Masturbation Always A Mortal Sin?

[havok579257]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1624538' date='Aug 11 2008, 06:43 PM']They could theoretically sedate him or put him under anasthezia and stimulate him, therefore making it a 100% medical procedure he was not aware of. Not that I know if that would work.[/quote]


Well considering sedation would be elective and something the majority of insurance companies don't cover, and the cost of sedation without insurance is THOUSANDS of dollars, should be become poor for this one time thing?

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1624516' date='Aug 11 2008, 05:23 PM']I think NFP is abused by people and it is a form of contraceptive in my eyes. Its another form of using a method to avoid children. I would have no problem with NFP if the church didn't say everytime we have sex, we need to be open to life. Avoiding sex just for the sole purpose of avoiding the possibility of childbirth is a contraceptive in my eyes.

Yes, my wife had PCOS and the doctor put her on birth control. Until she was 16 y/o my wife never had a single period. The doctor put her on birth control in hopes that being on it would cause her body to get used to having a period and eventually when taken off of it, her body would create her won periods. Her parents were strongly against going on the pill as they are very religious. After researching things and speaking to doctors, they disocovered this would be her best chance at forming her own periods. After we got married, I talked to her doctor and did my own research and this was the most effective treatment for my wife. So yes, I have personal experience in this instance.

the pill is like 97% effective. Not full proof, but just about.[/quote]


While I am not against NFP, I am sorry that your wife has had PCOS and fertility problems, but I hope that she can be helped in some way. I have heard that using the pill for medicinal reasons was acceptable if no other option would effectively treat the problem.

Found on another Catholic forum:

"If a Catholic uses NFP to deliberately frustrate God's plan of creating more human beings, that's a serious sin. If he uses it because his wife gets violently ill and incapacitated from the hormonal changes of being pregnant to the point where she can't function and take care of her family, then that is not a serious sin. We know a woman to whom this happened; the hormones during her fifth pregnancy caused an auto-immune problem that mimicked MS. She was very sick during the pregnancy and for months afterward. The couple did eventually have eleven children, but they spaced them to give her time to recover so that she could still take care of the ones they already had. And even while using NFP, their attitude was that if God gave them a baby anyway, they'd deal with it as best they could."

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1624547' date='Aug 11 2008, 05:47 PM']Well considering sedation would be elective and something the majority of insurance companies don't cover, and the cost of sedation without insurance is THOUSANDS of dollars, should be become poor for this one time thing?[/quote]

Hmm good point. Well, it's better than becoming a martyr, which someone else on this thread suggested.

I really don't have any opinion on this matter at the moment.

I do find it a bit incongruent that you are opposed to NFP even in some grave circumstances but not masturbation under grave circumstances.

Edited August 11, 2008 by lilac_angel

[havok579257]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1624560' date='Aug 11 2008, 06:54 PM']Hmm good point. Well, it's better than becoming a martyr, which someone else on this thread suggested.

I really don't have a solid opinion on this matter at this time.

I also find it incongruent that you are opposed to NFP even in some grave circumstances but not masturbation under grave circumstances.[/quote]


How about explain this to me, what is a grave circumstance. The only one anyone has ever given is that they can not afford financially to have a kid. That has been the ONLY thing anyone has ever stated to be which is a grave reason. As it pertains to finiances, then no, NFP should not be used because I always believe everything happens for a reason and God only throws at you what you can handle. If God knows you can't afford another kid, he won't give you one. Also, I think many people consider not enough money to be subjective. I work in a major metropolitan city and I see how single mothers get by with 5 kids. Yet people in richer neighborhoods say they can't afford more then one kid at the time. Which is right if you are refusing to change your lifestyle at all. If you cant afford a kid because you own a $200,000 house, 2 brand new cars, have the most expensive stuff in your house, well to me, that is not a grave reason. To me, financial problems to be a grave reason would need to be something like, if you have another kid you will be kicked out of your house, have to live on the street, won't be able to afford even the cheapest houses to live in, won't be able to feed you and your children each day. To me, that is grave.

Edited August 11, 2008 by havok579257

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1624564' date='Aug 11 2008, 06:01 PM']How about explain this to me, what is a grave circumstance. The only one anyone has ever given is that they can not afford financially to have a kid. That has been the ONLY thing anyone has ever stated to be which is a grave reason. As it pertains to finiances, then no, NFP should not be used because I always believe everything happens for a reason and God only throws at you what you can handle. If God knows you can't afford another kid, he won't give you one. Also, I think many people consider not enough money to be subjective. I work in a major metropolitan city and I see how single mothers get by with 5 kids. Yet people in richer neighborhoods say they can't afford more then one kid at the time. Which is right if you are refusing to change your lifestyle at all. If you cant afford a kid because you own a $200,000 house, 2 brand new cars, have the most expensive stuff in your house, well to me, that is not a grave reason. To me, financial problems to be a grave reason would need to be something like, if you have another kid you will be kicked out of your house, have to live on the street, won't be able to afford even the cheapest houses to live in, won't be able to feed you and your children each day. To me, that is grave.[/quote]

I gave you a grave example above. I consider an incapacitated mother unable to take care of additional children, or even barely her own (while we're being grave) due to circumstances such as health, to be grave.

By completely rejecting NFP, getting pregnant even if it would endanger the life of, say, some woman and their entire family (and/or making life hard enough to the point where the family is so incapacitated that they could lose everything and obtain a life in the streets) is okay to you. But hurting a man's pee-pee a little is a no-no no matter what? Doesn't seem right to me.

And I do think that the financial situation, i.e. having plenty of money and 2 brand new cars, that you illustrated is not a legitimate excuse by any means. I am most concerned with REAL grave situations. Some people actually DO have those.

Edited August 12, 2008 by lilac_angel

[havok579257]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1624618' date='Aug 11 2008, 07:54 PM']I gave you a grave example above. I consider an incapacitated mother unable to take care of additional children, or even barely her own, while we're being grave, right away due to circumstances such as health to be grave.

To get pregnant even if it would endanger the life of some woman and their entire family at a point in their life (and/or making life hard enough to the point where the family is so incapacitated that they could lose everything and obtain a life in the streets) is okay to you, but hurting a man's pee-pee a little is a no-no no matter what. Sorry, I don't buy that.

And I do think that the financial situation, i.e. having plenty of money and 2 brand new cars, that you illustrated are not legit excuses by any means. I am most concerned with REAL grave situations. Some people actually DO have those.[/quote]



Its called a penis not a pee-pee. Also I never said I was against things if it endangered a women's life. If another pregnancy would kill the woman or possibly kill her or such things of a grave nature then she should be getting a surgery to make sure pregnancy is not possible, not using NFP which could lead to pregnancy. There are other means of saving the mother besides NFP you know?

Also its not about hurting the man's penis, its about, like I stated, possible damage to the sex member of the man and making him impotant.

Finally, like I stated before, there are few instances where a person would be in a situation where another child would completly make them homeless. Is it possible, yes, but most cases are not that. The majority of the Catholic population in the United States is not on the boarder line of poverty. Some are, but most are not on the line where any more expenses would destroy the family.

Still I ask, do you think God has a plan for everyone and that God only puts upon people what they can handle and no more than that? I say let God decide if you can have another kid. He knows better than you or I if said person can afford another kid. I trust his judgement over mine and everyone else's here.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1624644' date='Aug 11 2008, 07:06 PM']Its called a penis not a pee-pee. Also I never said I was against things if it endangered a women's life. If another pregnancy would kill the woman or possibly kill her or such things of a grave nature then she should be getting a surgery to make sure pregnancy is not possible, not using NFP which could lead to pregnancy. There are other means of saving the mother besides NFP you know?

Also its not about hurting the man's penis, its about, like I stated, possible damage to the sex member of the man and making him impotant.

Finally, like I stated before, there are few instances where a person would be in a situation where another child would completly make them homeless. Is it possible, yes, but most cases are not that. The majority of the Catholic population in the United States is not on the boarder line of poverty. Some are, but most are not on the line where any more expenses would destroy the family.

Still I ask, do you think God has a plan for everyone and that God only puts upon people what they can handle and no more than that? I say let God decide if you can have another kid. He knows better than you or I if said person can afford another kid. I trust his judgement over mine and everyone else's here.[/quote]

I know what it's called. I decided to use the kids' term, since we're on a family friendly board.

God does decide. He also lets us decide, too. About many things in our lives. That's why he gave us consciences.

You're for surgery that makes her infertile forever? That's usually a sin, and if's that serious that she needs to avoid pregnancy forever, the Church generally teaches permanent abstinence. NFP is for spacing pregnancies, so we're on different pages.

I wasn't talking just about if it would KILL the mother, but if the mother was unable to care for her child and incapacitated for a health reason, and that situation could potentially lead to a life in the streets, especially if that woman is also unable to work. But even if it DOESN'T lead to a life in the streets (which was nowhere near my main point), if a woman can't take care of her children and is that unhealthy, she may not be able to bear the burden of pregnancy at that time in her life, as well as additional children. Try to put yourself in a situation that does not resemble yours in any way.

[lilac_angel]

Again, I really wasn't talking about finances AT ALL. Or at least I did not mean to. I was simply trying to address one part of the point you made in your other post. You consider at least SOME financial aspects to be grave so I was trying to appeal to that area of your reasoning. One side effect of the situation(s) I illustrated could effect that realm, but I knew that I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it because you'd miss my point.

I care not about finances, personally. I would never use that as an argument at this point in my life, although less money comes in here than it does in many other households.

Edited August 12, 2008 by lilac_angel

[havok579257]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1624655' date='Aug 11 2008, 08:16 PM'] I know what it's called. I decided to use the kids' term, since we're on a family friendly board.

God does decide. He also lets us decide, too. About many things in our lives. That's why he gave us consciences.

You're for surgery that makes her infertile forever? That's usually a sin, and if's that serious that she needs to avoid pregnancy forever, the Church generally teaches permanent abstinence. NFP is for spacing pregnancies, so we're on different pages.

I wasn't talking just about if it would KILL the mother, but if the mother was unable to care for her child and incapacitated for a health reason, and that situation could potentially lead to a life in the streets, especially if that woman is also unable to work. But even if it DOESN'T lead to a life in the streets (which was nowhere near my main point), if a woman can't take care of her children and is that unhealthy, she may not be able to bear the burden of pregnancy at that time in her life, as well as additional children. Try to put yourself in a situation that does not resemble yours in any way.[/quote]


In the instance I was talking about, it is not a sin. Just like abortion is not a sin if it means the mother will die during pregnancy. Also I have never heard of the church teaching permanent abstinace in cases like that. I would like to see some documents on this teaching.

[jmjtina]

While it is not a sin to use the pill for medical purposes, the damage caused by the pill is no where near the long term effects it does to a healthy body. I had the same problem. However, most doctors will tell you it's the best chance, when in fact it's not. There are other ways but finding a doctor willing to work with you is like finding a needle in a haystack. I don't know what research you did, but my own research led me to NOT use the pill and to discourage it's use among my friends and encourage other ways to remedy the problem.

On NFP:

In Father James article "[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/08/11/113262/"]Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture[/url]" he states

[quote]Since there are serious and legitimate reasons that permit married couples to use Natural Family Planning, married couples need to be aware that hidden forms of selfishness could cause them to use Natural Family Planning for inappropriate reasons. As a priest, I am beginning to understand that some very good people are falling into this trap. In part two, I will discuss these inappropriate reasons and the erroneous reasoning behind them.[/quote]

[jmjtina]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1624663' date='Aug 11 2008, 06:25 PM']In the instance I was talking about, it is not a sin. Just like abortion is not a sin if it means the mother will die during pregnancy. Also I have never heard of the church teaching permanent abstinace in cases like that. I would like to see some documents on this teaching.[/quote]

Abortion is ALWAYS a sin.

Never under any circumstances is it legit, regardless of the mother's life. All direct killings of an unborn child is a grave sin.

There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother’s life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no.

Edited August 12, 2008 by jmjtina

[havok579257]

[quote name='lilac_angel' post='1624657' date='Aug 11 2008, 08:18 PM']Again, I really wasn't talking about finances AT ALL. Or at least I did not mean to. I was simply trying to address one part of the point you made in your other post. You consider at least SOME financial aspects to be grave so I was trying to appeal to that area of your reasoning. One side effect of the situation(s) I illustrated could effect that realm, but I knew that I probably shouldn't have even mentioned it because you'd miss my point.

I care not about finances, personally. I would never use that as an argument at this point in my life, although less money comes in here than it does in many other households.[/quote]

I don;t consider NFP as anything other than a contraceptive which the church is against. To me its the same thing as condoms and the pill. It is just a method you use to purposly avoid pregnancy. I feel like the only reason the church allows it is because of public out cry about contraceptives. To me, NFP is no different than a man pulling out as he is about to ejaculate. If the church said all forms of devices of contraceptives are evil but any method such as the rhythm method and NFP were ok, then I could see your point. Although it just seems like the church picked one contraceptive method and ok'ed that but not other METHODS.

[lilac_angel]

jmjtina, great article!!

"Regarding the physical reason for using Natural Family Planning, one example could be the situation where the health of the mother does not allow her to have more children for a definite or even an indefinite period of time. An economic reason may be that a husband lost his job and cannot responsibly afford the cost of bringing another child into the world until he can get back on his feet again. A psychological reason may involve the inability of a mother or a father to properly handle a larger family. Finally, there can be social conditions, such as a time of war, famine, natural disaster, or persecution that may indicate that a husband and wife should wait before they bring another life into the world."

“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 10).

I'll side with the Church on this matter.

[havok579257]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1624668' date='Aug 11 2008, 08:29 PM']Abortion is ALWAYS a sin.Never under any circumstances is it legit, regardless of the mother's life. All direct killings of an unborn child is a grave sin.[/quote]Please show me where I am wrong because last I read the church never once stated in the instance of the mothers death during pregnancy she is to die or risk committing a mortal sin.  I have never read that the church condons a mothers death. 

[havok579257]

[quote name='jmjtina' post='1624668' date='Aug 11 2008, 08:29 PM']Abortion is ALWAYS a sin.

Never under any circumstances is it legit, regardless of the mother's life. All direct killings of an unborn child is a grave sin.

There are two questions at issue here. One is medical (Is there ever need for an abortion to save the mother’s life?) and the other is moral (Would an abortion in that case be justified?) The answer to both questions is no.[/quote]


Do you have any medical knowledge at all? Cause making false statements are not good at all. For clarification there are instances where attempted birth will kill the mother or the mother and the child. So you are inncorrect saying its never an issue.