THE WOMAN WHO BROUGHT HER SON’S SHEETS TO THE PRESBYTERY!

The Catechism cites the 1975 document Persona Humana from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its statement. Persona Humana Chapter 9 attempts to explain the Church’s teaching on masturbation in the context of its broader teaching on the human person and the moral quality of human actions. This document is worth citing at length:
The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.
This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church–in the course of a constant tradition– and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.
The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.
Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts. The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man’s innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.
On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people’s moral capacity.
In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual’s practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual’s care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue (Persona Humana, 9).

LikeLike

12.14pm

Isn’t this site for adults?

You sound like your 14 and venting the views of an immature teenager – ones trade or profession doesn’t identify ones orientation – I know effeminate hair dressers who are as straight as their hair dye and masculine and butch wrestlers and soldiers who are as gay as the day is long.
Bits on the side?
Seems to me you rather enjoy having your hair cut by a man?
All you need to do ducky is grow up a little and you’ll be fine.
I sense your a seminarian or struggling priest – all that pent up rage and sexual frustration bubbling up to the surface in need of release.

LikeLike

I was never quizzed by any priest in confession about masturbation or any other sexual sins.
If I confessed those sins, the priests never mentioned them. I got absolution and did my penance which was not severe.
It is a nasty and perverse caricature to portray priests in the confessional acting in a prurient manner.
When I was growing up, our local parish priest was a good and holy man who helped me overcome being scrupulous with which I was afflicted being of an anxious disposition.

LikeLike

If the church was consistent its approach to sex would also apply to food. Both are biological necessities that keep us alive but only sex is only supposed to be for its biological purpose. Otherwise people should be confessing that they ate a bar of chocolate when they weren’t hungry and purely for the pleasure. 😛

LikeLike

10:26 is the most significant comment today and confirms that the church wants the clergy and laity to live in a prepubescent fantasy world.
Unless they’ve absolutely got to pop out another sheep of course.

LikeLike