www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Eucharist vs. Reconciliation

It's not?!!???

Lest anyone be lead astray and "burned" by unworthy reception of Holy Communion (as the Orthodox prayers state) one should not presume to receive the Holy Mysteries after such acts. One should rather speak to his Spiritual Father or any priest who could hear you confession before receiving communion. From what I've always understood, any sexual sin needs to be cleaned from ones soul before approaching the chalice. I would think this would be the same with Catholics as well as with the Orthodox. S Bohem

I have never, in my entire life read or heard in Catholic circles anything but that masturbation is undoubtedly a mortal sin and one cannot commune until going to Confession.

Alexis

This is the Western concept of "sin in itself" which is often confusing.

Masturbation in itself is a mortal sin, but to commit a mortal sin you need to have really free will (this is basic moral theology).

Catholic Encyclopedia:

Dying in the state of mortal sin (to be exact, without confession or act of perfect contrition or extreme unction with contrition if possible) means you're going to be damned, and you can't be damned unless have really freely chosen with full awareness, because God is not a tyrant who is going to punish us for some weakness we are fighting with, but He is love.

This specific problem affects mainly teenagers (especially those with low sense of security) who don't want to do it but sometimes can't resist. In that case their free will is impaired and this is not a mortal sin. Of course I am not denying that you can commit masturbation with full malice. In that case it is obviously a mortal sin.

Good spiritual father who knows his spiritual child can judge which is the case. Holy Communion is a great help against concupiscence and teenage masturbation. Denying it on automatic basis is IMO irresponsible legalism, it just pushes the victim of habitual masturbation away from the Church and Holy Communion. And if you falsely realize at a relatively young age that it is just impossible to live the way God wants as a minimum, and you'll be damned anyway (because you just can't stop and you know it) it will sadly be your last moment in the Church for years if not forever.

Now this opinion, apart from being really basic moral theology, comes from Catholic psychologists and has been expressly approved by many competent theologians, may of them as renowned as Fr Jordan Aumann OP (who was also an experienced spiritual director) or Msgr William B. Smith STD, and authorities, including the censor of the Archdiocese of New York (Daniel V. Flynn JCD).

I'm a bit confused by this, so could you say more? Do you mean to say that, originally, forgiveness of sins was simply thought to be absent from the Sacrament of Reconciliation (SoR)? That is, are you saying that it was assumed that the sin was already forgiven at the moment of contrition, and that the SoR was merely about reintegration with the Church? I have some trouble squaring this with certain passages from Scripture and the Fathers, but maybe that isn't what you meant. You do later suggest that there is an "absolution aspect" that came to be emphasized later, so perhaps you mean that this was originally present, though not as heavily emphasized. I have some trouble squaring even that, too -- but, in any case, I'm at least confused by what you said. Any help?

Sorry my posts are so intermittent of late; I'm in the middle of a relaxing appellate brief for my Legal Research & Writing class right now. Fun times.

Anyway, so sin only occurs when there is no coercion or necessity. Got that. Free will must be present. But who could say with a straight face that anyone is ever "coerced" to masturbate? Sure there is a drive to do so. But there is likewise a drive for, say, teenagers (and adults, of course) to engage in pre-marital or extramarital sex. If the drive is strong, does that mean that succumbing to it is no sin? Does that mean that somehow the person has been "coerced," and is therefore eligible to receive Communion? Such a stance to me would be astounding, and though I try not to throw the word around, even heretical, or based on a seriously flawed modernist, relativistic view of sin.

Alexis

It doesn't mean "no sin"... it means the sin is insufficiently damaging to damn one to hell on its own.

And why would this be? According to Latin Catholic theology, even missing one Sunday Mass without a justified excuse would be enough to send one to Hell.

Alexis

Alexis:

Current thinking in Latin Catholic moral theology is that one takes into account the presence or lack of impediments in determing degree of culpability. While an "objectively evil" act can never be anything other than objectively evil, the degree of culpability can vary based on a number of factors.

BTW, do you really believe that God would condemn to hell someone simply on the basis of his having missed Mass or Divine Litury once? I can't reconcile that with my conceptions of God's love, mercy, patience, etc., etc.

Ryan

Yes, it is possible to be internally coerced to masturbate. Just like stammerers suffer from intrusion of a certain feeling between their speech and their will, so that their will is impaired or even totally unable to model speech, some masturbants suffer from similar intrusion between their will and (most probably, but not always) sexuality. This intruding feeling begins to control their speech apparatus or masturbation (think about people who stammer when they're afraid of something). In terminology of Thomist anthropology such situation is a reaction to wrong ordering of appetites, when "appetitus irascibilis" is in place of "appetitus concupiscibilis".

The case of masturbation is far more difficult than stammering, because sexual feelings are far much stronger than speech. And there's immense sense of guilt before and after committing the act you think was a "mortal sin", an act you didn't really want to commit, you hate it, you hate yourself for doing it, add the feeling that you also can't avoid doing it in the future, so you can't avoid damnation... this is living hell. Such poor people need the great aid of Holy Communion, and they're eligible to receive it. Abandoning them on an automatic basis has no medicinal effect. On the contrary.

But this is not the case of healthy, mature people. A healthy man can masturbate because wants to, of his free will. In that case it is a serious sin. Just like a healthy man can simulate stammering, sometimes so skillfully that you can't figure out whether he really can't speak fluently or he is just joking. Both look outwardly the same, but inwardly, in terms of will, their situation is incomparable. Therefore Our Lord advised us not to judge too hastily.

This is one of the situations when one can appreciate the Western precision of terms. You're talking about temptation, which is a different thing. It doesn't impede free will by definition.
Catholic Encyclopedia:
Woman having extramarital sex was probably tempted and she had agreed to do what the temptation tells her. Raped woman probably was coerced and probably had not agreed. This is the difference, though both were "engaged in sex". Rape is external coercion. Internal coercion, autonomous from will, is also possible. I am making this analogy because in Polish language masturbation is called "self-rape". Only recently the liberals started to prefer the more neutral Latin word, probably to hide the malice of masturbation. Liberals just love slavery. And they love to take advantage of youngsters who think they're in hopelessly bad terms with the Church.

It's not a relaxation of moral standards, because:
1. Moral standards are and always were just like this (no free will = no mortal sin).
2. It doesn't apply to every case.

My point was that it applies often (I'll repeat again, not in every case and not automatically) to teenagers (or even younger - children well before age of reason or even infants can masturbate. It's a symptom of lack of sense of security in that case) or adults with some emotional problems. Such neurotic problems may be mild otherwise, but are strongly manifesting itself when you're an immature teenager. My humble opinion is that denying them sacramental help of Our Lord himself, on an automatic, legalist basis, without inquiry, is a crime against them. It's like giving a stone to your son who asks for a bread. Fortunately more and more spiritual fathers understand the problem, but I'd say they're still too few.

There are good books on such topics, like those by Anna A. Terruwe and Conrad W. Baars, particularly "Psychic Wholeness and Healing. Using All the Powers of the Human Psyche", Society of St. Paul, 1981. Authors are Catholic psychiatrists, they use Thomist approach to human psyche, their opinions were praised by the Catholic theologians I have mentioned previously, and a few others, including Paul VI. The authors had vast experience in treatment of many different patients, including clergy and religious. And they were by no means liberals.

Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

It's hard to commit a mortal sin unless you really want to. God will not condemn you if you have not freely deliberately chosen to be condemned. Contrary to what some Orthodox think, Catholic God is not a tyrant.

As to the Sunday obligation, the problem is:

1. Whether you believe that you bishop can bind you in conscience up to the level of sending you to hell.
2. If so, what is a "justified excuse"?
3. If the bishop can bind you, and there's no justified excuse, how does Hell after such sin look like?

Please excuse me - on this I may be mistaken (I have had a LOT of practice at making errors, so I'm pretty good at it) - but methinks some of these posts express a very unappetizing rigorism.
I seem to recall that during the days of Jansenism, an ecclesiastical authority figure was sent to a certain convent in Belgium (?) in order to investigate to just what extent that particular heresy had infected the nuns there.
After his visit he is alleged to have said of them: "They're as pure as angels but as proud as devils."

Alexis,

I think Peterpeter is basically right here. There's a lot more to this particular subject than you've mentioned. If you're really interested in this particular sin I suggest you talk to a priest with long pastoral experience. Certainlly, one can shop around until he finds one who agrees with one's view. But even the more juridical ones can give surprising answers.

It was Port Royal in France, where Louis XIV's maitress en titre (later his morganatic wife) Madame de Maintenon, was a leading adherent of Jansenism. Through her influence the convent was protected through Louis XIV's reign, but afterwards it was suppressed. Most of the Jansenist priests went to Ireland, where the rest, as they say, is history.

Well, for one thing, it is mostly populated with bishops/