Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Brother Adam]

I agree, in an ideal world, 12 weeks of celibacy (or whatever the length of time is) is something that a husband should be able to endure for the love of his wife.

I still wonder about the example of a man who is permanently impotent. Out of love, the wife should be able to share in his celibacy. But, I have a hard time believing that it is sinful for a husband to satify his wife's sexual needs when the "normal mechanism" is not available--despite the teaching against mutual masturbation. BTW--Has the Catholic church taken a stand one way or the other on mechanical devices that allow an impotent man to achieve an erection?
[b]
Yes, that is called chastity, anything else is of satan and is destructive. No, it doesn't allow us to take part in hedonistic pleasures in other ways to fulfill the desires of the flesh, but it is an exercise in true love and true mercy. [/b]

I'm probably always going to disagree on issues like this, because I tend to choose "mercy" over "teachings." But, I find all the points of view expressed so far give me lots of food for thought. And, I know that if I choose "mercy" over "teachings" in some circumstances, that means I have to consider my motives very carefully, and be willing to accept that there are possible negative consequences.
[b]
Yes it does, because you are not being truly merciful if you are attempting to justify sin. Sexual gratification does not equal love. If the act of love is not completely self-giving, where an exchange of gifts takes place, it is not chaste and will leave one spouse giftless and used. What you are proposing is a loss of mercy and truth (not "teachings").[/b]

That's probably why I could never become a nun. I watched the "Nun's Story" again yesterday, and thought that Audrey Hepburn's question of why she should immediately answer the bells to go to prayer when she was in the middle of caring for a patient (and, although she didn't mention this) if she were in the operating theatre, was a fair question. I would always choose the human being who needed me over the bells, because "love thy neighbor" is also God's teaching, although it conflicts with the vow of obedience in this case. I would hope that a mother would always choose caring for her child who needed her, even if it meant missing Mass, for example.

[b]I haven't seen the movie but Jesus called the Pharisees out on their hypocrisy for not loving their neighbor and making up man made rules that God did not desire. If someone was in desperate need of medical attention, it would be a sin to leave them to go to Mass. That doesn't mean we make up excuses to neglect our duty to serve God and worship him. [/b]

The trouble I have with many of the "rules" is that by following them "to the letter" even if that means withholding love or care for another, we're assuming that we, as humans, can ever understand the true mind of God. I see the "teachings" or the "rules" as a guide, but even if we believe they are "divinely inspired," it seems to border on egotistical to think that any human being understands more than a tiny segment of what God knows. (We're never going to agree on the Papal infallabillity, so it seems pointless to discuss it. Plus, as I understand it, the teaching that the Pope can be infallible is relatively new (in church history terms) and has only been invoked once, on a subject that has nothing to do with mutual masturbation.
[b]
You have to differentiate between "rules" (discipline) and "doctrine". We can indeed know God because God revealed himself to us throughout salvation history, culminating in the life of His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God. He gave us the Deposit of Faith which is passed down through both the oral Word (Tradition) and the written Word (Scripture). To suggest that truth is ambiguous or is up to each of us to decide would be an insult to God. We can know that we are made in God's image and likeness because God revealed that we are made in his image and likeness. We can know that murder is wrong because God revealed to us that murder is wrong in the 10 commandments. We can know that Jesus gave us his flesh and blood as true food because God revealed it as such. We can know that those things declared as true by the Catholic Church are such because God has revealed that He has vested His own authority in the apostles and their successors. The Church exercises the charism of infallibility for our salvation - so we can know the truth that God has revealed without having to second guess ourselves or try to interpret scripture privately (which scripture forbids). Discipline in the church has to do with the right governance of the Church for the good of all. Moral doctrines are not rules any more than the 10 commandments are rules - they are infallible truth given to us for our salvation. If we violate that truth, we can break our friendship with God - when we reject the truth of God, we reject God.

The Holy Father can exercise infallibility by himself, but normally does so with his bishops through ordinary teachings and councils. He has spoken ex cathedra twice, regarding the assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary. Just because the Holy Father hasn't exercised his gift to speak infallibly on such a scale often, does not mean the Church has not spoken infallibly on many matters. Without the Church you would have no Bible - the Church gave you an infallible list of infallible books. Nor would you understand Jesus as fully human and fully divine. Nor would you grasp the Trinity as three persons in one God.[/b]

Please don't misunderstand me. If I disagree, or don't understand, it is not out of disrespect for the teachings of the Catholic church or the views of anyone on this forum. I don't claim that I understand the mind of God better than anyone else who posts here. But, I come out of a different tradition, so some views of the Catholic church aren't as obvious to me (although I suspect we would agree on many subjects).

[b]
That's why its so awesome that you are here and talking to us [/b]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='20 March 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1269121389' post='2076405']
I still wonder about the example of a man who is permanently impotent. Out of love, the wife should be able to share in his celibacy. But, I have a hard time believing that it is sinful for a husband to satify his wife's sexual needs when the "normal mechanism" is not available--despite the teaching against mutual masturbation.
[/quote]

Morality is worthless if we disregard it when a difficult situation comes along.

There is a moral theory called situational ethics which says that the loving thing is always the moral thing. In that most basic form, it is correct. However, its proponents started arguing that the "loving thing" could change based on the situation and circumstances. They even said that sometimes it would be the most loving thing for a woman to cheat on her husband. Needless to say, Pope John Paul II condemned it as heresy in Veritatis Splendor.

Love must be defined as Christ defined it. There is no love more important than our love for Him (truly, we must lay down our lives for Him, the greatest of our friends), and He said that love for Him is in following the commandments. Yes, the summary of the commandments is love, and in that situational ethics is correct, but we must also make sure that our definition of love is one that is in line with the Truth revealed by Christ.

Masturbation, for whatever reason or in whatever situation, is a violation of the gift of sexuality and of human nature. The act is never conducive to the intention of love the spouses may share. It would be like using a hammer where a screwdriver is needed. Masturbation can never accomplish or share in authentic love.

The rest of your post I can't address at this time because my wife and I will be getting ready to go out.

However, I would like to reply to your signature. I do hope you realize that no one here is throwing stones. We judge actions as Christ taught us to, but we ought not to judge persons. The assumption that this is an abstract discussion may lead some of us to speak coldly in a purely academic tone. If this thread is the cause of your signature, please keep this in mind.

God bless,

Micah

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Raphael' date='20 March 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1269123292' post='2076425']

However, I would like to reply to your signature. I do hope you realize that no one here is throwing stones. We judge actions as Christ taught us to, but we ought not to judge persons. The assumption that this is an abstract discussion may lead some of us to speak coldly in a purely academic tone. If this thread is the cause of your signature, please keep this in mind.

God bless,

Micah
[/quote]


In the future, I will have to keep in mind that this is an abstract discussion, that may seem coldly academic at times. I very much appreciate that clarification, as well as the one that the discussion is about judging actions, rather than judging persons. At times, it has felt like stones were being thrown.

But, I do understand the difference between an academic discussion/debate and a personal one. Academic discussions with intelligent people almost always provide food for thought, and if held in the right spirit, can be fun.

As I've gotten older, I've grown more wary of "rules," but certainly not of "standards." Another thing that has happened as I've gotten older is I've grown more humble. I've made so many mistakes myself, that I'm more forgiving of those who honestly try, but fall short, because I have fallen short so many times. That doesn't mean I have lowered my standards, but I have become less likely to "judge" others, because, as the saying goes, "I haven't walked a mile in their shoes." And, I admit, I overreact sometimes when I don't need to, because the world has not been very kind to me of late, and I no longer have the ability to withstand "stones" that I once had. I will try not to take disagreements personally, but if/when I do, please forgive me.

[Nihil Obstat]

Sometimes on Phatmass the tendency is to slip into "academic mode". We assume that it's mutually understood, but sometimes it's not, and that's caused hurt feelings before. I'm pretty sure we've all done it if we've been here for longer than a couple months.

Make sure to take breaks from the serious parts of the phorum by dropping into the Lame Board and laming it up with us.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Thanks!

I expect that as I "get to know" Phatmass better, I'll know more what to expect from the various forums in terms of "tone."

I HAVE wandered into the "Lame" Board, found some fun threads there, and added my "deep wisdom." LOL

Thanks again!

[Innocent]

Hi, again! Glad to see you're settling in here, so to speak.

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='21 March 2010 - 04:13 AM' timestamp='1269121389' post='2076405']
That's probably why I could never become a nun. I watched the "Nun's Story" again yesterday, and thought that Audrey Hepburn's question of why she should immediately answer the bells to go to prayer when she was in the middle of caring for a patient (and, although she didn't mention this) if she were in the operating theatre, was a fair question. I would always choose the human being who needed me over the bells, because "love thy neighbor" is also God's teaching, although it conflicts with the vow of obedience in this case. I would hope that a mother would always choose caring for her child who needed her, even if it meant missing Mass, for example.

The trouble I have with many of the "rules" is that by following them "to the letter" even if that means withholding love or care for another, we're assuming that we, as humans, can ever understand the true mind of God.
[/quote]

I think that here you would find the Tradition of the Church closer to your position than you might have imagined.

[quote]
From this teaching it follows that one's temperament or moral predisposition will be a weighty factor in determining one's vocation or state of life; then the duties of one's state of life are the framework within which one works out ones sanctification and salvation. This, Fray Louis advises the married woman that she "should look first to the care of the home, provision for her family, satisfaction of her husband, and that pertains to the duties of a wife and mother. Only after she has fulfilled the obligations of a wife and mother can she give herself to devotions and pious exercises, for her first duty is to fulfill the obligations of her state in life".[/quote] Source: [url="http://www.domcentral.org/study/aumann/granada.htm"]Fr. Jordan Aumann, O.P.[/url]

Anyway, I daresay that no order of nuns with the charism of tending to the sick would demand that a Sister drop everthing and rush to prayer if she is assisting at the operation theatre. (They would however, probably schedule the Sisters' shifts at the Operation Theatre such that they don't conflict with prayer times. )

Given the screen-name you chose, you'd probably be interested in knowing that St. Ignatius of Loyola asked for and received from the Pope a dispensation for his priests from reciting the Divine Office in choir together as a community for very similar reasons.

[quote]The full recitation daily, of the whole Divine Office, is not short. In fact, this was one reason why Saint Ignatius when he was establishing the Society of Jesus obtained from the Holy See what was then an unheard of concession: dispensation from the choral recitation and singing of the Divine Office.

Lest there be any misunderstanding on this critical point, we can profitably quote from the Spiritual Exercises of Saint Ignatius where he sets down certain Rules for thinking with the Church. Remember he was writing during the period of the Reformation when hundreds of monasteries and convents were swept out of existence and when the recitation in choir of the Divine Office was being ridiculed and abandoned across the whole of Europe.

Writes Ignatius: "In order to have the proper attitude of mind in the Church Militant we should ...praise the frequent hearing of Mass, singing of hymns and psalms, and the recitation of long prayers, both in and out of church; also the hours arranged for fixed times for the whole Divine Office, for prayers of all kinds and for the canonical hours."

When, reluctantly, he asked the Holy Father for a dispensation for his order from the choral recitation of the canonical hours it was not because he did not cherish and deeply respect the community saying and singing of the Divine Office. It was only because for his priests, actively engaged in their far-flung and time consuming apostolates, he thought they should be allowed to recite the office privately.

But for religious communities in general, and with emphasis for those whose main apostolate is to offer prayer and sacrifice, he praised (and I praise) the sacrifice of duration offered to God. Notice that duration is not only time, but much time, a long time – spent in Liturgy of the Hours because we consider this kind of duration not too expensive to pay to the loving God.
[/quote] SOURCE: [url="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Prayer/Prayer_007.htm"]Fr. John. A. Hardon, S.J.[/url]

By the way, may I recommend another great film about nuns? (The interesting thing is that the directior of this film called himself a "Christian atheist".) The director is Robert Bresson and the name of the film is [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035636/"][i]Les anges du péché[/i][/url]. (It's in French. If you are (as I am) ignorant of the French language, I think you could easily get a [url="http://www.cinematical.com/2007/07/17/robert-bressons-first-film-released-on-dvd/"]DVD[/url] with English subtitles.)

Edited March 21, 2010 by Innocent

[Slappo]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='20 March 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1269121389' post='2076405']
Innocent---Thank-you for the welcome. That meant a lot!

I understand your points. I think I make a concession for the sex drive because it is one that most people share, and the reason for its existence is the continuance of the human race--a positive thing.

I agree, in an ideal world, 12 weeks of celibacy (or whatever the length of time is) is something that a husband should be able to endure for the love of his wife.

I still wonder about the example of a man who is permanently impotent. Out of love, the wife should be able to share in his celibacy. But, I have a hard time believing that it is sinful for a husband to satify his wife's sexual needs when the "normal mechanism" is not available--despite the teaching against mutual masturbation. BTW--Has the Catholic church taken a stand one way or the other on mechanical devices that allow an impotent man to achieve an erection?

I'm probably always going to disagree on issues like this, because I tend to choose "mercy" over "teachings." But, I find all the points of view expressed so far give me lots of food for thought. And, I know that if I choose "mercy" over "teachings" in some circumstances, that means I have to consider my motives very carefully, and be willing to accept that there are possible negative consequences.

That's probably why I could never become a nun. I watched the "Nun's Story" again yesterday, and thought that Audrey Hepburn's question of why she should immediately answer the bells to go to prayer when she was in the middle of caring for a patient (and, although she didn't mention this) if she were in the operating theatre, was a fair question. I would always choose the human being who needed me over the bells, because "love thy neighbor" is also God's teaching, although it conflicts with the vow of obedience in this case. I would hope that a mother would always choose caring for her child who needed her, even if it meant missing Mass, for example.

The trouble I have with many of the "rules" is that by following them "to the letter" even if that means withholding love or care for another, we're assuming that we, as humans, can ever understand the true mind of God. I see the "teachings" or the "rules" as a guide, but even if we believe they are "divinely inspired," it seems to border on egotistical to think that any human being understands more than a tiny segment of what God knows. (We're never going to agree on the Papal infallabillity, so it seems pointless to discuss it. Plus, as I understand it, the teaching that the Pope can be infallible is relatively new (in church history terms) and has only been invoked once, on a subject that has nothing to do with mutual masturbation.

Please don't misunderstand me. If I disagree, or don't understand, it is not out of disrespect for the teachings of the Catholic church or the views of anyone on this forum. I don't claim that I understand the mind of God better than anyone else who posts here. But, I come out of a different tradition, so some views of the Catholic church aren't as obvious to me (although I suspect we would agree on many subjects).
[/quote]



I really have to sympathize with your desire for what you seem to think is mercy. Often times the "letter of the law" is very very difficult to follow in real life situations but extremely easy to throw out in intellectual situations. This is why being a pastor can be so difficult. They have to enforce the letter of the law, which in Catholicism has very many dispensations to allow for what is most charitable* (see bottom note), but at the same time they have to meet the needs of the people.

The hard thing to understand is really knowing what is most charitable. Is it really more loving to make your husband/wife reach climax because vaginal intercourse is unavailable? The answer, although it may be hard to see, is no it isn't more loving. Think of it in this situation: Your husband wants big fat juicy hamburger but his doctor has told him that to eat such a thing is extremely bad for his health and in his current situation could cause permanent damage. Is it more loving to cook him up that hamburger, or to suffer with him by both of you eating a salad when you really wanted a hamburger and could eat one? To cook him up the hamburger and give him the immediate pleasure could cause him to die, whereas to abstain from the hamburger until he has reached a point where he can eat it and remain healthy would let him live and eat the ocassional hamburger for many years to come.

Even with the impotent man, who could never eat a hamburger again, it would still be more loving to never cook him a hamburger and never eat one yourself so as not to let him see your own pleasure and desire a hamburger all the more.



Replace hamburger with sex and you'll see my point.


*Catholicism has all sorts of "supplements to the rules". For instance, there is a 1 hour required fast before receiving the Eucharist. This fast does not hold to those who need to eat for medical reasons (diabetes etc), the elderly, or those who are caring for the elderly. The obligation to attend Sunday mass is dispensed when one is sick, when one is in an area where it may endanger their life to attend, etc.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Slappo' date='20 March 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1269143017' post='2076703']
I really have to sympathize with your desire for what you seem to think is mercy. Often times the "letter of the law" is very very difficult to follow in real life situations but extremely easy to throw out in intellectual situations. This is why being a pastor can be so difficult. They have to enforce the letter of the law, which in Catholicism has very many dispensations to allow for what is most charitable* (see bottom note), but at the same time they have to meet the needs of the people.

The hard thing to understand is really knowing what is most charitable. Is it really more loving to make your husband/wife reach climax because vaginal intercourse is unavailable? The answer, although it may be hard to see, is no it isn't more loving. Think of it in this situation: Your husband wants big fat juicy hamburger but his doctor has told him that to eat such a thing is extremely bad for his health and in his current situation could cause permanent damage. Is it more loving to cook him up that hamburger, or to suffer with him by both of you eating a salad when you really wanted a hamburger and could eat one? To cook him up the hamburger and give him the immediate pleasure could cause him to die, whereas to abstain from the hamburger until he has reached a point where he can eat it and remain healthy would let him live and eat the ocassional hamburger for many years to come.

Even with the impotent man, who could never eat a hamburger again, it would still be more loving to never cook him a hamburger and never eat one yourself so as not to let him see your own pleasure and desire a hamburger all the more.



Replace hamburger with sex and you'll see my point.


*Catholicism has all sorts of "supplements to the rules". For instance, there is a 1 hour required fast before receiving the Eucharist. This fast does not hold to those who need to eat for medical reasons (diabetes etc), the elderly, or those who are caring for the elderly. The obligation to attend Sunday mass is dispensed when one is sick, when one is in an area where it may endanger their life to attend, etc.
[/quote]
I prefer cheeseburgers.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 March 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1269187305' post='2076929']
I prefer cheeseburgers.
[/quote]

Well of course.


I'm saying if you have to resort to something less than cheeseburgers.



Really what is more romantic than going to McDonald's with your wife and ordering a bunch of cheeseburgers?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Slappo' date='21 March 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1269195963' post='2076976']
Well of course.


I'm saying if you have to resort to something less than cheeseburgers.



Really what is more romantic than going to McDonald's with your wife and ordering a bunch of cheeseburgers?
[/quote]
Going to A&W and ordering their cheeseburgers.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 March 2010 - 06:31 PM' timestamp='1269196281' post='2076977']
Going to A&W and ordering their cheeseburgers.
[/quote]
I was going to say going to Steak & Shake and ordering cheeseburgers.

[Slappo]

You say A&W I say Mcdonalds
You say potato I say potato


PS: it is hard to use the potato potato thing when you are typing.... because they are spelled the same way.. croutons

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='21 March 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1269196408' post='2076979']
I was going to say going to Steak & Shake and ordering cheeseburgers. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Steak and Shake? I have to respectfully disagree, and choose Burger King. Or, ideally, a nice, thick hamburger, perfectly cooked at home over an open grill, and shared with friends.

I am not a huge cheeseburger fan, but for those of you who love cheeseburgers, remember that many Catholics only give up meat during Lent (with perhaps the exception of fish on Fridays or maybe Sundays) or in some cases, at other times. However, if you were an Orthodox Jew, you would never be allowed to eat a cheeseburger--true penance!

As for vegetarians, that is a choice I understand--but that I would have great difficulty keeping all the time. I rarely crave meat, EXCEPT for a great hamburger once in awhile.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' date='21 March 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1269196408' post='2076979']
I was going to say going to Steak & Shake and ordering cheeseburgers.
[/quote]
No Steak & Shake in Canada.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 March 2010 - 07:48 PM' timestamp='1269200929' post='2077013']
No Steak & Shake in Canada.
[/quote]
I don't think there are any here, either. That and Taco Bell are pretty much the only fast foods I like, but neither of them are here. Well, actually there is a Taco Bell on a military base, but random people can't just go up to that and order a crunchwrap.