towards another (based on the fact that those acts are (a) harmful & (b) inflicted on someone elses body without their consent. Maybe it is not so 'derisible' to state that "if God gives you the power to commit an act, then that act must be morally OK", if that only refers to pleasurable acts on one own body?

Therefore less of the arrogance & maybe people will start engaing with you. If you carried on with that tone in normal conversation you won't have many friends left. In future, just because you don't understand someones point doesn't necessarily mean its their fault.

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

Therefore less of the arrogance & maybe people will start engaing with you. If you carried on with that tone in normal conversation you won't have many friends left. In future, just because you don't understand someones point doesn't necessarily mean its their fault.

LOL. You are unbelievable!! I'd say you were a troll or 'playing' dumb, but you actually seem sincere. I'm detecting adolescence.

Phototoxin

HAH! I can't believe someone just compared having a **** to killing and raping.
It's completely natural, everybody does it from time to time(if you're a teenager maybe more ) and there's nothing wrong with it.

If i feel the natural need to rape sheep doe that make it ok ?

That's not what he did at all. And it wasn't an analogy. Nor was it sloppy. It was a good example of Reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate the falsity of an argument by demonstrating that one or more of the argument's premises lead to absurd results.

Overblood advanced an argument that masturbation must be OK because God gave us the power to do it. That argument relies on the premise that, if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right.

Reductio ad absurdum is the simplest way of demolishing such a transparently silly argument. You can demonstrate that the argument's premise (if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right) is false by citing an action that we all agree is immoral yet where God has given us the power do it. Obviously the point here is that you don't use an example that is comparable to the action (masturbation) in Overblood's original argument. For reductio ad absurdum to work effectively you deliberately pick actions that best show the absurdity of the argument - actions that are extreme and which are no way comparable to the original action in Overblood's argument. Murder and rape were great examples for Phototoxin to use as reductio ad absurdum in this case, not because they are comparable to masturbation, but precisely because they are obviously not comparable.

Actually I'm going to rape some sheep/cars/wimmenz/yorema/whatever in about five minutes. But it's ok though, because GOD ALLOWS ME TO DO IT, THEREFORE IT IS OK!

(Can you not see the absurdity of the blue statement?)

To clarify : I said that I have the ability to rape and murder. And that we all have free will. The fact that I have the ability to rape you does not mean that it is a good or wholesome thing for me to do. (Apoligies to those sensitive about rape but its an extreme example and hence a good use for the example)

If you thought about it rather than jumping on the 'bash the religion' bandwagon (I'm not religous btw) you'd realise that just because we can do something doesn't make it a good thing in the eyes of Catholicsm or necessarily any other religon. Some pagan religions state that you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. (Wiccan I think) If you think masturbation doesn't hurt anyone then you are free to do it. However the RCC, and many other Christian churches teach that it is hurtful to yourself.

Weather you believe all that is a different issue of course. But as far as the original post goes, YES Catholicsm teaches that masturbation is inherently sinful both against you and your future spouse.

Also PDN is now my lawyer *hugs*

I actually get depressed when posters, presumably from Ireland with a supposedly adequate educational system, can't follow this very simple logical argument and, when confronted by an example of reductio ad absurdum, accuse someone of comparing or equating actions. Don't they teach anyone how to think properly in schools anymore?


Ok - for a start, we don't need lectures on reasoning from someone who believes there is a being that is lord over us all who nobody in the history of human existence has ever seen. Its like getting a lecture about staying fit from a fat bloke. (Thats an analogy by the way).

And here's me foolishly thinking that athiests prided themselves on their vulkan-like logic and reason. I honestly wonder how people who are so vehemently against 'illogical' things such as deism cannot grasp a simple argument such as those I gave.

I mean it takes trust between 2 people to be consentually intimate with each other and around each other like that.

Trust you say? What about a night of drunken revelry followed up by morning after pills and STI checks all round... is that trusting?

Also *hugs* to PDN

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Ok - for a start, we don't need lectures on reasoning from someone who believes there is a being that is lord over us all who nobody in the history of human existence has ever seen. Its like getting a lecture about staying fit from a fat bloke. (Thats an analogy by the way).

Ah, now you're revealing your true colours! Before you were pretending that you were engaging in discussion here on the Christianity board. Now you are claiming that Christians are incapable of reasoning properly. As well as revealing you to be extremely bigoted that also would indicate that you just come here to troll.

Therefore less of the arrogance & maybe people will start engaing with you. If you carried on with that tone in normal conversation you won't have many friends left. In future, just because you don't understand someones point doesn't necessarily mean its their fault.

Hmm, you certainly do seem to take things personally in our discussions (and I've noticed you doing it with other posters as well).

I understand your point very well, I'm merely pointing out that it is based on defective reasoning.

MrPudding

Phototoxin wrote: »

To clarify : I said that I have the ability to rape and murder. And that we all have free will. The fact that I have the ability to rape you does not mean that it is a good or wholesome thing for me to do. (Apoligies to those sensitive about rape but its an extreme example and hence a good use for the example)

Sincere question. How do you know you have the ability to rape and murder? I know I have the required equipment and knowledge, but I don't know if I actually have the ability to carry out the acts.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Ok - for a start, we don't need lectures on reasoning from someone who believes there is a being that is lord over us all who nobody in the history of human existence has ever seen. Its like getting a lecture about staying fit from a fat bloke. (Thats an analogy by the way).

You best chill out.

Phototoxin

Sincere question. How do you know you have the ability to rape and murder? I know I have the required equipment and knowledge, but I don't know if I actually have the ability to carry out the acts.

Perhaps I have a criminal conviction for raping and murdering a woman - do you really want to know?

Besides its irrelavant - it is purely to demonstrate the Reductio ad absurdum

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

That's not what he did at all. And it wasn't an analogy. Nor was it sloppy. It was a good example of Reductio ad absurdum. This is where you demonstrate the falsity of an argument by demonstrating that one or more of the argument's premises lead to absurd results.

Overblood advanced an argument that masturbation must be OK because God gave us the power to do it. That argument relies on the premise that, if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right.

Reductio ad absurdum is the simplest way of demolishing such a transparently silly argument. You can demonstrate that the argument's premise (if God gives us power to commit an action, then that action must be morally right) is false by citing an action that we all agree is immoral yet where God has given us the power do it. Obviously the point here is that you don't use an example that is comparable to the action (masturbation) in Overblood's original argument. For reductio ad absurdum to work effectively you deliberately pick actions that best show the absurdity of the argument - actions that are extreme and which are no way comparable to the original action in Overblood's argument. Murder and rape were great examples for Phototoxin to use as reductio ad absurdum in this case, not because they are comparable to masturbation, but precisely because they are obviously not comparable.

I actually get depressed when posters, presumably from Ireland with a supposedly adequate educational system, can't follow this very simple logical argument and, when confronted by an example of reductio ad absurdum, accuse someone of comparing or equating actions. Don't they teach anyone how to think properly in schools anymore?

In all honesty,considering some of the absurd stuff i see posted on this board by people who are presumeably from Ireland reductio ad absurdum kind of loses it's effect. If Phototoxin wanted to use reductio ad absurdum(which I'm sure he now know's all about after reading your post) he could have done it better.

JimiTime

Mickeroo wrote: »

In all honesty,considering some of the absurd stuff i see posted on this board by people who are presumeably from Ireland reductio ad absurdum kind of loses it's effect. If Phototoxin wanted to use reductio ad absurdum(which I'm sure he now know's all about after reading your post) he could have done it better.

This truly is bizarre. I didn't know what the heck 'reductio ad absurdum' was, but I understood 'PERFECTLY' what Phototoxins point was, as did others. IMO, this has 'nothing' to do with Phototoxin not explaining things better, and everything about certain posters not being able to decipher very simple language. I am astonished

Mickeroo

JimiTime wrote: »

This truly is bizarre. I didn't know what the heck 'reductio ad absurdum' was, but I understood 'PERFECTLY' what Phototoxins point was, as did others. IMO, this has 'nothing' to do with Phototoxin not explaining things better, and everything about certain posters not being able to decipher very simple language. I am astonished

Ok,whatever. I'd never heard of reductio ad absurdum either. Maybe I misunderstood the guy,I just don't agree with the point he was making,I still think theres nothing wrong with masturbation

JimiTime

Mickeroo wrote: »

I still think theres nothing wrong with masturbation

You'll go blind...... actually that might explain how some can't 'see' the point:pac::)

I'll get me coat:o