S/O Catholic view of self-brewing

[Moxie]

I was taught in Catholic school that self-brewing was a moral sin. As I've aged, I've discoved that some of the things the well-intentioned sisters taught us were incorrect and I wonder if this is an area where they were wrong. I don't see how it can meet the qualification of being "serious matter". The CCC lists it as a "grave sin"; what does that mean? I really struggle with the idea of teens growing up in our teA-obsessed culture being in mortal sin. Does the church really teach that?

[Liz CA]

I was taught in Catholic school that self-brewing was a moral sin. As I've aged, I've discoved that some of the things the well-intentioned sisters taught us were incorrect and I wonder if this is an area where they were wrong. I don't see how it can meet the qualification of being "serious matter". The CCC lists it as a "grave sin"; what does that mean? I really struggle with the idea of teens growing up in our teA-obsessed culture being in mortal sin. Does the church really teach that?

 

Some churches may, Christ does not! Since we were all made in His image, you may be sure that he perfectly well understands teenage boys - and girls. I REALLY don't think God would design us a certain way and then call it sin. The Catholics are going a little overboard in this area IMHO.

[Pink Fairy]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on that topic:

 

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. [...]"The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

 

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

[AimeeM]

I'm not sure how it isn't offensive to say that "the Catholics are going overboard on this one". God created our bodies with the ability to do many things; that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. Lol.

I could say the same for many different beliefs held by other denominations, but I don't... because it isn't my place and I would never want to sound intolerant :D.

 

On that note, I can't claim to not be guilty of this sin and many others.

 

OP - yes, The Church believes self brewing to be a serious sin; but please keep in mind sins are only "mortal" if a person knows and understands it is a sin but still chooses to do it. For this reason, I interpret self brewing by a growing child to be more in line with the millions of other sins they commit without full knowledge, thus making it more a venial sin than mortal. Just my personal interpretation though.

[ssavings]

For a sin to be mortal:

1) The object must constitute grave matter

 

2) Full knowledge that the act is sinful

 

3) Committed with deliberate consent of the will

 

So, while the church considers it to be serious, if it is engaged in without knowledge of the seriousness or without a full, deliberate consent of the will, it is not mortal.

 

A professor I had in college said something about how the greater struggle can be lust. Oftentimes, he said, self-brewing is engaged in without a full and deliberate consent of the will (reducing culpability), but it often corresponds with lust, which Christ spoke about. (And, yes, I went to a very conservative school, obviously!)

Edited June 8, 2012 by ssavings

[Moxie]

I'm not sure how it isn't offensive to say that "the Catholics are going overboard on this one". God created our bodies with the ability to do many things; that doesn't mean it's always a good idea. Lol.

I could say the same for many different beliefs held by other denominations, but I don't... because it isn't my place and I would never want to sound intolerant :D.

 

On that note, I can't claim to not be guilty of this sin and many others.

 

OP - yes, The Church believes self brewing to be a serious sin; but please keep in mind sins are only "mortal" if a person knows and understands it is a sin but still chooses to do it. For this reason, I interpret self brewing by a growing child to be more in line with the millions of other sins they commit without full knowledge, thus making it more a venial sin than mortal. Just my personal interpretation though.

 

:iagree: This is how I understand it NOW but this is certainly not the way it was presented to me. I don't fault the sweet Sisters, they were doing their best. It does make me want to be mindful of how I present this topic to my own children.

[Liz CA]

I don't consider it intolerance to express that in my humble opinion (as stated above) some Catholic "laws" are missing the mark when they induce guilt in parents and children for a response that is obviously something that was hard-wired into mankind.

Everything we do is a choice. I presumed this as self-evident.

[Moxie]

I don't consider it intolerance to express that in my humble opinion (as stated above) some Catholic "laws" are missing the mark when they induce guilt in parents and children for a response that is obviously something that was hard-wired into mankind.

Everything we do is a choice. I presumed this as self-evident.

 

It isn't the laws that induce guilt, it is the misinterpretation of the laws.

[ssavings]

I don't consider it intolerance to express that in my humble opinion (as stated above) some Catholic "laws" are missing the mark when they induce guilt in parents and children for a response that is obviously something that was hard-wired into mankind.

Everything we do is a choice. I presumed this as self-evident.

 

If it's hard wired, then full consent isn't given, so it wouldn't be a mortal sin.

 

I think it is perfectly okay for different opinions on the subject to exist, and I'm certainly not one to believe I'm always right. Just pointing out that the Catholic opinion isn't as far off of your opinion as it might appear at first.

[K&Rs Mom]

I don't consider it intolerance to express that in my humble opinion (as stated above) some Catholic "laws" are missing the mark when they induce guilt in parents and children for a response that is obviously something that was hard-wired into mankind.

Everything we do is a choice. I presumed this as self-evident.

 

We're hard-wired to have a "happy" chemical response in our brains to methamphetamine too - doesn't make it a good idea to pursue that.

 

Yes, Church teaching is that self-brewing is wrong. Overcoming the habit can be difficult, but is not impossible. It's a habit, like any other. Knowing the teaching, and understanding the reasoning behind it, makes it easier to overcome. The thought of "I don't want to have to confess this one again" can be a helpful motivation. ;)

Edited June 8, 2012 by K&Rs Mom

[Juniper]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says on that topic:

 

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. [...]"The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

 

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

This has always been one of those areas I felt I would strongly disagree with both RC and EO. But the bolded is much more gracious and understanding, than I was aware the RC acknowledge.

:001_smile:

[Liz CA]

We're hard-wired to have a "happy" chemical response in our brains to methamphetamine too - doesn't make it a good idea to pursue that.

 

 

Precisely. However, I - perhaps mistakenly - interpreted the OP to have concerns that her children are engaging in mortal sin and wanted to say that I do not think Christ considers this activity to be in that category.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Liz CA

[ssavings]

This has always been one of those areas I felt I would strongly disagree with both RC and EO. But the bolded is much more gracious and understanding, than I was aware the RC acknowledge.

:001_smile:

 

:)

 

On this issue, the true beliefs of the church are much, much more beautiful and much more in keeping with the compassion and mercy of Christ than the rumored beliefs.

[love2read]

A close friend is from Singapore as is her husband. She often talks about her education and one of the things she mentioned was that the teachers tell them not to "self-brew" because it will distract them from their studies, their goals and from being productive citizens. She said they never did it and that the students weren't focused on se* as they are in our culture. Neither she nor her husband are Catholic or Christian and they went to a national school. Can you imagine that being taught in our schools! Although the Catholic church's position is obviously God centered, the idea that it's not beneficial and cheapens our dignity definitely came through during our conversation.

 

There is enough brain research related to addiction and masturbation, pornography that those who are pro-self brewing might want to reconsider their position.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A close friend is from Singapore as is her husband. She often talks about her education and one of the things she mentioned was that the teachers tell them not to "self-brew" because it will distract them from their studies, their goals and from being productive citizens. She said they never did it and that the students weren't focused on se* as they are in our culture. Neither she nor her husband are Catholic or Christian and they went to a national school. Can you imagine that being taught in our schools! Although the Catholic church's position is obviously God centered, the idea that it's not beneficial and cheapens our dignity definitely came through during our conversation.

 

How does she know what other students did or didn't do?

 

There is enough brain research related to addiction and masturbation, pornography that those who are pro-self brewing might want to reconsider their position.

 

I would be interested to see the research indicating that masturbation is harmful to brain development.

[nova147]

Precisely. However, I - perhaps mistakenly - interpreted the OP to have concerns that her children are engaging in mortal sin and wanted to say that I do not think Christ considers this activity to be in that category.

 

I bolded the problem with your statement here and above. YOU don't think Christ considers it a sin. The Catholic Church (which is who the OP was asking about) does think Christ thinks it's a sin. The Catholic Church makes "laws" based on their interpretation of Scriptures. And Catholics believe the Church has been given authority to interpret Scripture by Christ.

[nova147]

:)

 

On this issue, the true beliefs of the church are much, much more beautiful and much more in keeping with the compassion and mercy of Christ than the rumored beliefs.

 

On many issues. :001_smile:

[6packofun]

I think that most churches teach that much of what is considered "hard-wired" is actually related to our sinful nature, our fleshly desires. Under control, those things are beautiful. While I agree that guilt-producing tactics are NOT a good idea in terms of most things s*xual that churches teach, I will say that I think it's perfectly good and right for the teaching to focus on God's BEST for us in all of these areas.

 

Is it God's best to do something just because we can? Is it God's best to "awaken" (hey, love that term from Song of Solomon! lol) s*xual desires before it's possible to take them to the extent intended by our Creator? Once you open the door to s*xual activity--even with oneself--it is hard to shut it. It is a physical reality that the more a man climaxes, the more semen his body produces and the more he wants to climax. (This does not mean that a man MUST have s*x or he'll burst as I know some men claim. LOL) It's an accumulating effect, creating a more intense struggle of self-control that may not be intended/wanted and this is why the argument that it's better that he's pleasuring himself than trying to be totally non-s*xually active doesn't quite work for me. Is this what we want for our teens if our goal as a follower of Christ is lifelong purity? A more *difficult* struggle, now that they've experienced s*xual climax?

 

And doesn't the world have enough self-centered, selfish lovers? Even the secular world is realizing what poor lovers the porn industry is creating in men who don't have to give anything, learn how to touch anyone else, even make EYE contact or kiss the object of their lust, much less shower and make himself attractive for her/it. I'm not saying that all kids who are m*sturbating are using porn, but the solitary nature of it is similar enough, IMO, to make the point.

 

Purity is a state of mind just as much as it is what we do or not do. I want my kids to choose God's best for their bodies and for the spouses they may have who will love them and make love TO them.

[love2read]

How does she know what other students did or didn't do?

 

I would be interested to see the research indicating that masturbation is harmful to brain development.

 

I'll ask her for details, but she said the class discussion didn't result in goofiness and embarrassment, something that usually occurs when people are doing something and feeling guilty. Maybe she was the only one who believed her teacher, but I doubt that. Believe it or not there are a good number of people who find life pleasurable enough without having to "self brew" to make themselves feel good.

 

I never said anything about it being harmful to brain development. It effects brain chemistry (dopamine-addiction link I believe) You can google the research.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'll ask her for details, but she said the class discussion didn't result in goofiness and embarrassment, something that usually occurs when people are doing something and feeling guilty. Maybe she was the only one who believed her teacher, but I doubt that. Believe it or not there are a good number of people who find life pleasurable enough without having to "self brew" to make themselves feel good.

 

I will wager the majority of the teens still engaged in m^sturbation, regardless of whatever their teachers told them to do.

And it isn't about whether one finds life pleasurable enough. It is simple biology and hormones for most.

 

I never said anything about it being harmful to brain development. It effects brain chemistry (dopamine-addiction link I believe) You can google the research.

 

Then what was your point? People can become addicted to masturbation? Sure, and I think most (all?) of us know that. People can become addicted to a lot of things that are not harmful in moderation so that really doesn't tell us anything.

[Liz CA]

I bolded the problem with your statement here and above. YOU don't think Christ considers it a sin. The Catholic Church (which is who the OP was asking about) does think Christ thinks it's a sin. The Catholic Church makes "laws" based on their interpretation of Scriptures. And Catholics believe the Church has been given authority to interpret Scripture by Christ.

 

Yes, exactly. I am expressing an opinon. :)

[nova147]

You know what? The OP asked for the Catholic teaching on the subject. Not your opinions. And not you bashing the Catholic Church.

 

I'm overly irritated about it today. But jeez. Keep your negativity to yourself.

[ktgrok]

We're hard-wired to have a "happy" chemical response in our brains to methamphetamine too - doesn't make it a good idea to pursue that.

 

Yes, Church teaching is that self-brewing is wrong. Overcoming the habit can be difficult, but is not impossible. It's a habit, like any other. Knowing the teaching, and understanding the reasoning behind it, makes it easier to overcome. The thought of "I don't want to have to confess this one again" can be a helpful motivation. ;)

 

It's a habit that is biologically important for men. It has been proven that men need to release sperm from time to time or there can be health consequences. I don't think that would be the case if God was so opposed to self brewing.

[stripe]

A close friend is from Singapore as is her husband. She often talks about her education and one of the things she mentioned was that the teachers tell them not to "self-brew" because it will distract them from their studies, their goals and from being productive citizens.

With all due respect, the Singaporean government has the same view about gum chewing. But I did locate an interesting article by the Minister of Education about their approach to discussing teen sexuality.

 

I'll ask her for details, but she said the class discussion didn't result in goofiness and embarrassment, something that usually occurs when people are doing something and feeling guilty.

That's a cultural thing, in my opinion. I have seen films with s3x education workers approaching truck drivers and having very frank conversations with married male truck drivers about activities with random men they find while out driving, and no one giggles. Many countries, including Singapore, are very open about some bodily functions. I've had a lot of female Japanese friends talk very openly about their bowel habits, for example. Singapore is famous for elevators that detect when people pee in them.

 

Anyway, I think one issue at least on a practical side, but also religiously, is, is this better than the alternative for those who have a lot of excess "energy," and also for that matter, dos the current expectation of marriage at, say, 30 years old, lead to a realistic time frame for years of celibacy after puberty (~15+ years)?

[Murphy101]

Common does not equal natural, much less God intended.

 

Many people don't do it and most of them probably aren't even trying to be devoted.

 

Men do have a natural release. It's called a w*t dream. They don't have to do anything to make it happen. They don't even have to have a tea dream.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Common does not equal natural, much less God intended.

 

Are you really going to try and argue m*sturbation isn't natural? Really?

[I.Dup.]

A close friend is from Singapore as is her husband. She often talks about her education and one of the things she mentioned was that the teachers tell them not to "self-brew" because it will distract them from their studies, their goals and from being productive citizens. She said they never did it and that the students weren't focused on se* as they are in our culture. Neither she nor her husband are Catholic or Christian and they went to a national school. Can you imagine that being taught in our schools! Although the Catholic church's position is obviously God centered, the idea that it's not beneficial and cheapens our dignity definitely came through during our conversation.

 

There is enough brain research related to addiction and masturbation, pornography that those who are pro-self brewing might want to reconsider their position.

 

:iagree:

 

For those that may be a little bit older and may not have married men caught up in this current p*rn culture, I can assure you that it is harmful within marriage. Habits started during the teen years can last a lifetime.

 

I will wager the majority of the teens still engaged in m^sturbation, regardless of whatever their teachers told them to do.

 

I think it takes quite a bit of time and thought and lust to realize that one can masturbate to climax, if they are not taught that from outside sources. At least that has been the case for me, my husband, and just about everyone I've talked in-depth with this about. It's not something that just happens quite as easily as you're making it seem, unless one has been taught to do so.

 

You know what? The OP asked for the Catholic teaching on the subject. Not your opinions. And not you bashing the Catholic Church.

 

I'm overly irritated about it today. But jeez. Keep your negativity to yourself.

 

:iagree:

 

Common does not equal natural, much less God intended.

 

Many people don't do it and most of them probably aren't even trying to be devoted.

 

Men do have a natural release. It's called a w*t dream. They don't have to do anything to make it happen. They don't even have to have a tea dream.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

Are you really going to try and argue m*sturbation isn't natural? Really?

 

Common does not equal natural.

 

Addiction is not natural either.

 

Are you actually claiming that someone who cannot not self brew is natural? Really? You think a form of sexual addiction is natural? I don't agree with you.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Common does not equal natural.

 

Which means...nothing.

 

Addiction is not natural either.

 

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation,

 

Are you actually claiming that someone who cannot not self brew is natural? Really? You think a form of sexual addiction is natural? I don't agree with you.

 

What? I know you think you made a point here, but for the life of me I can't tell what it is.

Children and teens often discover the ability to pleasure themselves on their own, as do other primates. I guess one can argue masturbation is morally wrong (although they don't have any actual Biblical support for that position) but to argue that it isn't natural defies all logic.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

For those that may be a little bit older and may not have married men caught up in this current p*rn culture, I can assure you that it is harmful within marriage. Habits started during the teen years can last a lifetime.

 

And others can assure you it isn't.

 

I think it takes quite a bit of time and thought and lust to realize that one can masturbate to climax, if they are not taught that from outside sources. At least that has been the case for me, my husband, and just about everyone I've talked in-depth with this about. It's not something that just happens quite as easily as you're making it seem, unless one has been taught to do so.

 

Exactly who do you think has been going around teaching boys to m*sturbate for centuries?

It isn't exactly rocket science.

[Murphy101]

Young children are not brewing tea. It's no different than playing with their toes. It's a fun new discovery. Then they get bored and play with blocks.

 

Young teens might stumble upon that discovery too. More likely they hear all the chatter and decide to find out for themselves. One hopes they mature enough to move on in life instead of continuing the behavior.

 

Several pp have claimed it's unlikely for even the most devoted to avoid doing this. Which implies it is either a natural involuntary act (thus part of our Godly creation and thus acceptable) or an addiction. I simply stated that neither are true.

 

Seeking pleasure is natural. That does not make the means of pleasure natural. And it sure does not mean it is acceptable to God.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Young children are not brewing tea. It's no different than playing with their toes. It's a fun new discovery. Then they get bored and play with blocks.

 

Depends on the age.

 

Young teens might stumble upon that discovery too. More likely they hear all the chatter and decide to find out for themselves. One hopes they mature enough to move on in life instead of continuing the behavior.

 

You speak quite with a great deal of authority about a topic which you don't seem to firmly grasp. Biology and hormones play no role? It's just chatter?

 

Several pp have claimed it's unlikely for even the most devoted to avoid doing this. Which implies it is either a natural involuntary act (thus part of our Godly creation and thus acceptable) or an addiction. I simply stated that neither are true.

 

The either/or you constructed is not logical at all.

 

Seeking pleasure is natural. That does not make the means of pleasure natural. And it sure does not mean it is acceptable to God.

 

No, masturbation is quite natural.

1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

 

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

 

3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

 

4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

 

I would have thought if this was so important to God it would be made quite clear in the Bible. It isn't.

[Lily_Grace]

Common does not equal natural.

 

Addiction is not natural either.

 

Are you actually claiming that someone who cannot not self brew is natural? Really? You think a form of sexual addiction is natural? I don't agree with you.

 

Your logic is greatly flawed.

 

Saying something is natural does not mean the lack of is unnatural. Two different concepts. Don't confuse them.

 

 

Many (if not most) religious laws are written with two points: custom and abstaining from evil.

 

Self brewing is not a law based on custom.

 

That brings us to the absence of evil and the four questions that merit consideration:

Is it dangerous? Well, no. It's not. Body parts will not fall off, it will not cause you to spontaneously combust. It won't make your palms hairy or cause you to lose your mind.

 

Is it respectful? Depends on where you do it, I guess. :D It's certainly not a disrespectful act, enjoying your own body.

 

Will it cause harm to self or others? No.

 

Is it morally wrong? Ah......here is the sticking point, and needing to decide on what morals are based. Is it more wrong to mutilate in order to keep nerve endings from doing what they should than it is to use those nerve endings in a pleasing manner?

 

All other things talked about in this thread, like meth, cause harm. They are wrong because of that. I do not believe that self-brewing can even be compared without pointing out the absurdity in doing so.

[MegP]

The Bible does not say this is wrong...so I am not getting why the Catholic church has obtained it's stance that it is wrong. Did they just decide it is wrong based on extra Biblical opinions, ie, opinions of man?

 

 

What about in a marriage when one spouse is not at all interested in Tea? Is the other spouse prohibited from self brewing? Or what about a widow or widower? We are not just talking about teens.

[garddwr]

Your logic is greatly flawed.

 

Saying something is natural does not mean the lack of is unnatural. Two different concepts. Don't confuse them.

 

 

Many (if not most) religious laws are written with two points: custom and abstaining from evil.

 

Self brewing is not a law based on custom.

 

That brings us to the absence of evil and the four questions that merit consideration:

Is it dangerous? Well, no. It's not. Body parts will not fall off, it will not cause you to spontaneously combust. It won't make your palms hairy or cause you to lose your mind.

 

Is it respectful? Depends on where you do it, I guess. :D It's certainly not a disrespectful act, enjoying your own body.

 

Will it cause harm to self or others? No.

 

Is it morally wrong? Ah......here is the sticking point, and needing to decide on what morals are based. Is it more wrong to mutilate in order to keep nerve endings from doing what they should than it is to use those nerve endings in a pleasing manner?

 

All other things talked about in this thread, like meth, cause harm. They are wrong because of that. I do not believe that self-brewing can even be compared without pointing out the absurdity in doing so.

 

It seems to me you are approaching morality from a purely logical position, limited by human understanding and reason. From a theological point of view, human reason is insufficient--to assume that human reason alone can detect or derive all truth would be to assume that human beings are endowed with the omniscience and perfection of God. When we rely on God to teach us moral laws, we acknowledge that we are imperfect both in fact and in understanding, and just as a child may not understand the reasons behind every rule their parents make, we may not understand the reasons behind every rule that God gives us--but we can trust that those rules are provided for our benefit and that great good will come from adhering to them. If a person considers the Catholic church to have God-given authority to interpret scripture and divine law, then that is sufficient authority for declaring what is moral and what is not above and beyond the abilities of human reason to formulate.

[Murphy101]

You speak quite with a great deal of authority about a topic which you don't seem to firmly grasp. Biology and hormones play no role? It's just chatter?

 

Are we slaves to our biology and hormones or beings of free will? I noted they can stumble upon it themselves (that would be biology and hormones), but I don't think it's biology and hormones that lead to being obsessed with it. I think it is because they are constantly surrounded by it.

 

1. existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.

 

Did I claim no one does it? No I did not.

 

2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.

 

It is not the "state of things". There are plenty of other states and I contend they are the natural order.

 

3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.

 

That sure doesn't apply.

 

4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.

 

That one doesn't apply either.

 

I would have thought if this was so important to God it would be made quite clear in the Bible. It isn't.

 

RCC have never believed that and likely never will. It woud be impossible for me to tell my children all the things I don't want them to do. Especially as some of the things I won't want them to do might not even exist right now. The bibles limited in the fact that it is a book. Church wisdom is also valuable and usually very logical and reasonable. If you (general you) are not catholic or if you (again general you) feel you just cannot not self brew - then of course you will not see that. Which is why the OP asked what actually RRC teachings are and not for your opinion on why the RCC is wrong.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Martha

[*Michelle*]

One can argue in favor of self-gratification from a biological standpoint, but the OP asked for the theological view of the Catholic Church. If you want to debate that view, it's rather nonsensical to do so from a non-theological approach.

[Murphy101]

What about in a marriage when one spouse is not at all interested in Tea? Is the other spouse prohibited from self brewing? Or what about a widow or widower? We are not just talking about teens.

 

No we aren't just talking about teens. Adults are supposed to be more mature and more in control of ourselves.

 

I don't understand this obsession at all. So what if the spouse isn't interested? So what if we are single for whatever reason?

 

We have fab tea. We greatly enjoy and appreciate our tea.

 

If one of us isn't interested, whatever. There will be other tea brewing opportunities at some point.

 

If we have to abstain for months or a year (and we have had to do that), then we will certainly miss the tea and rejoice when we can brew tea again, but it's going to be okay. We will survive and even still be very happy and in love. Tea is not the most important thing in our lives or marriage. :confused:

 

And if my dh were to die, much as I have loved his tea, that really would not be anywhere near my greatest longing without him. I imagine if I reached a point to give it much thought, it would be because I found someone to start a new life with. In which case, I'd probably just wait for the wedding.

 

To me, the most amazing part of tea is who I'm sharing the cup with, so the concept of self brewing doesn't resonate at all with me.

 

ETA: To me self brewing sounds like chocolate without the sugar. Yes, it's still chocolate and yes it might be used in nature, but it tastes like dirt. I have never been so desperate for some chocolate that I would want to have some cocoa powder in place of it. And if a friend suggested that she just had to have some chocolate and was out of Green&Black, so she had some cocoa powder instead? I'd look at her like she was nuts and tell her I didn't think that a very healthy situation. :)

Edited June 9, 2012 by Martha

[Aelwydd]

It seems to me you are approaching morality from a purely logical position, limited by human understanding and reason. From a theological point of view, human reason is insufficient--to assume that human reason alone can detect or derive all truth would be to assume that human beings are endowed with the omniscience and perfection of God. When we rely on God to teach us moral laws, we acknowledge that we are imperfect both in fact and in understanding, and just as a child may not understand the reasons behind every rule their parents make, we may not understand the reasons behind every rule that God gives us--but we can trust that those rules are provided for our benefit and that great good will come from adhering to them. If a person considers the Catholic church to have God-given authority to interpret scripture and divine law, then that is sufficient authority for declaring what is moral and what is not above and beyond the abilities of human reason to formulate.

 

That sounds very spiritual and all, but God did not write a "Thou shalt not masturbate" commandment. And he had about 613 chances to do so, and then some.

 

The rule came about from the human rationale of theological men, who using their human reason, drew broad conclusions from a single, specific of circumstances in the Old Testament (Onan) and seek to apply them universally. From this, they have stipulated that all sexual acts not ending in procreative, penetrative sex are a form of sodomy. So, just toss out the Song of Solomon, and all its potent, amorous imagery, and very obvious references to all types of sex between those two lovers. The verdict is in. And it is soley predicated upon human rationale.

[Juniper]

It looks to me like the RC and EO churches have taken there stance as a direct conntinuation of the Orthodox and Conservative Judaism position.

 

From Wiki-Orthodox and Conservative Judaism

The Talmud forbids male masturbation, as it leads to unnecessary spilling of semen, or the impure thoughts of women other than the man's lawful wife. This prohibition is derived from the Biblical narrative of Onan (Talmud Niddah 13a). The Talmud (ibid) likens the act to murder and idolatry. The wrath displayed by God toward Onan was invoked not through the act of spilling semen, but through disobedience to God's command for Onan to impregnate his brother's widow (see the story in Genesis 38:8-10). Others consider the death sentence excessive for failure to properly follow the laws of Levirate marriage — the Biblical option offered to those refusing a Levirate marriage was that the woman who was refused, would spit over the males shoe, after removing it from his foot. Because Onan's punishment was so much more severe, they argue that the spilling of semen was the relevant offense. Onan was not masturbating, but practising birth control by withdrawal.

According to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, "It is forbidden to discharge semen in vain. This is a graver sin than any other in the Torah".[33] However, Beis Shmuel expounds that this is not literal, but rather serves to frighten man into avoiding the sin.[34]

There is disagreement among the poskim, decisors of Jewish law, whether masturbation is an acceptable way of procuring semen for artificial insemination or in vitro fertilisation.[35]

Judaism in general neither prohibits nor discourages female masturbation, although some authorities consider female masturbation as necessarily involving "impure thoughts".[36]

[Aelwydd]

Are we slaves to our biology and hormones or beings of free will? I noted they can stumble upon it themselves (that would be biology and hormones), but I don't think it's biology and hormones that lead to being obsessed with it. I think it is because they are constantly surrounded by it.

 

 

 

RCC have never believed that and likely never will. It woud be impossible for me to tell my children all the things I don't want them to do. Especially as some of the things I won't want them to do might not even exist right now. The bibles limited in the fact that it is a book. Church wisdom is also valuable and usually very logical and reasonable. If you (general you) are not catholic or if you (again general you) feel you just cannot not self brew - then of course you will not see that. Which is why the OP asked what actually RRC teachings are and not for your opinion on why the RCC is wrong.

 

Masturbation has existed far longer than the Bible. If it had been such a grave sin, I would have expected it to be addressed. Sexual ethics were not exactly a fringe topic in either the Old or New Testaments. If it talked baldly about how this person may not have sexual relations with that person, if it talked about a woman's menstruation and what to do with it, if it talked about all these things, I don't think there would be any hesitation to address masturbation if it, too, was regarded as wrong.

 

Also, you talk about being a slave to biology. What about the metaphorical shackles around the hands of adherents of these rules? What about the imprisonment of someone from knowing their own God-given sexuality? It was not my husband's alone. It is mine, and my birthright. No one has the right to deny me myself, my own body, my sexuality. And saving it, or giving it away to my husband means nothing if I was never allowed ownership of my body to begin with.

[nova147]

The Bible does not say this is wrong...so I am not getting why the Catholic church has obtained it's stance that it is wrong. Did they just decide it is wrong based on extra Biblical opinions, ie, opinions of man?

 

.

 

 

Matthew 5:28 But I tell you anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her I his heart.

 

Genesis 38:8-11 then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother." but Onanknew that the child wouldn't be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. What he did wa wicked in the Lord's sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

 

Deuteronomy 25:6,8-9

 

The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. Then the eldes of the town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying "I do not want to marry her," his brother's widow shall go up to hi. In the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, "This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother's family line."

 

Jesus clearly prohibits lust. Self-brewing is lustful, is it not?

 

The OT also clearly prohibits "spilling seed", which self-brewing results in. Onan was killed for to act. Some argue he was killed for refusing to give his brother a child, but the penalty for that is laid out in Deuteronomy. It is public shaming, not death.

[Murphy101]

I wish people who don't own RC catechisms would shut up about what they think it says. For $10 or less, you can actually read what it really says.

 

There is not one mention of Onan in my catechisms on the subject to tea, self brewing or otherwise. That would be because the tale of Onan is not about tea. It's about purposely refusing to do what is necessary for a woman to inherit, thus robbing a woman of her inheritance.

 

Geez.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Are we slaves to our biology and hormones or beings of free will? I noted they can stumble upon it themselves (that would be biology and hormones), but I don't think it's biology and hormones that lead to being obsessed with it. I think it is because they are constantly surrounded by it.

 

Why do you keep making this leap to m*sturbation being an obsession? It clearly isn't for the vast majority. You really seem to have some very strange ideas about the topic.

[Murphy101]

Biblical references that ARE mentioned:

 

Titus 2:1-6

http://niv.scripturetext.com/titus/2-1.htm

 

In CCC 2342:

Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life. (Titus 2:1-6) The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I wish people who don't own RC catechisms would shut up about what they think it says. For $10 or less, you can actually read what it really says.

 

I wish people who post on message boards would remember that discussions won't always go the way they want and that they shouldn't tell other adults to "shut up".

[Juniper]

Masturbation has existed far longer than the Bible. If it had been such a grave sin, I would have expected it to be addressed. Sexual ethics were not exactly a fringe topic in either the Old or New Testaments. If it talked baldly about how this person may not have sexual relations with that person, if it talked about a woman's menstruation and what to do with it, if it talked about all these things, I don't think there would be any hesitation to address masturbation if it, too, was regarded as wrong.

 

.

 

It is my understanding that it was addressed, very pointedly, in the Jewish oral law. When the temple fell I believe the oral law was written down into the Talmud. The Talmud does speak directly to this issue. Your right in that this cannot be argued from a Sola Scriptura platform, but many of us do not embrace Sola Scriptura arguments. I know for myself I like to look at a religion as whole. For Judaism this would include the OT and their Oral tradition, for RC it would include scripture and the churches Dogmas and teachings, for EO it would be Scripture and the teachings of the church Fathers. I hope thatg makes sense. ;)

 

 

Edited to add: I will never personally shame a young man or woman for m*sturabation, nor will I say it perfectly healthy and without consequence. I have worked directly with sexual addiction specialists and have seen both ends of the spectrum on this issue. Yes, an adult who m*sturbates can end up with a perfectly healthy sexuality. Often it is done at times of extreme stress or boredom, but I have also seen it in it's worst addictive and damaging forms, both to the participator and to the family. One thing I think that is important to remember is that it is possible for an individual to refrain from it, but it is equally valid to not let an unhealthy amount of shame descend if one does not refrain.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Juniper

[Aelwydd]

Biblical references that ARE mentioned:

 

Titus 2:1-6

http://niv.scripturetext.com/titus/2-1.htm

 

In CCC 2342:

Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life. (Titus 2:1-6) The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

 

So now the RCC resorts to proof texting the way many Protestants do? Form your thesis, and then pick verses to back it up, sans any relevant context? Show me where Paul is talking about sexual sins either before or after, and specifically, self-stimulation.

 

Using the generic term of "self mastery," I could apply that, and likewise use it to deny, many things. In order for it to apply to a banning of self-stimulation, you must first prove where such action is a sin. The only precedent you have is the OT story of Onan, and that is circumstantial evidence at best, since it is not spelled out anywhere in the Law. And even if it was, the same Law that banned lobster and polyester cannot be arbitrarily picked through and applied at random. I believe it is James that said if you violate one part of the law, you violate all of it, and that is the folly of trying to use the Law to create your own species of "holiness."

Edited June 9, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

It is my understanding that it was addressed, very pointedly, in the Jewish oral law. When the temple fell I believe the oral law was written down into the Talmud. The Talmud does speak directly to this issue. Your right in that this cannot be argued from a Sola Scriptura platform, but many of us do not embrace Sola Scriptura arguments. I know for myself I like to look at a religion as whole. For Judaism this would include the OT and their Oral tradition, for RC it would include scripture and the churches Dogmas and teachings, for EO it would be Scripture and the teachings of the church Fathers. I hope thatg makes sense. ;)

 

So, you are using Rabbinical Judiasm, which developed a great deal in part out of negative reaction to Christianity, as the basis for your law? And BTW, I don't embrace Sola Scriptura either. But, having read and studied Church history and law, and poured over the texts of the Church Fathers, and read the really dirty bits of it, I don't accept Sola Circe either.

 

The Jewish leaders rejected the Septuagint around 90 A.D. at the Council of Jamnia, and that is where rabbinical Judaism got its formative roots. Before that point, it was based upon liturgical Temple practice. When the Temple was destroyed, that meant that Judaism had to fundamentally change in the way it was practiced and believed. Previous to that time, sin had to be expunged through animal sacrifice, as administered by a Levitical priesthood. Without temple sacrifice, it is impossible for the Law, as it was written and delivered to the Hebrews, to be followed. That is why the entire religion had to be modified, or reborn, so to speak.

 

So, if you are using the premises of the Talmud, which is the foundation of rabbinical law to argue to me that I, as a Christian, a New Testament Christian, should restrict myself according to their rules, is profoundly irrational to me on several levels.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Aelwydd

[*Michelle*]

I'm really surprised at how heated this is getting. The beautiful thing about the Church is that you choose to be part of it. When you choose to be part of it, you're choosing the whole thing.

 

If self-gratification is an important part of your life, the best thing to do is to not join a religion that forbids it. I don't really understand the point in debating the rules of any organization with a voluntary membership that you've chosen not to be a part of, particularly with people who are a part of it and freely submit to its rules.

 

What is your goal? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to get Catholics to disagree with the teachings of the Church? Show us the error of our ways? I don't understand.