S/O Catholic view of self-brewing

[Murphy101]

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.

 

Because posters keep posting as though everyone does it and can't help it.

 

It has been written of as a biological imperative, either emotionally or mechanically.

 

This insistence to me implies the person has an addiction or some other obsessive tendency.

 

If one can avoid bc it is not an addiction or obsession and simply doesn't want to follow church teaching, then I can believe that. Just say "I wanna because I wanna and so I'm gonna!"

 

But if that is the case, then don't waste time trying to justify it as some biological imperative because it isn't.

 

The RCC has teaching to lead us to better behavior and to avoid sins. The RCC doesn't force anyone to do anything. Even in matters of sin. Everyone has the free will to sin all they want, but that doesn't make the RCC unreasonable in her teachings. It makes the sinner unreasonable in demanding to be able to sin and get approval for it.

 

Tea is intended to be a pleasurable act of giving of self to another.

Self brewing doesn't do that.

[Juniper]

So, you are using Rabbinical Juddiasm, 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.

 

I am very aware the Rabbinical Judaism, in part, developed as a reaction to Christianity. That in and of itself does not change the content of their teachings on this issue, as held before the Temple's destruction and after.

 

My point was that the issue has been addressed through history.

 

Edited: No, I am not saying EO bases it's "law" on Rabbinical Judaism, but that Rabbinical Judaism and EO/RC traditions have a common factor in the Judaic oral tradition the Apostles grew up with.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Juniper

[Murphy101]

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".

 

I'm not asking anyone to do what I want.

 

A pp wrote this church teaching was based on nothing more than the reference of Onan.

 

And I wrote that I wish people who don't know diddly about what the church teaching is based on would shut up about it and actually look it up. (Seriously people the CCC is available for free download or new paperback for less than $10!) I then went on to mention that, in fact, the church not only does not base it on one scripture section, it never even uses the reference to Onan bc that reference is not about tea.

 

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.

 

Well yes and no. A convert chooses. A cradle catholic is a catholic forever.:D

 

But otherwise, yeah, I don't get the point either.

 

If they want to self brew and just can't stand the thought of not self brewing - that sounds like a personal issue to come to a decision that I can't help them with making.

 

If they want to know RCC and why the RCC teaches as she does on the matter - well it's been told repeatedly.

[ssavings]

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.

 

Both points, :iagree:

 

The Catholic and many other churches believe that the "deposit of faith" is made of a combination of the scriptures and of the oral tradition handed down through apostolic succession. The arguments that "it's not found in the Bible" are generally not helpful and show a lack of true understanding of the Catholic position on our religion. We believe that a great number of things were handed down to the Church fathers, and through the early Church, and we embrace those elements as part of our own faith.

 

 

 

It's okay that not everyone believes the exact same thing the Church believes. Not all Catholics even believe the same thing, even! But I think there's room in the world for a wide variety of belief systems. I understand that there is disagreement. And, you know, that's okay. But I'm entitled to believe what I believe, and it's even okay for me to believe it simply because "the Church says"... even if the perception is that the Church is out of touch! :)

Edited June 9, 2012 by ssavings

[Aelwydd]

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

 

Yes, if he is fantasizing about her, whether or not he is masturbating, he is sinning. I hope you know that many people don't need to fixate on a specific person to achieve release.

 

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.

 

It says it was wicked in this specific set of circumstances, where he was only supposed to be having sex with her to raise up offspring. Not for personal happiness, not for personal satisfaction. He sinned against his sister-in-law, because he took advantage of her sexually and dishonored her under the premise of honoring his brother's memory. THAT is the sin.

 

Does this apply to every marriage? To every person under the sun? I think that's a ludicrous reach.

 

But even if it WAS a sin, that was the Old Testament. The same Old Testament that decreed a 13 yo who curses his parents is to be stoned to death. That someone who eats lobster is "unclean." That someone who builds their house with certain materials is a sinner.

 

If you insist on applying this one law, then by the same Scripture, you invoke all of it. (James 2:10)

 

 

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

 

Jesus prohibits lust in certain situations. My husband regularly lusts after me. You think that's a sin? Perhaps I should deny him on the basis that having sex incites lust, and rewards it, and Jesus condemned all lust, according to your interpretation.

 

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.

 

Yes, Onan was killed for a specific reason. The RCC claims it is simply the spilling of seed which offended God, and not the callous manner and licentious manner in which he used his SIL. Ok, they're entitled to their interpretation, and their entire law of denying billions of people, even married people, mutual masturbation, because of this one single incident in Scripture, that is not reiterated or spelled out as wrong anywhere else.

 

Ok, fine. I'd like to point something out.

 

Tthe penalty for hitting a pregnant woman and causing her to abort a fetus was merely an ox or payment of a fine. According to the law, anyone who commits manslaughter (unintended murder) should be exiled. Would you like me to extrapolate the logical conclusion of that law?

 

Why does the RCC ignore that implication? Or the law in Numbers 5 where the test for whether a woman has committed adultery, she was given a potion to drink as a test, and if an issue flowed forth from her, she is guilty?

 

Tell me, what do we call chemical concoctions that may induce an "issue" from a woman who's been sexually active?

 

And what does it mean that this test is divinely ordered?

[ssavings]

Ok, they're entitled to their interpretation, and their entire law of denying billions of people, even married people, mutual masturbation, because of this one single incident in Scripture, that is not reiterated or spelled out as wrong anywhere else.

 

 

Huh? Let's back up...

 

First, again, the Church believes that the deposit of faith is more than the Bible alone.

 

More importantly, no one is denying anyone anything! I can assure you that there are any number of exCatholics in the world who have CHOSEN to leave the Church due to a disagreement with the Church's beliefs, and any number more who have chosen to stay and ignore the Church's beliefs! No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Those of us who have chosen to stay do so because we AGREE with Church teaching!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Because posters keep posting as though everyone does it and can't help it.

 

The vast majority do engage in it at some point.

 

It has been written of as a biological imperative, either emotionally or mechanically.

 

This insistence to me implies the person has an addiction or some other obsessive tendency.

 

That is such a monumental leap in logic I have no idea how to even start to wrap my mind around it.

 

The RCC has teaching to lead us to better behavior and to avoid sins. The RCC doesn't force anyone to do anything. Even in matters of sin. Everyone has the free will to sin all they want, but that doesn't make the RCC unreasonable in her teachings. It makes the sinner unreasonable in demanding to be able to sin and get approval for it.

 

 

What is being discussed is the RCC basis for teaching this is a sin, and the reasoning presented thus far is lacking.

[Aelwydd]

I am very aware the Rabbinical Judaism, in part, developed as a reaction to Christianity. That in and of itself does not change the content of their teachings on this issue, as held before the Temple's destruction and after.

 

My point was that the issue has been addressed through history.

 

But not in the Law given Moses. As I stated in my first post, this stipulation came about from the rationale of human beings, and not as a God-given mandate.

 

Everyone here has a cherry picked verse to prove how God is against masturbation, so here's mine:

 

"Love thy neighbor, as thyself."

 

I'm all for self-love. :D

 

Edited: No, I am not saying EO bases it's "law" on Rabbinical Judaism, but that Rabbinical Judaism and EO/RC traditions have a common factor in the Judaic oral tradition the Apostles grew up with.

 

I'm aware of the EO's similarities to Judaism, but even more, I'm aware of the Book of Hebrews, and its cautionary tale of confusing Christ's law of love with a love of tradition. I'm a rogue Anglican, so I get the draw to pomp and circumstance, smells and bells, and the rites that connect one to the past. But I don't let that mantle of history become a yoke of unbearable, unjustified laws, rules, and regulations upon my spirit or my person.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not asking anyone to do what I want.

 

A pp wrote this church teaching was based on nothing more than the reference of Onan.

 

And I wrote that I wish people who don't know diddly about what the church teaching is based on would shut up about it and actually look it up. (Seriously people the CCC is available for free download or new paperback for less than $10!) I then went on to mention that, in fact, the church not only does not base it on one scripture section, it never even uses the reference to Onan bc that reference is not about tea.

 

You told other posters to "shut up" which is childish.

[Juniper]

But not in the Law given Moses. As I stated in my first post, this stipulation came about from the rationale of human beings, and not as a God-given mandate.

 

I do not understand how this is not a form of a sola scriptura argument?:confused:

Everyone here has a cherry picked verse to prove how God is against masturbation, so here's mine:

 

"Love thy neighbor, as thyself."

 

I'm all for self-love. :D

 

 

 

I'm aware of the EO's similarities to Judaism, but even more, I'm aware of the Book of Hebrews, and its cautionary tale of confusing Christ's law of love with a love of tradition. I'm a rogue Anglican, so I get the draw to pomp and circumstance, smells and bells, and the rites that connect one to the past. But I don't let that mantle of history become a yoke of unbearable, unjustified laws, rules, and regulations upon my spirit or my person.

 

I am happy for you! It sounds like you have found a good fit for your beliefs. I say that with all sincerity. Blessings on you and yours! Now, I am going to get off my sickbed and enjoy the feed store for a bit! :D

[clarkacademy]

 

 

 

Well yes and no. A convert chooses. A cradle catholic is a catholic forever.:D

 

.

 

 

I am not gonna get in this whole debate but I just want to correct you on this, well I need too. THIS IS NOT TRUE Not in any way I am living proof and I get mighty upset with people telling me that I am a Catholic because I am not. I am not Catholic I do not ever want to go back to that miserable time in my life either.

 

It doesn't matter what they did to me as a baby when I was too little to think for myself, I don't care where I went to school either or how much it cost my parents. I hate to shatter your belief but there are TONS of us out there in the world who get mighty twisted when someone calls us a Catholic because that is where our cradles were put.

[Aelwydd]

Huh? Let's back up...

 

First, again, the Church believes that the deposit of faith is more than the Bible alone.

 

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. So, why does the RCC persist in citing this one verse like a mantra whenever the subject is debated? It's the go-to verse for Catholic theologians everywhere.

 

What other sources is this law based upon? Augustine's writings? Tertullian's? And why should I, or any other Christian, accept the elevation of the Fathers' or Doctors' ideas to a divine mandate, when God didn't even choose to name it a sin in His Law?

 

More importantly, no one is denying anyone anything! I can assure you that there are any number of exCatholics in the world who have CHOSEN to leave the Church due to a disagreement with the Church's beliefs, and any number more who have chosen to stay and ignore the Church's beliefs! No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Those of us who have chosen to stay do so because we AGREE with Church teaching!

Oh, I had mistakenly believed that the RCC taught that everyone who masturbates, commits a grave sin, and is thus pronouncing a judgment. I wasn't aware that it was only binding on Catholics. Good deal. For a while, I had believed that the RCC believed itself the most perfect repository of salvation, and promoted the idea that those who don't submit themselves to her edicts are in various degrees of sexual sin, and are morally lost.

 

You take my point, I'm sure. The RCC does not refrain from trying to mold the values of others outside its domain. Look how the RCC has influenced policy making decisions such as the health policy to distribute condoms in Africa. Or, how it got involved with the proposal in California a few years ago to ban gay marriage.

 

The RCC holds powerful sway over the lives of many people, and I don't like bullies.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

I am happy for you! It sounds like you have found a good fit for your beliefs. I say that with all sincerity. Blessings on you and yours! Now, I am going to get off my sickbed and enjoy the feed store for a bit! :D

 

Thanks. Same to you!

 

Regarding the sola scriptura comment, I'm using the same material RCC folks are using to prove their case. If they want to resort to something else, like Church fathers, or Councils, then we can argue on those bases. But, those Church fathers all still base their arguments on how they read and interpret scripture and on cultural traditions of the day. One of those, we've already tackled, and the other is not relevant to me.

[PiCO]

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.

 

I remember reading a study that it's healthier for women to have orgasms on a regular basis as well. When I was in college, I found it easier to concentrate on my studies if I had a physical release periodically. I figured it was better to brew my own tea than drink around. Same now, as I am a widow. I can't imaging going for so many years without a release, but I was not interested in brewing with a partner.

 

I think the religious aversion to self-brewing is based on the early church's thought that if people are self brewing they are not brewing together and breeding more. (Just my opinion.)

[Murphy101]

Again. I don't think any RC here has referenced Onan and neither does the CCC in this issue.

[PiCO]

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.

 

Threads go off track all the time. I don't think people are "bashing" or being "overly negative", they are just stating opinions. Perhaps you should take a :chillpill:? Or ignore people with opinions you disagree with?

 

I hope your day improves!

[Aelwydd]

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.

 

I agree with the first part of your post, FTMP.

 

As to the last part, here's my answer. I am arguing against the premise of the RCC that those of us who engage in this, and other banned behaviors, are doing so out of unthinking lust, disordered sexuality, or selfishness.

 

The RCC cannot make such a restriction without explaining how engaging in it is harmful, always, all of the time. So, it must therefore proceed with a litany of arguments that basically paints us "sodomists" as woefully enslaved by biology, and out of sync with God's intention.

 

I have no problem with RCC holding that position for themselves. If they wish to think of themselves as being enslaved to biology if they indulge, that's fine. But, they apply that reasoning to everybody, in order to justify their own restraint.

 

Frankly, I find it more unthinking and lustful, to be intent upon mating one way, and one way only--that which produces offspring. That's very animal-like in intent and scope.

 

Contrary to our non-sentient cousins in the animal kingdom, we humans are capable of a much broader expression of self-love, and sexual love for each other, and that encompasses many things beyond simple acts of reproduction. The drive for reproduction is one of the basest of desires. The desire to please your partner, to learn your own responses to enhance another's pleasure--these are the ideals of higher thinking, not selfishness.

[Murphy101]

Oh geez. The RCC has got to be most ineffective bully ever.

 

The RCC gives teachings and guidance on living those teachings. If a RC chooses to ignore or even blatantly defy those teachings, after decades of pleading the RCC says she is pained by their turning from her teachings and will pray for their longed for understanding and return. And if they return, all is forgiven and they are welcomed with rejoicing.

 

That's what happens when a RC decides to not live the faith or some aspect of it. That's a far cry from anything I'd call bullying.

 

I have no doubt church disapproval is painful to anyone that actually wants to live in accordance with the RCC. Not sure why those don't care about living RC teachings would care.

[Aelwydd]

Again. I don't think any RC here has referenced Onan and neither does the CCC in this issue.

 

In which case, you're left with "I believe it's wrong because the RCC says it's wrong."

 

Scripture does not condemn it (it only condemned the act of one man, in a specific situation, that doesn't apply anyway, because they lived under the Law of Moses!).

 

Neither did the Apostolic Fathers, nor did the Early Church Fathers, even--ahem--touch upon it. :lol:

 

The subject is not broached until some 500 years after the inception of Christianity. Finally, it Thomas Aquinas who decided it was evil, based upon his premise that the penis only has two functions: to urinate, or to fertilize a woman.

 

After that, the subject reached a new peak (sorry, another bad pun) in the 13th century, and ever since, it's been...er...beaten to death. And now, in the 21st century, the RCC proclaims it a sin, that it was always a sin, even though the 4000+ year time period in Scripture wasn't even for it to merit more than a passing mention, and for the first five or six centuries of the Church, wasn't mentioned at all.

 

Just saying, the RCC says its wrong, and it has the deposit of faith to back it up, doesn't merit much consideration with me. It's one of many reasons back in the day when I was still conservative, I couldn't go to Rome. The illogic, the inconsistencies!

 

But it's got a lot of beautiful ritual, music, and some amazing scholarship on the other end of the balance, so I appreciate that. I appreciate its contributions to society in many ways. I just do not agree with its "wisdom" in this and other issues.

[Bluegoat]

I am honestly flummoxed by those who think this particular teaching from the perspective of any Church is somehow "from the traditions of men" or whatever. It is fits in logically with the understanding of human sexuality over-all, and that has been a pretty much continuous part of the Christian Tradition up until very recently.

 

It isn't even true that only the CC and the OC consider that tradition to be necessary to understand Christian teachings - Lutherans, Anglicans, and most of the other groups that came out of the Reformation also considered that it was essential. They also, until recently, would have all considered masturbation to be a no-no.

 

It's a pretty simple argument really - sexual activity is meant to be ordered towards both a self-giving relationship with others, and procreation. (That, btw, is what is meant by "natural", not whether it is biologically based or whether a lot of people do it. In the Christian worldview, Nature, as in the natural world, is disordered, and so not always a good guide to what is in fact natural.)

 

Masturbation fails on both accounts. It isn't self-giving to another but inwardly focused. It doesn't result in procreation. Is it some deadly activity that will ruin the lives of anyone who does it? No, probably not in most cases. It it better than running around on your spouse or fornicating wildly? It may be at times. But at best it is a less than perfect expression of human sexuality, and it has plenty of potential to undermine the correct understanding of sexuality and gets in the way of a perfect union with the Divine Life.

[Aelwydd]

Oh geez. The RCC has got to be most ineffective bully ever.

 

Not really. How do you think it got to be so big? A lot of societies are RCC because they were converted...in not-nice ways, centuries ago. I don't hold the modern RCC responsible for that. What I hold it responsible for is using its inherited influence from some of their less civilized ancestors, to coerce or control many people today.

 

Do I think it's all evil? No, the RCC is like many things, it has good and bad in it. It's done some amazing things, helped feed the poor, given aid to the sick, defended the prisoner. It's also done a lot of harm. I don't excuse that because of all the good things I like about it, and believe me, as much as it seems the opposite, I do admire certain things about the RCC. When it acts the bully, it makes me angry. When it acts the friend, I support it and admire it.

[*Michelle*]

I agree with the first part of your post, FTMP.

 

As to the last part, here's my answer. I am arguing against the premise of the RCC that those of us who engage in this, and other banned behaviors, are doing so out of unthinking lust, disordered sexuality, or selfishness.

 

The RCC cannot make such a restriction without explaining how engaging in it is harmful, always, all of the time. So, it must therefore proceed with a litany of arguments that basically paints us "sodomists" as woefully enslaved by biology, and out of sync with God's intention.

 

I have no problem with RCC holding that position for themselves. If they wish to think of themselves as being enslaved to biology if they indulge, that's fine. But, they apply that reasoning to everybody, in order to justify their own restraint.

 

Bear with me, because I really don't understand this and I see this often.

 

Why do you care what the Church thinks about you? If you reject the Church's authority, why does it matter what the Church says? And why does it matter to you if people who do accept the Church's authority submit to that authority?

 

I just really don't get it. There are plenty of groups out there that would say some pretty interesting things about the way I live my life. I don't recognize that they have any authority over me, though. Consequently, I couldn't care less what they say or think about me. They have no power over my mortal life or my immortal soul.

 

Why would I let it bother me? Why would I spend one iota of eternity worrying about it?

[K&Rs Mom]

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.

 

Church teaching on this subject is not based on that one instance - it's based on the entire view of what humans are for and how our bodies & souls work together, and how sex affects us - biologically and psychologically. Without the rest of the teachings on human nature and purpose, this rule doesn't seem to make much sense, but as part of the whole picture it's really beautiful.

[Aelwydd]

I am honestly flummoxed by those who think this particular teaching from the perspective of any Church is somehow "from the traditions of men" or whatever. It is fits in logically with the understanding of human sexuality over-all, and that has been a pretty much continuous part of the Christian Tradition up until very recently.

 

Haven't I said that it is the result of the carefully reasoned arguments of theological leaders? A tradition isn't, in and of itself, an evil thing to me. What is evil is when tradition, or even a popular line of accepted thought, is equated with eternal, divine truth. That is the issue.

 

It isn't even true that only the CC and the OC consider that tradition to be necessary to understand Christian teachings - Lutherans, Anglicans, and most of the other groups that came out of the Reformation also considered that it was essential. They also, until recently, would have all considered masturbation to be a no-no.

I just brought up tradition--and as I already stated, it wasn't even broached until hundreds of years after the formation of the church. And when it was, it was sporadically, until the 13th century. Need I remind you that many Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christians do not hold that whatever truth the RCC enshrined in its councils past the Great Schism, was not necessarily held or ratified by all the other branches of Christiandom?

 

If you wish to invoke tradition, then please direct me to the Council decision up to Nicea 325 A.D., that addressed and forbade this? Any church law or codified bit of writing? Nicea was the point in which Christianity changed forever, when Constantine married the Lamb to the Sword, and made the cross the sign of the faith. I'm not inclined to give much consideration to the ever-increasing haughtiness of church scholars and teachers in the Church after that. But even so, even up the sixth century, there is not ONE mention of masturbation as a sin. Not one!

 

It's a pretty simple argument really - sexual activity is meant to be ordered towards both a self-giving relationship with others, and procreation. (That, btw, is what is meant by "natural", not whether it is biologically based or whether a lot of people do it. In the Christian worldview, Nature, as in the natural world, is disordered, and so not always a good guide to what is in fact natural.)

And yet, the Orthodox view is that Man did not inherit the sin of Adam, but the grace-less (less than full of grace) nature of not being fully unified with God. In his state, this cavity would inevitably be filled with things other than God, and he being in sin, would commit acts of sin. And some of those acts of sin are against Nature, which God created to be our biologically perfect home.

 

We have made imperfect that which God made perfect, in order to match our sin nature.

 

But that does not mean that everything in Nature, or that derives from nature, is disordered.

 

Just as everything that derives from our base instincts, our animal nature, is wrong or disordered. Mating is a prime example of that.

 

What is so "simple" though to you about the argument, is that it is entirely too simplistic for me. Just because it is normal, natural, and healthy to give of one's sexuality to another, it does not automatically follow that to feed oneself is the denial of another.

 

There are many people out there who are quite appreciative, and have received a great deal of pleasure, enrichment, and happiness, from their partners' acts of self-love!

 

 

Masturbation fails on both accounts.

 

Blue, you are too rational to really believe such an absolutist statement. Really? It fails always and everywhere? Just as I stated above, many people would feel quite deprived if their partners denied themselves self-love. For myself, I can only say it meant that when I married my dh, I knew myself, and what I liked, very well, and I could convey that to him. I wasn't ashamed of my reactions, or lacking confidence in my sexuality, even though I was a virgin. Had I gone to our marriage bed safely innocent from the knowledge of myself and my body, and he the same, it would not have been nearly so satisfactory, and pleasurable for both of us.

 

 

It isn't self-giving to another but inwardly focused. It doesn't result in procreation.

A lot of things don't meet that criterion! And as I said, if you believe masturbation is only and solely about one person, and nobody else, I actually feel kind of sad you think that. I have a lot of experiences that directly negate that, but this board is PG-13 rated, and I've already pushed the line. I don't plan to share more than that! ;)

 

 

But at best it is a less than perfect expression of human sexuality, and it has plenty of potential to undermine the correct understanding of sexuality and gets in the way of a perfect union with the Divine Life.

And yet, in my marriage and my life, it has been pivotal in teaching me about my own sexuality, and understanding it, and it hasn't gotten anymore in the way of my union with God, than having actual sex with my husband has gotten in the way of it. Which is to say, not at all. Edited June 9, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

Church teaching on this subject is not based on that one instance - it's based on the entire view of what humans are for and how our bodies & souls work together, and how sex affects us - biologically and psychologically. Without the rest of the teachings on human nature and purpose, this rule doesn't seem to make much sense, but as part of the whole picture it's really beautiful.

 

All of which is, again, been formulated and codified by groups of theologians mostly post-13th century. I get that their view is seamless and integrated into their whole view of human sexuality. I am saying that their view is predicated upon a number of unsubstantiated premises about human sexuality, nature, and God's relationship to creation.

[Aelwydd]

Bear with me, because I really don't understand this and I see this often.

 

Why do you care what the Church thinks about you? If you reject the Church's authority, why does it matter what the Church says? And why does it matter to you if people who do accept the Church's authority submit to that authority?

 

I just really don't get it. There are plenty of groups out there that would say some pretty interesting things about the way I live my life. I don't recognize that they have any authority over me, though. Consequently, I couldn't care less what they say or think about me. They have no power over my mortal life or my immortal soul.

 

Why would I let it bother me? Why would I spend one iota of eternity worrying about it?

 

Because as much as it must stick in the craw of ultra conservative Christians everywhere, I still consider myself Christian.

 

As such, I do concern myself with what major factions of my religious community is teaching and preaching, because there are times when I have to explain or defend my faith. Sometimes the RCC is brought up, as a sort of stumbling block. Sort of a, "Ah ha! You can't truly be a historical Christian if you reject this founding block!" Other times, it's a "How can you support such a position? The RCC believes that!"

 

In other words, I contend with the RCC, (and the EO, and Protestantism, and other sects) because I'm defining and refining my own position.

 

If I encounter something presented as Gospel truth, and backed up with the authority of the institution, then that is a challenge to me and my own faith. Others define their faith in different (and probably far more sedate) ways, but for me, it's a constant striving.

[Aelwydd]

Hey guys, I feel like I am hogging the spotlight and being way too verbose! I think I should take a breather and let you guys have the final word. I hope my totally confusing, love-hate relationship with the RCC hasn't confused or alienated anyone here. On another thread, I'll have to share my "likes" about the RCC, so you don't think I'm channeling Martin Luther like burning. :lol:

[*Michelle*]

Because as much as it must stick in the craw of ultra conservative Christians everywhere, I still consider myself Christian.

 

But why do you think your view of yourself would have any bearing on another person? The only time I'm ever concerned about what someone states their religion is is when they present themself as a devout or practicing Catholic while espousing beliefs that directly contradict the teachings of the Church. And that only concerns me because I am Catholic and they're sowing confusion about Catholicism.

 

As such, I do concern myself with what major factions of my religious community is teaching and preaching, because there are times when I have to explain or defend my faith. Sometimes the RCC is brought up, as a sort of stumbling block. Sort of a, "Ah ha! You can't truly be a historical Christian if you reject this founding block!" Other times, it's a "How can you support such a position? The RCC believes that!"

 

In other words, I contend with the RCC, (and the EO, and Protestantism, and other sects) because I'm defining and refining my own position.

 

But you're not Catholic, right? And it sounds like, based on your statement that you're defining and refining your own position, that you look to yourself as the final authority on your beliefs. If so, why do you feel you have to explain or defend your faith? Why are you contending with anything else?

 

If I encounter something presented as Gospel truth, and backed up with the authority of the institution, then that is a challenge to me and my own faith. Others define their faith in different (and probably far more sedate) ways, but for me, it's a constant striving.

 

How do you say something is backed up with the authority of an institution while simultaneously denying the authority of that institution? How is that a challenge to your faith unless you're giving that institution some small bit of authority over your faith?

 

Do you feel that your faith is challenged by the truths put forth by other non-Christian religions?

[bkpan]

But why do you think your view of yourself would have any bearing on another person? The only time I'm ever concerned about what someone states their religion is is when they present themself as a devout or practicing Catholic while espousing beliefs that directly contradict the teachings of the Church. And that only concerns me because I am Catholic and they're sowing confusion about Catholicism.

 

 

 

But you're not Catholic, right? And it sounds like, based on your statement that you're defining and refining your own position, that you look to yourself as the final authority on your beliefs. If so, why do you feel you have to explain or defend your faith? Why are you contending with anything else?

 

 

 

How do you say something is backed up with the authority of an institution while simultaneously denying the authority of that institution? How is that a challenge to your faith unless you're giving that institution some small bit of authority over your faith?

 

Do you feel that your faith is challenged by the truths put forth by other non-Christian religions?

 

:iagree: TY for saying this.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

Well yes and no. A convert chooses. A cradle catholic is a catholic forever.:D

 

 

Yes and no. :D You can send a letter telling them you no longer wish to be a member, and ask that they notate your baptismal records. They won't destroy the records, but they will make a note, and tell you they'll pray for you. :tongue_smilie: I can't be bothered sending the letter to my dioceses because it isn't that important to me. If I say I'm no longer Catholic, then I'm no longer Catholic. The Church doesn't define me.

[justamouse]

Yes and no. :D You can send a letter telling them you no longer wish to be a member, and ask that they notate your baptismal records. They won't destroy the records, but they will make a note, and tell you they'll pray for you. :tongue_smilie: I can't be bothered sending the letter to my dioceses because it isn't that important to me. If I say I'm no longer Catholic, then I'm no longer Catholic. The Church doesn't define me.

 

While you can choose for the Church to not define you, Catholics believe that Baptisim leaves an indelible mark on your soul-so you may not believe it, your family may not believe it, you can get angry and stomp around and take bleach baths, you can curse and take the God's name in vain and tell Him where to stick it, but Catholics still believe you're Catholic. ;)

 

 

This is an awesome thread BTW. I love it when discussion brings the truth of the Church's teaching to light in its fullness.

Edited June 10, 2012 by justamouse

[Lady Florida.]

While you can choose for the Church to not define you, Catholics believe that Baptisim has an indelible mark on your soul-so you may not believe it, your family may not believe it, you can get angry and stomp around and take bleach baths, you can curse and take the God's name in vain and tell Him where to stick it, but Catholics still believe you're Catholic.

 

\

 

I won't get mad or do any of those things, because it doesn't matter to me what they think. Since I don't believe in anything the Catholic Church does, that belief holds no validity for me. I suppose if I had converted to a different branch of Christianity or a different religion altogether, I might be angry. However, from where I sit now, someone else's belief that I'm still Catholic is meaningless to me.

[justamouse]

I won't get mad or do any of those things, because it doesn't matter to me what they think. Since I don't believe in anything the Catholic Church does, that belief holds no validity for me. I suppose if I had converted to a different branch of Christianity or a different religion altogether, I might be angry. However, from where I sit now, someone else's belief that I'm still Catholic is meaningless to me.

 

That's ok. :001_smile:

[Murphy101]

Church teaching on this subject is not based on that one instance - it's based on the entire view of what humans are for and how our bodies & souls work together, and how sex affects us - biologically and psychologically. Without the rest of the teachings on human nature and purpose, this rule doesn't seem to make much sense, but as part of the whole picture it's really beautiful.

 

:iagree:

 

But why do you think your view of yourself would have any bearing on another person? The only time I'm ever concerned about what someone states their religion is is when they present themself as a devout or practicing Catholic while espousing beliefs that directly contradict the teachings of the Church. And that only concerns me because I am Catholic and they're sowing confusion about Catholicism.

 

But you're not Catholic, right? And it sounds like, based on your statement that you're defining and refining your own position, that you look to yourself as the final authority on your beliefs. If so, why do you feel you have to explain or defend your faith? Why are you contending with anything else?

 

How do you say something is backed up with the authority of an institution while simultaneously denying the authority of that institution? How is that a challenge to your faith unless you're giving that institution some small bit of authority over your faith?

 

Do you feel that your faith is challenged by the truths put forth by other non-Christian religions?

 

Indeed!

 

While you can choose for the Church to not define you, Catholics believe that Baptisim has an indelible mark on your soul-so you may not believe it, your family may not believe it, you can get angry and stomp around and take bleach baths, you can curse and take the God's name in vain and tell Him where to stick it, but Catholics still believe you're Catholic. ;)

 

This is an awesome thread BTW. I love it when discussion brings the truth of the Church's teaching to light in its fullness.

 

Yes.

[6packofun]

 

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

 

You seem to be referring to something you may not be clear about yourself. :) The Bible doesn't give a single verse that says, "Thou shalt not commit abortion." (or "Thou shall not m*sturbate") and yet, we know from God's thoughts in Scriptures about babies having souls, about God forming them in the womb, etc. that abortion IS wrong to Him. Yet those who don't read the entire Bible like to say that it's unclear about a myriad of things.

 

It's less clear on this issue, but what God says about s*xuality and it's PURPOSES, both physical and spiritual, and about how marriage should be held in honor (by all people, married or not), gives a strong impression that maybe getting it on alone all the time before marriage and most definitely after is NOT God's best. His best for us is what we should always strive for. (1 Corinthians 7:5 says not to deprive one another except by mutual consent or for prayer--I'm not sure that mutual consent includes regular m*sturbation in isolation from one another. Who wants to agree NOT to make love to their spouse and could say that's God's intention for marriage?)

 

And I think this leaves room for the spouses with different s*x drives to still please one another--because the glory of s*x is about pleasing someone ELSE, possibly creating life *together*, and giving a physical representation of the mystical union between Christ and the Church, etc. There is room in this view for consenting spouses to just watch when they're not in the mood as this might please one or both and INCLUDES both! It could very well lead to more, which would be the greatest outcome, I think! S*x and being s*xual is not all about oneSELF, but this is the view, along with practices like regular m*sturbation (with or without porn, all by one's lonesome) is, IMO, creating a lot of selfish, uncreative, unsuccessful lovers. (Of course I do not mean *everyone*.)

[Mommyfaithe]

Why did I not know what self-brewing means? :001_huh: I had to google it.

 

:D. And what did you find out??:D. (j/k)

[nova147]

:D. And what did you find out??:D. (j/k)

 

My google search fell far short of giving me an understanding of self-brewing as used in this thread. :D

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You seem to be referring to something you may not be clear about yourself. :) The Bible doesn't give a single verse that says, "Thou shalt not commit abortion." (or "Thou shall not m*sturbate") and yet, we know from God's thoughts in Scriptures about babies having souls, about God forming them in the womb, etc. that abortion IS wrong to Him. Yet those who don't read the entire Bible like to say that it's unclear about a myriad of things.

 

Well, let's just say not all Christians agree with that interpretation and leave it at that.

And, no, I am quite clear on the matter.

 

It's less clear on this issue, but what God says about s*xuality and it's PURPOSES, both physical and spiritual, and about how marriage should be held in honor (by all people, married or not), gives a strong impression that maybe getting it on alone all the time before marriage and most definitely after is NOT God's best. His best for us is what we should always strive for. (1 Corinthians 7:5 says not to deprive one another except by mutual consent or for prayer--I'm not sure that mutual consent includes regular m*sturbation in isolation from one another. Who wants to agree NOT to make love to their spouse and could say that's God's intention for marriage?)

 

So basically you have nothing based on solid scripture to say m*sturbation is wrong?

[Juniper]

Well, let's just say not all Christians agree with that interpretation and leave it at that.

And, no, I am quite clear on the matter.

 

 

 

So basically you have nothing based on solid scripture to say m*sturbation is wrong?

I think this is where many of us part ways and cannot have a productive conversation. For you Scripture trumps Tradition, for others we have Scripture because of Tradition. Therefore there is no way Scripture trumps it. It cannot contradict it, but the end all be all is not, "Is it in the Bible."

[nova147]

I think this is where many of us part ways and cannot have a productive conversation. For you Scripture trumps Tradition, for others we have Scripture because of Tradition. Therefore there is no way Scripture trumps it. It cannot contradict it, but the end all be all is not, "Is it in the Bible."

 

:iagree: There have been Scriptures quoted which support the teaching. But there is not a Scripture passage that directly forbids self-brewing.

 

If you want to debate sola scriptura, that's a whole other thread.

[Word Nerd]

Why did I not know what self-brewing means? :001_huh: I had to google it.

 

It was mentioned in a recent thread related to teA. Does that help?

[Bluegoat]

Haven't I said that it is the result of the carefully reasoned arguments of theological leaders? A tradition isn't, in and of itself, an evil thing to me. What is evil is when tradition, or even a popular line of accepted thought, is equated with eternal, divine truth. That is the issue.

 

I just brought up tradition--and as I already stated, it wasn't even broached until hundreds of years after the formation of the church. And when it was, it was sporadically, until the 13th century. Need I remind you that many Orthodox, Anglicans, and other Christians do not hold that whatever truth the RCC enshrined in its councils past the Great Schism, was not necessarily held or ratified by all the other branches of Christiandom?

 

If you wish to invoke tradition, then please direct me to the Council decision up to Nicea 325 A.D., that addressed and forbade this? Any church law or codified bit of writing? Nicea was the point in which Christianity changed forever, when Constantine married the Lamb to the Sword, and made the cross the sign of the faith. I'm not inclined to give much consideration to the ever-increasing haughtiness of church scholars and teachers in the Church after that. But even so, even up the sixth century, there is not ONE mention of masturbation as a sin. Not one!

 

And yet, the Orthodox view is that Man did not inherit the sin of Adam, but the grace-less (less than full of grace) nature of not being fully unified with God. In his state, this cavity would inevitably be filled with things other than God, and he being in sin, would commit acts of sin. And some of those acts of sin are against Nature, which God created to be our biologically perfect home.

 

We have made imperfect that which God made perfect, in order to match our sin nature.

 

But that does not mean that everything in Nature, or that derives from nature, is disordered.

 

Just as everything that derives from our base instincts, our animal nature, is wrong or disordered. Mating is a prime example of that.

 

What is so "simple" though to you about the argument, is that it is entirely too simplistic for me. Just because it is normal, natural, and healthy to give of one's sexuality to another, it does not automatically follow that to feed oneself is the denial of another.

 

There are many people out there who are quite appreciative, and have received a great deal of pleasure, enrichment, and happiness, from their partners' acts of self-love!

 

Blue, you are too rational to really believe such an absolutist statement. Really? It fails always and everywhere? Just as I stated above, many people would feel quite deprived if their partners denied themselves self-love. For myself, I can only say it meant that when I married my dh, I knew myself, and what I liked, very well, and I could convey that to him. I wasn't ashamed of my reactions, or lacking confidence in my sexuality, even though I was a virgin. Had I gone to our marriage bed safely innocent from the knowledge of myself and my body, and he the same, it would not have been nearly so satisfactory, and pleasurable for both of us.

 

A lot of things don't meet that criterion! And as I said, if you believe masturbation is only and solely about one person, and nobody else, I actually feel kind of sad you think that. I have a lot of experiences that directly negate that, but this board is PG-13 rated, and I've already pushed the line. I don't plan to share more than that! ;)

 

And yet, in my marriage and my life, it has been pivotal in teaching me about my own sexuality, and understanding it, and it hasn't gotten anymore in the way of my union with God, than having actual sex with my husband has gotten in the way of it. Which is to say, not at all.

 

I'm not sure why you think it was unmentioned before the 13th century? That isn't true at all - there are all kinds of statements before that period about sexual activity and how it is to be used, or not used. Occasionally they specifically mention masturbation, but more often it is grouped in with sexual sin in general or particular kinds of results, and the explanations given easily apply to any sexual activity that meets that criteria.

 

I didn't suggest that all nature was disordered, but the argument that because people and animals do it, or that it has biological origins, is often given in these kinds of discussions, and it just isn't a great one from a Christian standpoint. Many sins are natural in that sense and have a biological origin - being short tempered comes to my mind immediately - that is not what the Church means at all when it talks about an activity being unnatural. That is also true, by the way, in the Orthodox Church - if anything I think they emphasize more than the modern Western Church that nature is compromised by the Fall as well as the human body and human soul and so not always a clear guide. This is particularly true on sexual issues - it is still quite common in Orthodoxy to find the view that sex itself is a kind of product of the Fall and that it would not exist in the way we understand it now in an unfallen, or fully restored, world.

 

You don't seem to be speaking of Tradition in the way that I meant or that the Church has meant, which is quite different than a tradition. Tradition in the sense of "Scripture, Tradition, Reason" is not just something some guy came up with, or even a group of guys. It is authoritative, even in the Reformation Protestant way of thinking where it is normed by Scripture. It is generally understood to be apostolic in a certain sense, and also the consensus of the mind of the Church. The ecumenical councils are one example of that, but it doesn't necessarily have to be something from an ecumenical council to qualify - there are other kinds of consensus.

 

If people want to say that as Christians, we should consider that we have an ongoing kind of revelation with really new realizations about old subjects, and that teaching on things like masturbation is one thing that should change, that's fine. Not necessarily useful for Catholics on a question of Catholic doctrine really though as their understanding of the Church does not allow for that kind of development.

 

But as far as history goes, it seems to me what you are doing is revisionism. We can look at the writings of the early Church up through modern times and have a pretty clear view of an internally consistent teaching on sexuality - one could make a good case that the earlier we go the more strict they were - the medievals did not invent their understanding of sexuality out of some particular prurience of the dark ages. A view, as it happens, that didn't even include contraception as a possibility until 1930! It is very hard to see how that view could allow for masturbation as an approved activity when contracepted sex was not allowed.

 

As far as people finding activities personally fulfilling in marriage - I don't think that is enough. Even from the perspective of personal experience, it isn't actually clear that someone who found it useful would have been worse off if they didn't do it. But I think more importantly, there are lots of examples of things that people feel have been healthy and positive in their lives that Christianity would say were actually an impediment to theosis. The wrong kind of focus on diet or exercise, for example, could easily fall into that category, and I'd say that was at about the same level as the sort of masturbation you are talking about (that is, not a huge deal but not really ideal.)

[Bluegoat]

And, no, I am quite clear on the matter.

 

So basically you have nothing based on solid scripture to say m*sturbation is wrong?

 

Why would anyone need that, I think is what she's trying to get at. Why do you think that is the only source of information, or at least authoritative information, for Christians?

[Lady Florida.]

That's ok. :001_smile:

 

I know. I figure it's not worth getting bent out of shape. :001_smile:

[I.Dup.]

I am honestly flummoxed by those who think this particular teaching from the perspective of any Church is somehow "from the traditions of men" or whatever. It is fits in logically with the understanding of human sexuality over-all, and that has been a pretty much continuous part of the Christian Tradition up until very recently.

 

It isn't even true that only the CC and the OC consider that tradition to be necessary to understand Christian teachings - Lutherans, Anglicans, and most of the other groups that came out of the Reformation also considered that it was essential. They also, until recently, would have all considered masturbation to be a no-no.

 

It's a pretty simple argument really - sexual activity is meant to be ordered towards both a self-giving relationship with others, and procreation. (That, btw, is what is meant by "natural", not whether it is biologically based or whether a lot of people do it. In the Christian worldview, Nature, as in the natural world, is disordered, and so not always a good guide to what is in fact natural.)

 

Masturbation fails on both accounts. It isn't self-giving to another but inwardly focused. It doesn't result in procreation. Is it some deadly activity that will ruin the lives of anyone who does it? No, probably not in most cases. It it better than running around on your spouse or fornicating wildly? It may be at times. But at best it is a less than perfect expression of human sexuality, and it has plenty of potential to undermine the correct understanding of sexuality and gets in the way of a perfect union with the Divine Life.

 

Well said.

 

You seem to be referring to something you may not be clear about yourself. :) The Bible doesn't give a single verse that says, "Thou shalt not commit abortion." (or "Thou shall not m*sturbate") and yet, we know from God's thoughts in Scriptures about babies having souls, about God forming them in the womb, etc. that abortion IS wrong to Him. Yet those who don't read the entire Bible like to say that it's unclear about a myriad of things.

 

It's less clear on this issue, but what God says about s*xuality and it's PURPOSES, both physical and spiritual, and about how marriage should be held in honor (by all people, married or not), gives a strong impression that maybe getting it on alone all the time before marriage and most definitely after is NOT God's best. His best for us is what we should always strive for. (1 Corinthians 7:5 says not to deprive one another except by mutual consent or for prayer--I'm not sure that mutual consent includes regular m*sturbation in isolation from one another. Who wants to agree NOT to make love to their spouse and could say that's God's intention for marriage?)

 

And I think this leaves room for the spouses with different s*x drives to still please one another--because the glory of s*x is about pleasing someone ELSE, possibly creating life *together*, and giving a physical representation of the mystical union between Christ and the Church, etc. There is room in this view for consenting spouses to just watch when they're not in the mood as this might please one or both and INCLUDES both! It could very well lead to more, which would be the greatest outcome, I think! S*x and being s*xual is not all about oneSELF, but this is the view, along with practices like regular m*sturbation (with or without porn, all by one's lonesome) is, IMO, creating a lot of selfish, uncreative, unsuccessful lovers. (Of course I do not mean *everyone*.)

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

 

 

:iagree: There have been Scriptures quoted which support the teaching. But there is not a Scripture passage that directly forbids self-brewing.

 

If you want to debate sola scriptura, that's a whole other thread.

 

:iagree:

[Murphy101]

Why did I not know what self-brewing means? :001_huh: I had to google it.

 

Don't feel too out of the loop.

 

I thought I was opening a thread about beer brewing, of which my dh is a hobbiest. :D