Masturbation and sin

[ponderingturtle]

Catholic radio and TV shows? Here's an official looking link though.

http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

Catholics are against fertility treatments for the same reasons they are against birth control and premarital sex. They believe in sex only in the context of marriage and reproduction. Any interference with this process is forbidden. No sex without reproduction, no reproduction without sex.

But certain natural actions can be done to minimize the chances of pregnancy, hence their Natural Family Planing ideas. I was never able to get a straight answer as to why the intent to reduce the odds of pregnancy through natural control of hormones is good but through adding hormones is bad when I argued with Huntster about it.

 

[David Swidler]

Quite simple, really!

In an effort to relieve the mind-numbing boredom of sitting around on clouds, singing God's praises for all eternity, sperm racing has long been all the rage in Heaven.

Plus, it gives those angels who are small enough to dance on the head of a pin something to do - someone has to put the numbers on all those sperm, otherwise the off-track betting would be chaotic.

Don't ask me about the jockeys, though. Some things are better left a mystery.

You missed the part about egging them on.

 

[ChristineR]

But certain natural actions can be done to minimize the chances of pregnancy, hence their Natural Family Planing ideas. I was never able to get a straight answer as to why the intent to reduce the odds of pregnancy through natural control of hormones is good but through adding hormones is bad when I argued with Huntster about it.

I can answer that. Because the Pope says so.

When birth control pills first came out a lot of scholarly Catholics said that they were allowed for just your reasons, but then the Pope came out and said that they aren't allowed. End of discussion.

On the other hand, a woman with abnormal periods who wants to become pregnant can take hormones, not only to regulate her periods but even to induce "superovulation" where many ova are allowed to fully ripen in one menstrual cycle.

 

[ChristineR]

Double post

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Mrs. RB had a hysterectomy about 8 years ago. "Aunt Flo" doesn't come to visit anymore. We've been pretty steadily going at it every 2 or 3 days after the healing was done. Yes, I'm a very lucky man. Anyway, there is now a zero chance of a pregnancy. Does this Pope guy think we should be abstinent? We seem to have the ideal situation for maximizing our monogamous amorous relationship. I don't see how it can be considered a sin.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Mrs. RB had a hysterectomy about 8 years ago. "Aunt Flo" doesn't come to visit anymore. We've been pretty steadily going at it every 2 or 3 days after the healing was done. Yes, I'm a very lucky man. Anyway, there is now a zero chance of a pregnancy. Does this Pope guy think we should be abstinent? We seem to have the ideal situation for maximizing our monogamous amorous relationship. I don't see how it can be considered a sin.

Oddly no. There is no one here that is agrueing that the catholic church presents a self consistent view of sexual morality.

It is also not a sin for people who know they are infertile to have sex, as long as they did not choose to be infertile.

Of course this is limited to between married individuals and such.

 

[ChristineR]

I once got into a very odd discussion with a Fundy. What happens if a woman has normal ovaries and normal ova, and has no barriers to fertilization, but for some reason the fertilized egg cannot implant? She knows this and has unprotected sex.

Is this akin to abortion? Does she not have a moral obligation to use birth control, or to have medical treatments which will make it possible for the zygotes to continue to term?

This is a very real question. Not only is it very common for eggs simply not to implant, there are some women who experience this scenario every month.

The answer was that this is morally acceptable because the pregnancy terminates "naturally." Which is absurd, if you ask me. Getting a medical intervention is not "unnatural," nor is getting an IUD which creates the very scenario I outlined. You could even argue that sleeping indoors is "unnatural" therefore abusing your body would be an acceptable method of inducing abortion.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Oddly no. There is no one here that is agrueing that the catholic church presents a self consistent view of sexual morality.

It is also not a sin for people who know they are infertile to have sex, as long as they did not choose to be infertile.

Of course this is limited to between married individuals and such.

So, if she had chosen to have a hysterectomy to intentionally become infertile it would be a sin to have sex. If she had a hysterectomy for a different medical reason, sex is not a sin. It's interesting when the sin occurs and why.

As part of her procedure, her doctor gave us the option of reconstructing part of her vagina to increase our mutual enjoyment. She had that done as well and after the procedure, he came out to tell me it went fine. He actually grinned at me and said, "You are going to like this." I wonder what his holiness thinks of that?

 

[ponderingturtle]

So, if she had chosen to have a hysterectomy to intentionally become infertile it would be a sin to have sex. If she had a hysterectomy for a different medical reason, sex is not a sin. It's interesting when the sin occurs and why.

Well a hysterectomy would be a unusual method of birth control, I can only remember it being used in forced or unwanted sterilizations. Having her tubes tied would be right out though.

As for the details, no one here is actualy advocating the catholic church's postion.

As part of her procedure, her doctor gave us the option of reconstructing part of her vagina to increase our mutual enjoyment. She had that done as well and after the procedure, he came out to tell me it went fine. He actually grinned at me and said, "You are going to like this." I wonder what his holiness thinks of that?

I think it is a good thing.

 

[slingblade]

Getting a medical intervention is not "unnatural," nor is getting an IUD which creates the very scenario I outlined.

I'm not going to argue about the "medical intervention" part, but asking a doctor to shove a piece of plastic into my uterus definitely goes on my list of "unnatural."

You could even argue that sleeping indoors is "unnatural" therefore abusing your body would be an acceptable method of inducing abortion.

Sleeping outside causes abortion?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I think it is a good thing.

I see what you did there. Nice.

 

[ChristineR]

I'm not going to argue about the "medical intervention" part, but asking a doctor to shove a piece of plastic into my uterus definitely goes on my list of "unnatural."





Sleeping outside causes abortion?

Nah, abusing your body causes abortion. It wasn't a very good example. I thought of a better one. Leaving a newborn outside will cause a very natural death, but it's still not morally right. Or you could starve yourself in hopes that you will miscarry. That's a little more natural than an IUD, I guess. (I'm not sure if you would consider that one natural or not, but it seems like the pill would be a better idea.)

As for the IUD, it's about as natural as antibiotics or eyeglasses or an artificial hip. There was a time in human history when all of these were criticized as being against the will of God. Almost nobody uses that argument anymore. We just accept these things as being safe, effective and desirable.

I reject the whole idea that it is morally right to permit a bad thing to happen if the bad thing happens "naturally." There is no clear distinction between natural and unnatural here. If someone refuses to wear glasses and runs over a baby we criticize him for not taking reasonable precautions. If a day-old embryo is really the equivalent of a full term fetus we should criticize women who do not take reasonable precautions to prevent natural miscarriage.

Our whole idea of what is and isn't an "act of God" has been changing since human history began. We accept all sorts of interventions in our lives that our ancestors never dreamed of. I believe we should all take responsibility for all our choices and that the choice to allow something to happen by doing nothing is as important as the choice to cause something to happen by doing something.

This is just my opinion--I can't expect other people to agree.

 

[Bikewer]

I must admit that it was the Catholic idea of masturbation as sin that turned my path to atheism, way back around 1963 or so....

I had discovered this pleasant pastime all on my own, and was quite ignorant of it's widespread practice. Our junior class (Catholic high school) was the recipient of the very first "sex ed" classes at this particular institution.
(segregated into male and female, of course!)
The nice priest explained that it was possible to achieve orgasm all by oneself, and that this was called "masturbation". He went on to explain that it was a mortal sin....

This led to my inevitable downfall as I began to read (gasp!) Playboy magazine and discovered the true extent of Catholic silliness regarding human sexuality.

Still don't quite understand the mortal sin bit, though....

 

[Sentzeu]

Came in late into this debate, I hope it hasn't gone too much of track, eh?

To provide information about what churches believes what in this regard, its safe to say that there aren't any unified viewpoint on it. Since most christian churches uses the bible as the standard of their beliefs (though a few sects might use other, i.e Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses), and the bible lacks any real reference to subject, then there isn't any widespread viewpoint on this. The catholic church still, as far as I know, hold this to be a mortal sin. They don't however, get this from the old testament situation with Onan. You would be hard pressed to find one of their theologists, saying that Onan's sin was masturbation.

Yet another argument against intelligent design:

Why does it take so many millions of sperm cells to fertilize one egg? If God values each sperm cell (and potential child!!!) so much, doesn't this way of doing things seem hopelessly wasteful?

Just to be fair and correct, though I'm not supporting ID here, that wouldn't really be an argument against ID. The only thing you can argue for here, is that there exist an inconsistensy between creationism and the sexual views of certain churches. I.e you can't have both.

Anyway, I think the ultimate rationale is that the Church (and many, if not most, other organized religions) is just opposed to anything that feels good, and masturbation tops that list.

It isn't against wine, food (except a few odd stuff) and a day off every week. Seemed to work well in the good old days.

There's some bit in the Old Testament somewhere where some guy is commanded by God to impregnate some woman, but at the last minute he "spills his seed on the ground," and is struck down by God.

He did it several times, no?

'But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.'

Trusting that people are equally dumb, both then and today, I doubt that this story is completely without meaning. Any writer who sat down and worked out this string of words, were hardly hitting a keyboard at random, or flinging a quill at random. With a little knowledge on the ancient near east, somethings looks clearer, I think.

Well, Er is struck down by God since he was 'wicked', so who does Tamar have to turn to for survival? Social services? Welfare? She needs a son to carry on her familly inheritance and insure her survival, remember its was some gritty old times.

In steps Onan, on God's command; Impregnate her and make sure she bares a son so the familly can go on, etc. However if she dies without a son, it would be Onan who would get the inheritance. According to the book he keeps his seed from her, so without seed, no baby boy, which means no inheritance to said baby boy; end of the line for Tamar. So Big Boss snipes Onan and makes other arrangements for Tamar...

What do you guys think?

A little story reflecting the social issues of times, coupled together with a nasty warning. It ends up later in Deuteronomy, a typical law of .the ancient near east to protect social integrity.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6

'If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 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.'

The Old Testament is full of lusty old goats. And Onan was specifically NOT a lusty old goat. And he suffered for it.

And... men today aren't lusty old goats? Some are greedy too... ^,..,^

EHr, right. That was sort of the subject of the debate: How much and why do the churchies think it is a sin?

Yeah that's just it, painting a picture of this isn't easy. I sure don't have access to any demographics or statistics on this issue. Like I said in the beginning of my post, there's nothing in the bible for the churches to draw a clear image out of, so instead they have to draw from other sources (if they choose to take a statement on this at all). The catholics draw from an odd source they call 'natural law'.

Anyone got any links to some solid statistics?

I must admit that it was the Catholic idea of masturbation as sin that turned my path to atheism, way back around 1963 or so....

I had discovered this pleasant pastime all on my own, and was quite ignorant of it's widespread practice. Our junior class (Catholic high school) was the recipient of the very first "sex ed" classes at this particular institution.
(segregated into male and female, of course!)
The nice priest explained that it was possible to achieve orgasm all by oneself, and that this was called "masturbation". He went on to explain that it was a mortal sin....

...

So... you became an atheist, not because you rationally examined the claims of the church, but because you couldn't jerk off? XD

Still don't quite understand the mortal sin bit, though....

Mortal sin, is basically any sin that puts you in danger of losing your salvation. Seeing as you stopped believing and according christianity lost your grace, then oddly enough you have confirmed the label. *chuckle*

 

[Bikewer]

My youthful experimentations merely set me on the road to more intellectual examinations of Catholic silliness.

It strikes me as odd that one might suffer eternal damnation for wanking or genocide...
Seems the church fathers could have come up with some sort of "degree" idea; as we have in criminal law.
"Hmmm....Wanking in the First Degree, eh? Off to perdition with you??

 

[ponderingturtle]

My youthful experimentations merely set me on the road to more intellectual examinations of Catholic silliness.

It strikes me as odd that one might suffer eternal damnation for wanking or genocide...
Seems the church fathers could have come up with some sort of "degree" idea; as we have in criminal law.
"Hmmm....Wanking in the First Degree, eh? Off to perdition with you??

Damn you, Now I need to come up with classifications for first, second and third degree wanking.

Hmm the lists would probably need to be different for men and women...

 

[JC Fla]

All I know is that my time spent with the Church of the Immaculate Contraption is that everything fun is a sin somehow...which might explain our parting of the ways...

 

[ChristineR]

What texts other than the Bible do the Jehovah's Witnesses follow? So far I as can tell they are as literalist as any Christian group ever gets.

 

[Sentzeu]

What texts other than the Bible do the Jehovah's Witnesses follow? So far I as can tell they are as literalist as any Christian group ever gets.

The word 'literalist' doesn't make much sense here, other than maybe taking everything literaly, parables, symbology, e.t.c... Any reading of any text (even internet posts ^^) is an interpretation, though one could probably discuss which interpretation is more valid.

I didn't nescessarily mean textual sources here, though the JW officially regard the bible as 'the inspired word of God' they do this about their own translation from the greek. This translation has it share of odds and ends which makes it theologically biased towards their own viewpoint, instead of representing the texts that have been recovered through textual criticism.

 

[ChristineR]

The word 'literalist' doesn't make much sense here, other than maybe taking everything literaly, parables, symbology, e.t.c... Any reading of any text (even internet posts ^^) is an interpretation, though one could probably discuss which interpretation is more valid.

I didn't nescessarily mean textual sources here, though the JW officially regard the bible as 'the inspired word of God' they do this about their own translation from the greek. This translation has it share of odds and ends which makes it theologically biased towards their own viewpoint, instead of representing the texts that have been recovered through textual criticism.

There are any number of textual problems in the Greek, which mainly go back to the fact the authors and editors didn't agree with one another. So far as I can tell the JW take on topics like the nature of the afterlife and the divinity of Jesus is just as defensible from the texts. They just choose to be literal about the texts that say "A" and interpretive about the texts that say "not A" where as mainstream protestants do the opposite.