Masturbation Always A Mortal Sin?

[Veritas]

+

There is a lot of misinformation above. Masturbation is ALWAYS, objectively, a mortal sin. One's culpability may be lessened (as with any sin) due to one's knowledge, free-will, etc.

However, masturbating even for any so-called medical reasons, is NOT acceptable. This is a black and white issue.

[Veritas]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1622006' date='Aug 8 2008, 06:53 PM']You're correct. My point earlier was that if there were no other way of collecting sperm, masturbation for medical reasons, while still immoral, might be seen as the lesser of two evils. Since there is another way that I didn't know about at the time of my initial posting, I have revised my position.

Thanks! [/quote]

+

I don't think this is a case of "lesser of two evils". An objective mortal sin, is an objective mortal sin. For example, an abortion whether performed surgically or chemically is not more acceptable in one way than the other -both are horrible and not permissible. I worry when the "lesser of two evils" phrase is used that it attempts to express a false notion of acceptability.

[Veritas]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1621291' date='Aug 8 2008, 10:32 AM']If a man is having to produce a sample for a doctor, then obviously that isn't a mortal sin. If you are dealing with a youngster who doesn't know any differently, or a person that doesn't have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing, then again I couldn't see that as a mortal sin.[/quote]

+

I am afraid you are mistaken Both of these cases are mortal sins. Again, one's personal culpability may be lessened and that is what is meant by "equitable judgement".

In reference to the original post, there is no doubt. That it always and everywhere wrong is the constant teaching of the Church. God Bless.

[lilac_angel]

In certain circumstances, the Catechism states that culpability can be "reduced to a minimum." That certainly sounds a lot more like venial sin than mortal. Of course, that would require [b]very[/b] special circumstances, in my opinion. The Catechism isn't specific that it's always mortal in every single case no matter what the circumstance.

[prose]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622282' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:27 PM']+

There is a lot of misinformation above. Masturbation is ALWAYS, objectively, a mortal sin. One's culpability may be lessened (as with any sin) due to one's knowledge, free-will, etc.

However, masturbating even for any so-called medical reasons, is NOT acceptable. This is a black and white issue.[/quote]

That is what I thought too.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622284' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:31 AM']+

I don't think this is a case of "lesser of two evils". An objective mortal sin, is an objective mortal sin. For example, an abortion whether performed surgically or chemically is not more acceptable in one way than the other -both are horrible and not permissible. I worry when the "lesser of two evils" phrase is used that it attempts to express a false notion of acceptability. [/quote]


[quote name='Veritas' post='1622288' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:34 AM'][b]Again, one's personal culpability may be lessened and that is what is meant by "equitable judgement".[/b][/quote]

Ok. I see that I wasn't using the proper language. I had said that masturbation under any circumstances was "still immoral", but that it was the "lesser of two evils". You are right to say that this phrase connotes acceptability. That was not my intent, and I was certainly struggling to put the right phrase on it (for one, what is the other of the "two evils"? I don't see another evil ... )

What I had meant to imply was that a situation such as this (medical/legal) would limit the culpability for what I agree is an objectively immoral action. I just didn't quite know how to say it.

[Veritas]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1622299' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:55 PM']Ok. I see that I wasn't using the proper language. I had said that masturbation under any circumstances was "still immoral", but that it was the "lesser of two evils". You are right to say that this phrase connotes acceptability. That was not my intent, and I was certainly struggling to put the right phrase on it (for one, what is the other of the "two evils"? I don't see another evil ... )

What I had meant to imply was that a situation such as this (medical/legal) would limit the culpability for what I agree is an objectively immoral action. I just didn't quite know how to say it.[/quote]

+

Thanks for responding.

However, medical/legal reasons don't fall into the criteria for lessing culpability as these things are not by their nature forms of ignorance e.g. or addiction. I think we need to be careful here of attributing reasons that are categorically different -i. the attempt to make this acceptable when ii. what the lessening of culpability is, is a realization of a loss of free will or ignorance. Neither "medical" nor "legal" requests constitute this.

Now, severe and undue pressure exerted upon a sick or accused person struggling with mental clarity and under fear, delusion, delirium etc. may affect their ability to respond correctly to this immoral request and that is where the lessening of culpability comes from -these kinds of pressures and circumstances. NONETHELESS, the expectation is the refusal and the person has indeed done something wrong. There will be temporal and eternal consequences. The extent, because only he know the extent of the pressures and our culpability, is known only to God. It is ALWAYS better for us to refuse the objectively immoral and that is why it is important for us to believe and know this firmly when we are well, in order to resist temptation when we are weekend by the "human condition".

pax!

Edited August 9, 2008 by Veritas

[Veritas]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1622290' date='Aug 8 2008, 11:37 PM']In certain circumstances, the Catechism states that culpability can be "reduced to a minimum." That certainly sounds a lot more like venial sin than mortal. Of course, that would require [b]very[/b] special circumstances, in my opinion. The Catechism isn't specific that it's always mortal in every single case no matter what the circumstance.[/quote]

+

Good clarification:

Objectively speaking, it is always a moral sin. A lessening of culpability due to one's ignorance (never taught masturbation was a sin or taught incorrectly by a person in authority) or loss of freedom (e.g. dementia) etc. can reduce this to a venial sin. The Catechism indeed teaches that moral sins may apply as venial because of these circumstances. But, objectively, it is grave and mortal.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622305' date='Aug 9 2008, 01:09 AM']+

Thanks for responding. [/quote]

You're welcome.

[quote]ii. what the lessening of culpability is, is a realization of a loss of free will or ignorance. Neither "medical" nor "legal" requests constitute this.[/quote]

My point was that when [b]no other options existed[/b] to obtain a sperm sample, this would constitute a "loss of free will", when a sperm sample is requested by medical or legal authorities. Note that this was before I found that other, more acceptable options existed, such as the [b]perforated[/b] condom in marital intercourse, or syringe extraction. The presence of these other options makes this debate meaningless, based on the condition that "no other options exist" mentioned before.

Though I have to admit that the idea of syringe extraction does sound a little scary ...

[Veritas]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1622311' date='Aug 9 2008, 12:22 AM']You're welcome.
My point was that when [b]no other options existed[/b] to obtain a sperm sample, this would constitute a "loss of free will", when a sperm sample is requested by medical or legal authorities. Note that this was before I found that other, more acceptable options existed, such as the [b]perforated[/b] condom in marital intercourse, or syringe extraction. The presence of these other options makes this debate meaningless, based on the condition that "no other options exist" mentioned before.

Though I have to admit that the idea of syringe extraction does sound a little scary ...[/quote]

+

Hmm... your argument that no other options leads to the loss of free will is an interesting one. Perhaps we need to define "request". What kind of pressures and consequences for refusal are we talking about here? Certainly, it seems to me that the right thing to do here is to refuse in any and all circumstances to knowingly commit a sin -regardless of the consequences.

Note, the cohersive circumstance above is different than one in which other options simply "don't exist". However, sin is not justified in these cases either as -the ends don't justify the means.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622324' date='Aug 9 2008, 01:35 AM']Certainly, it seems to me that the right thing to do here is to refuse in any and all circumstances to knowingly commit a sin -regardless of the consequences.

Note, the cohersive circumstance above is different than one in which other options simply "don't exist". However, sin is not justified in these cases either as -the ends don't justify the means.[/quote]

Agreed. I was just writing a reply where I noted that I hadn't considered the other option -- refusing to comply with the request. No authority, especially legal, has the right to force us to perform an action that is contrary to our faith. For some reason, my thinking was that compliance with the request was the only option, and that it was the task of the "accused" to find the most moral way to facilitate that request. It's late, and my mind is getting tired.

Ultimately, I bow before Mother Church. Please do not mistake my questioning for disobedience; I am merely seeking Truth, and trying to learn.

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622324' date='Aug 9 2008, 01:35 AM']Hmm... your argument that no other options leads to the loss of free will is an interesting one. Perhaps we need to define "request". What kind of pressures and consequences for refusal are we talking about here?[/quote]

Ok. So long as we're philosophizing, let's try a scenario. I'll actually remove "coercion" from the picture, and place the choice squarely in the corner of the accused:

In this scenario, the accused has already been convicted, unjustly. He faces the death penalty for the rape and murder of a little girl. DNA evidence was contaminated by the scene, but the bloodtype of the perpetrator was able to be determined from the semen found. This seminal bloodtype matched the hemal bloodtype of the accused. But, as CatherineM noted in an earlier post, seminal and hemal bloodtypes may be different for a particular man. The accused was convicted on this bloodtype evidence. Therefore, a semen sample is the only way to prove his innocence, and (for the sake of argument) the semen cannot be obtained by any other means. In this situation, there is no active "coercion" by authorities, but a clear consequence exists. Thus, it is the choice of the accused to volunteer a semen sample to prove his innocence in order to avoid the death penalty. We will assume, again for the sake of argument, that the accused somehow knows his seminal bloodtype, and that it will in fact exhonorate him.

Hmm ... that's actually really scary.

[Justin86]

Interesting that seminal blood type might be different. I'm curious as to exactly how that works. I've always been taught that if the body comes into contact with an incompatible blood type it will reject it. Of course, we all know different blood types can be compatible but it still doesn't really make much sense as to why they would be different in the first place. Then there's always the issue of what would happen if the hemal blood type and semen blood type wound up rejecting each other. Doesn't sound healthy or feasible at all.

I still, however, don't see a reason why a man's blood type, whether he has multiples or not matters in a rape case. DNA can match a lot more than just blood type. It's your unique genetic code that is in every cell in your body. I don't see why semen would be any different, except maybe blood type.

If the DNA specimen found on the scene was contaminated to the point that all that could be accurately assured was blood type that would hardly seem like enough evidence to convict. It's common knowledge that many people have the same blood type, and I highly doubt any court in the United States would hand over a conviction, especially for the death penalty based on that alone. It's called "reasonable doubt". We all know this.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Veritas' post='1622282' date='Aug 9 2008, 01:27 PM']+

There is a lot of misinformation above. Masturbation is ALWAYS, objectively, a mortal sin. One's culpability may be lessened (as with any sin) due to one's knowledge, free-will, etc.

However, masturbating even for any so-called medical reasons, is NOT acceptable. This is a black and white issue.[/quote]
I'm curious if you could provide an infallible source for your claim that masturbation can never be a venial sin, or did you renounce your position later? If you still hold it, I would like to see something. Few sources out there are more reliable the CCC.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1622360' date='Aug 9 2008, 03:09 AM']If the DNA specimen found on the scene was contaminated to the point that all that could be accurately assured was blood type that would hardly seem like enough evidence to convict. It's common knowledge that many people have the same blood type, and I highly doubt any court in the United States would hand over a conviction, especially for the death penalty based on that alone. It's called "reasonable doubt". We all know this.[/quote]

That isn't how it works in the real world, especially places like Texas or Florida when dealing with a poor, minority defendant. Had a case in Florida where the man was clocked in at work 3 hours away from the crime, lots of witnesses, but still spent 20 years in jail. Most juries truly believe that you wouldn't have been arrested if you weren't guilty, and vote that way.

As to different DNA type stuff, I was told by one of our expert witnesses that it can obviously happen when dealing with someone who has had a bone marrow transplant. It can also happen with the "vanished twin" thing. I had a client refuse to provide a sample because one of his defenses was that he was impotent, and therefore couldn't have committed the crime. So to give the sample willingly would have disproved that. They got a court order for the electrical stimulation thing that they use for some paraplegics who are trying to conceive by in vitro. He decided to provide the sample the usual way at that point.

[MissyP89]

Addiction, force of habit, and state in life can also affect one's culpability. Example being a teenager struggling, despite one's best efforts, against increased hormonal flux.