Topic: Freely given Is anything freely given a matter of sin?

In my marriage we know that each has their own cycles. And so we let the one who has the most need get what they need, if that can be done. And when the needs are both more or less equal, we delight in the sharing. When I was 15 my cycle was like 15 minutes. Now it is about 3 days. So there are times when I say `thank you', times when she does, and often, times when we both do. This is a gift given from each to each. And this courtesy is core to our marriage.But since there are times when we are just using each other for our own needs, and only one thank you is heard, that is considered a sin? Even if it is a gift freely given?

Sean

Reminds me of a story: a (nonChristian) nun and a brother were in an order that forbids the eating of meat except during illness. The brother took ill, she tended him, and he said that only meat would cure him. So she freely gave of herself, and limped until a miracle cured her. He was so embarrased by what he had done. She felt that she could not ask it of another being (think like extreme Franciscian). I think he was also stuck: having gotten the gift, he could not leave his life in embarrasment. So did she sin according to Catholic rules/morality? I certainally hope that he did, even if he did not lie, as I expect that he might have.

So maybe freely given is not the great determining part? or is it? I can give my life in battle or to attempt to save another, and none calls it murder or suicide, almost no matter what the odds.

I am beginning to want to explore the freely given aspect of this as well as the marriage bit.

Saving Private Ryan: the captain orders a soldier to go out from cover and shoot at the enimy, knowing that the first few so ordered will die. "Sorry Captain, I do not do suicide, I'm Catholic??". Well the movie was not exploring that problem, so it never came up/no one made that response. But should it be brought up? Suicide is a sin. Walking first into machine gun fire is suicide: the captain knew it when he sent them out. The captain was bothered by the need to so order men. He did not feel that he was really happy with himself on that issue, but that he would do it again if he needed. (we need a hypertext link here to the `repent/confess without regret' thread).

The body is not as important as the soul. Jesus and Francis and many others demostrated this. But the body can change the soul and the soul the body. Still, to let the clay be as others need it, when freely given, is a great gift. Do you call it sin? Sean

-- Sean Cleary (Sean_cleary@juno.com), August 31, 2000

Answers

Sean, I'm not sure what you are talking about here. If I were to guess, I would thingk that you are talking about sex and whether or not it's ok for one person to want it when the other doesn't, even if he/she goes ahead with it anyway for the sake of the other. But I could be wrong. Is this what you are talking about? Maybe I'm a little thick, wouldn't be the first time. Could you clarify the question?

thanks, jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 01, 2000.

Jane, It started off that way (sex and giving), but I eventually wanted to expand the topic to just giving of ones physical self, and then cited examples: Sex, flesh, life. This looks like a big enough topic, and I would like to see that these are treated similarly, if not the same, or would like to see why not. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (Sean_cleary@juno.com), September 04, 2000.

Oops, wrong email address, it should be sean_cleary@bigfoot.com, Please correct if you can, I was tired when I wrote it. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (Sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 04, 2000.

Jmj

Hello, Sean.
I can't put my finger on it, but I just feel very uneasy replying on this thread. Maybe I'm not the only one. Doesn't it strike you as odd that no one else has answered in the five days since you posted it?

For some of us, it may be that we have never spoken explicitly, in public, about a couple's private sexual life. For me, part of the uneasiness must be centered in the fact that you are using some odd expressions -- unusual combinations of words, and I'm really not sure I know what you mean, so I will have to make some assumptions.

I was talking about these expressions:
-- "subject to sin" ... You ask, "Is what is freely given subject to sin?" To me, if something is "subject to" something else, it is subservient to it. Since you told Jane that you are talking about sex, flesh, and life, I don't see how anyone can wonder if "giving" those is "subservient" to sin. Maybe you meant to use a phrase other than "subject to." I am going to assume that you could have entitled the thread: "If one freely gives something, can one commit sin in doing so?" Please let me know if I have made the wrong assumption.
-- "So she freely gave of herself, and limped until a miracle cured her." I don't really know if you are saying that this non-Christian [Buddhist?] nun cut off parts of her feet or legs and cooked them to feed the sick man -- so I have to assume that is what you mean. Was there some reason that you wanted to be so cryptic with us?
-- "She felt that she could not ask it of another being (think like extreme Franciscian)." I'm sorry, Sean, but this is pure mystery to me, so I have to skip over it.
-- "He was so embarrased by what he had done. ... I think he was also stuck: having gotten the gift, he could not leave his life in embarrasment." Ditto. I simply don't know what thought you are seeking to convey. I don't see what the man had done that could have caused embarrassment.
-- "... to let the clay be as others need it ...". This is the only time that you used the word "clay." Without something pre-defining it, I can't tell what it means for sure. I will assume that you are figuratively writing a thought that could have been expressed as, "... to put one's body at the service of others ...". Please let me know if I have made the wrong assumption.

As you may have gathered from the above, I for one [I can't speak for anyone else here] sometimes have trouble understanding statements made in poetic or figurative language. So please bear with my failings.

And now to try to reply to you ... Let me take the subjects in order from easiest to hardest for me to answer.

(1) I have never heard of a case of someone freely amputating a part of him/herself in order to feed a sick person. The whole thing seems totally bizarre and unbelievable (since no woman should be so naive), but let us just take it as hypothetically possible that the man needed meat. I think that the Catholic moral principle that would come into play is the one that permits the donation of such things as a single kidney, some blood, or some marrow -- a donation that does not damage a living donor in such a way that it takes away a bodily function. The Vatican's "Charter for Healthcare Workers," quoting an address by the Holy Father, states:
"86. ... the removal is legitimate provided it is a question of organs of which the explant would not constitute a serious and irreparable impairment for the donor. 'One can donate only what he can deprive himself of without serious danger to his life or personal identity, and for a just and proportionate reason.'"
Thus, it would be sinful to give away one's corneas while alive, for example, or a brain, ovary, or testicle ["personal identity"], even after death. I think that a moral theologian, skilled at analyzing such cases, would want to know in more detail what was "donated" by the woman in your story, before stating whether or not she did something displeasing to God and therefore sinned.

(2) Now, taking a look at the military situation you described. As is always true, I think that we have to know all the circumstances involved before we can even judge whether an "objective" mortal sin was committed. [Only God can judge whether or not someone is subjectively guilty of grave sin.]
Suppose that a commander has reason to think that, in an assault by his troops, at least one or some may succeed in taking a vital objective, though almost all will die. I believe that he may order the assault.
Suppose that the commander considers it likely that, in an assault by his troops, all the men may die, but that this will greatly impair the enemy by inflicting casualties on them and leaving them without ammunition. I believe that he may order the assault, but must prepare the men accordingly, so that they may be ready to meet God.
Suppose that the commander is certain that an assault by his troops will certainly result in their deaths, but that there will be no hope of their harming the enemy in any significant way. Suppose that he goes ahead with it anyway, to follow the order of an ignorant superior (whom he is afraid to disobey) or for some other bad reason. I believe that he would be guilty of grave sin in contributing to the needless deaths. And if the troops had some way to be certain that their action would be fruitless, they could not follow the sinful command, for that would be sheer suicide.

(3) Finally, the toughest thing to talk about ... your own marital situation. I hope that what I am going to say will not offend you. I don't mean these words as an accusation, condemnation, or scolding. I am sure that you believe that you have done and said nothing wrong, so I will honor your frankness in speaking to us about this by assuming your own subjective innocence.
A difficulty I have is that you seem to be speaking of your sexual life in very materialistic, utilitarian, and biological terminology -- "cycles," "needs," etc.. I am particularly troubled by this expression: "... there are times when we are just using each other for our own needs ...".
This seems to be foreign to the Christian understanding of the communion of spouses. The marriage act not only must be open to procreation (in case that be God's will), but it must be a "unitive" act -- an act in which the marriage covenant is symbolically renewed, an act in which the two become one flesh and express their love. None of these constitutive elements seem to be present in acts in which the partners "are just using each other for our own needs." Needs? I don't think that one of the "needs" of Christian marriage is to have orgasms at regular intervals, according to one's "cycle." If one spouse is "just using" the other frequently, he/she is basically engaged in masturbating, but using the spouse's body as a tool to commit this [objectively speaking] mortally sinful act.
Please let me quote some paragraphs from the Catechism, so that you can see what the Church so well teaches about the beauty and holiness of sex in marriage:
2360. "Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament."
2361. "'Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.' [Familiaris Consortio 11.]
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah [his wife], 'Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.' So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, 'Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.' And they both said, 'Amen, Amen.' Then they went to sleep for the night. [Tobit 8:4-9]"
2362. "'The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.' [Gaudium et Spes 49 # 2.] Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the (generative) function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951.]"
2363. "The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity."
2364. "The married couple forms 'the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent.'[Gaudium et Spes 48 # 1] Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1056.] 'What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.'[Mk 10:9; cf. Mt 19:1-12 ; 1 Cor 7:10-11.]"

Sean, you stated that "The body is not as important as the soul." Jesus did say that we should not fear someone who can kill the body, but that wee should fear the one, satan, who can kill both the body and the soul. We have to be careful not to misinterpret this and other passages, as some ancient heretics did, as meaning that the body is evil or or little importance. While we are on this earth, we are not simply composed of a body and a soul, but we ARE our bodies and our souls ... we have "ensouled bodies" or "embodied souls." And so we must treat both our body and soul (and those of others) with utmost respect, not mutilating, abusing, or inflicting unjust harm on either.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 04, 2000.

Sorry about the accidental duplication.

-- JFG (j@f.g), September 04, 2000.

Sean,
I forgot to mention another fundamental Christian moral principle that can enter into situations such as those you have raised:
"The end does not justify the means."

Here is how the Catechism puts it:
1753. "A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving)."

Applying this, we can see that,
(1) if the woman did something intrinsically sinful (certain kinds of self-mutilation), it did not become justified by the fact that her act aided the sick man.
(2) if the commander did something sinful (uselessly sending men to certain death), it did not become justified by the fact that he remained on the good side of his superior.
(3) if a spouse did something sinful (e.g., a form of "solitary sex"), it did not become justified by the fact that he/she experienced the good of pleasure.
(4) if a spouse did something sinful (e.g., contracepted), it did not become justified by the fact that family size was kept stable when necessary.

So long. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 05, 2000.

Thanks John, for that very good answer. I was a little afraid to answer too, to tell you the truth, because I was afraid that I might have misunderstood. So thanks. I think you cleared up so many things for me too. Thanks. I especially like what you say about us being "embodied" souls- how flesh and spirit can't be seperated from one another, one good, one bad. But that God works out his salvation in us through our bodies AND our souls. Very wise thought, that. One that is absolutely central to a Catholic way of thinking. Yes.

Sean- I DID have a little trouble understanding this, and actually am still wondering if we really understood what you were really getting at with your queries about sex. It's something I would be more than happy to talk about, but really need to get an exact read on what your question IS. Again, at the risk of looking VERY VERY stupid, could you clarify? Are you talking about the normal give and take that happens in a marriage, or are you talking about something else entirely? Sorry I'm so thick. I suspect that I'm just not quite "getting" EXACTLY what you are after here.

I think it's a good thing to talk about, but it is also something that needs to be very very clear. So lets go back to the beginning. Could you spell this out just a little? Generally, not in terribly specific terms, but just a little clearer? I would REALLY appreciate that.

It's a question I am interested in too. Don't get me wrong. But we need to know exactly what we are discussing.

Thanks so much, both of you.

XOXO Jane God bless you.

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 05, 2000.

Thank you for your patience. I have been looking for a job and I have even less time for this discussion board than I did when I lost my job due, in part, to taking too much time with this discussion.

Thank you John for your answer, and for your charity in assuming that I was not being nasty in asking my question. I think you actually answered what I asked, not with the answer that I wanted.

I do 'sound byte' summaries of peoples answers. The last time I did this to John, he greatly objected that it greatly simplified the whole thing. It does. I still want to sumarize what I have learned. According to my understanding of what John said... Giving part of oneself, even for a good cause, even some parts after death, can be wrong. Can be right too, but that is not where John then goes with the rest of it. Giving oneself in a hopeless cause is wrong. In a hopefull and good cause can be right. John took the commander's viewpoint, and that needed to be addressed. But what of the first soldier who is going (like near certaintly) going to either refuse, run, or die? It seems that John would say that the sinfullness or lack of such would depend on the likely outcome of that action. And that giving oneself to ones mate in marriage, even when that gift is a loving gift that is appriciated, is wrong if there is not the need on both sides. For the last (sex), I disagree. But this puts me against the Church teaching without the heavy duty research that the Church has done. There is a feeling of being used when such is done. And against that is the feeling that one's mate is being helped, and that I am helping. Gifts can help the marriage and keep or increase the love. For the middle (life) I disagree, same problems recognized. I have a feeling that it should be right or wrong no matter what, waring with the feeling that I may just be trying to set up John so that he will answer the sex question my way. For the first (flesh) I fail to understand. If someone wanted to use my brain or testes after death, more power to them, and if they manage to father childern, the more power to me. I agree that killing yourself for another may be wrong, it feels that way. (Joke punch line: the lady killed the healthy chicken to make chicken soup for the sick chicken). I only see a small window of my writing, but I feel that I have been less consistent than John. The answer that I thought I would get is that any gift, freely given, no matter what the cost, would be blessed. But John has pointed out counter examples: gifting one's sight is wrong even if it would give sight to two others. I am still not sure. It would violate one's own body for the good of another. That is the core of this discussion. Would it be ok to be half blind to save someone's sight? I suspect the answer is no. Must go, Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 07, 2000.

Hi Sean. I'm so sorry to hear about you losing your job. That must be very scary, especially with the family that you have to take care of. God bless you. I will pray for you to find another very soon.

I wanted to say that I, personally, don't think that we've gotten to the bottom of the sex thing yet. I don't have time to really sit down and think right now on the forum, but I am giving it lots of thought as I go about things I'm doing. I am sure that the issue is very nuanced and complicated- sex is one of those things, at least in marriage, that just isn't an entirely black and white issue. It's certainly a difficult issue, to talk about and think about and most of all to live, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is one that's worth trying to get right. It's a tough one though.

Anyway I'll get back.

God bless you, God be with you, God let his face shine on you.

Love, Jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 07, 2000.

Glad you're back, Sean, but sorry (and shocked) to hear about what happened to you. It sounds very unjust.

This does not seem to be a proper time for me to rebut all that you have written. Please let me know if and when you want me to resume the conversation in detail.

But I must mention two things briefly today, because one involves a significant misunderstanding that I don't want to linger, while the other may help all of us Christians to better judge actions as moral or immoral.

(1) You wrote, "It seems that John would say that ... that giving oneself to ones mate in marriage, even when that gift is a loving gift that is appriciated, is wrong if there is not the need on both sides. For the last (sex), I disagree."

I want you do know, Sean, that I did not mean to say that. I want to state now what I have been taught (though I do not speak from experience), and I invite Jane to comment on this (drawing on her experience) if she wishes:
There is nothing wrong with Christian spouses engaging in intercourse even if only one of them has a strong appetite for it -- as long as there is mutual agreement and no force. [You were mistaken in thinking that I consider this a sin.] In fact, Christian spouses are encouraged, sometimes even obliged, to agree to intercourse even when they may not desire it -- out of love and justice for the other and to preserve fidelity. On the other hand, Christian spouses may not insist on the intercourse they desire, if the other is reluctant for a good reason (e.g., illness, exhaustion, or the likelihood of becoming pregnant after the couple had agreed that "child-spacing" was needed). The problem, I think, is that you have spoken of "using" and of "being used," while I don't think that we should ever view it that way. In fact, it seems that a spouse who consents (when not desirous) gives an even greater loving gift (not a "use") than spouses who consent when mutually desirous.

(2) All throughout the year 2000, I have been reading the Catechism, cover to cover. I am near #1800 of 2864 paragraphs. Believe it or not, just after I posted that message to you, I reached a section that is very pertinent to what we are discussing: "The Morality of Human Acts." Rather than quote from it, let me just summarize it by stating that we can evaluate a past act, or one that we are thinking about doing in the future, by considering the following principle:
For a human act to be morally licit (permissible, sinless), all of the following must be true...
a. The deed itself must be morally good or morally neutral, and it must not be intrinsically disordered, as judged by an informed conscience. [Examples: to pray is good, to walk across the street is neutral, to rob a bank is disordered.]
b. The intention must be good. [Example: To pray is a good deed. But the act of praying becomes an illicit act if one does it simply to be observed by others as a pious person.]
c. The circumstances must be appropriate. [Example: Marital intercourse is a good deed. The unity of spouses and openness to new life are good intentions. But inappropriate circumstances (e.g., intercourse in public) would make the act illicit. By contrast, no intention or circumstance of any kind can cause an intrinsically disordered act to become licit (so this rules out "situation ethics" and "the-end-justifies-the-means").]

If I had kept the above principle clearly in mind while writing to you last time, I'm sure that I would have stated certain things a bit differently, but I doubt that I would have come to any significantly different conclusions.

May God bless and help you through this tough time, Sean.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 07, 2000.

Yes John, this is more what I had in mind, and I think that this is probably what Sean had in mind, even though he used words like "use" and "need" I think it was probably a semantic problem. But yes I agree totally with what you say. Sex is such a funny and delicate thing that MOST of the time, the level of desire in each person IS different. That's just the reality, and one that needs be worked out with mutual adjustment and "giving", even sometimes when one isn't in the mood. So this is a very legitimate concern, if one is trying to live a Christian marriage.

Of course in a broader sense each person is "obliged" to do MANY things in marriage that he or she might rather NOT do at the moment, (although there might no real serious objective reason not to, but only a subjective desire or lack of desire). Sex of course is no different. And in fact it is infinitely MORE important to be tactful and open and non-condeming in regard to this, because sex is such a vulnerable point with all of us, and it is so easy to wound another in very real ways by the smallest expression of distaste or rejection. So in this way as in all others we are required to really hold that other persons' heart in our hands and not to harm it in any way.

So maybe this is what you are after Sean, whether the same dynamic holds true not only in marriage, but in our relationship with all others. And yes, to a great extent I think it does. I might not pick amputation or loss of life in wartime to illustrate this, but certainly the priciple holds true in all sorts of ways in our daily life. Do I lose my temper with the child who is asking me the same question for the 100th time that day. Do I scream at that person who is driving WAY TOO SLOW for my taste, do I express disgust with the sales clerk who is having trouble doing the simplest thing at his or her job.....well the list in endless. I would prefer to concentrate on these smaller ways that this principle holds true, if only because they really effect the way I live my moment to moment life.

So in the same way that we treasure the inmost heart of our spouse, I think yes we do need to treasure the heart of everyone in the Body of Christ, and put aside our own desire or lack of desire (or in other words- self-will) to give whatever they may need. Easy to say. Hard to do. But if we are espoused to Christ as our bridegroom, as the Church says we are, and if the Body of Christ is literally IN all of His brothers and sisters, then it seems to me that the same principles that apply to our sexual relations with our spouses really should apply to our relations with everyone else. Different actions, but same intent. Love. It's always love.

I think this is what you were getting at. Am I wrong??

God bless you and keep you.

Love, Jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 07, 2000.

Thanks, Jane.
Your words touched me and were so meaningful.
I was especially moved by these:
"... sex is such a vulnerable point with all of us, and it is so easy to wound another in very real ways by the smallest expression of distaste or rejection. So in this way as in all others we are required to really hold that other persons' heart in our hands and not to harm it in any way."
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 07, 2000.

I am surprised and gladdened by the aparent turn around. Giving is good. I strongly agree that forced 'giving' is bad. I can not either think of when a freely given gift would be bad, though that may be a failure of my imagination. And if I had to turn away my wife just because I did not have the desire -- I could not be that rude, and I would feel that I was sinning against my marriage.

Now, if given the chance I almost always turn on my own arguements. So maybe a paragraph in another thread where I said that the Church was 'cool' to do something confused you all, it was just giving the other side a point. I ment 'cool' as in 'good', as in 'neat' as in North American English slang.

So I will say that sometimes it does seem like masturbation to the recipent of the gift.

And when I give, there is a way for me to be erect and come almost when I want. But it is a poor thing to do: self esteam damage is noted almost always to some extent. It is a technique that I learned before puberty from a pre-puberty kid, and put into practice when I ran into problems a decade later. I regard it as my sin, and I am trying to train my body not to respond to it, and my self not to use it. Trying to get this monkey off me is tough. But with God's help and His inspiration of my imagination (to think other thoughts and do other things that stimulate) I will get rid of this practice. (hyper link to "repent w/o remorse") I have remorse, I am trying to repent, and I have fallen so often that I must say to God "Forgive me, though I may sin this way again." I really feel that detailing this practice would cause others to sin, and (remains of Catholic training to the fore) I would share in the sin they commit by my teaching them.

John, you did not want to intrude into my marriage, according to a phrase you used in one of your replies to this topic. Good and Polite man. But the Church does, and this is why this is being talked about here.

Besides the above practice and the problems noted above that are associated with it, and besides the residual problems with skin sensitivity with skin rubbed too much, and besides the fact that it does diminish the will to reach out to another, what does the Church have against masturbation? Or is the last part enough? Or should this be another thread? I rather talk about it down here where most lurkers would be bored. There is both a time when I was not ready to reach out and be potentially rejected, and the same time when I did not want to be an athelete, and wanted my blood calm and distractions minimized. Thus I turned to doing myself. The Churches teaching that it was wrong, again and again without any other reason why beside 'we told you so', was another irritant. By that time I had run into the 'Wif and Poof' game section where bad arguements were detailed, and "because I said so" was one of them.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 08, 2000.

Sean, if I may....I'd like to try and answer your question regarding masturbation and what the Church teaches. I have been taught/read that God made sex pleasurable to help with the procreation process. As I was told, if it was bad, people wouldn't do it, would they? :) Now, when you masturbate, you are wronging your spouse. You are denying the chance of procreation. And it is an affront to the other because you are engaging in a lone process....not a coupling. And it is considered cheating on your spouse. Basically because you are having sex with yourself. And if you have sex with anyone other than your spouse, even with yourself, it's considered cheating (adultery), which breaks one of His commandments.

Now, here is a question that I posed to my old priest. What if the masturbation is done with your partner? IE-form of foreplay. But the coupling still takes place? Or what if you CAN'T have actual intercourse with your partner for some length of time? And you or your partner has a need that needs fulfilling? Is it ok then? I'm sorry to say I didn't get a clear answer on those questions. It came out as a "sort of". I have been told that if your intentions are honest and with your partner...that God knows what is in your head and heart. And what goes on in your bedroom is seen by God....and if you feel any sort of guilt or reservation....then you have your answer. To be honest with you, Sean, I'm planning on asking our new priest these questions. Maybe someone here can help in the meantime. And you were very clever, by the way. Putting this subject where lurkers would be bored, as you said. :) God Bless, Sean and good night.

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), September 09, 2000.

Hi guys- you know I've asked these same questions. I think everybody does. I don't have time this weekend to think about this very carefully, but it seems to me that what I've read and heard from the Church says that the major point in questions like it this isn't to condemn particular acts, but only to preserve the unitive dimension of sex, each person as a gift to the other. So my impression is that masturbation which is solitary clearly destroys the unitive and "gift" nature of sex, and is an expression of lust, pure and simple. But forms of masturbation as foreplay leading up to actual intercourse are not considered sinful, as long as they don't cross that really thin line over into pure lust.. Of course it's possible to have "solitary sex" WITH another person. I think that the Church is pretty clear that this is not acceptible, again because it destroys the unitive and "pure gift" dimension to sex that God intends.

I'm SURE there are some beautiful passages SOMEWHERE about this I just don't have time right now to find them. Later I'll try if no one else has.

Tough questions all. And ones that really effect a marriage. Some of the answers are hard to figure out how to live with. Really hard. But really worth trying to get right. Worth the pain and trouble, I'm absolutely sure. God bless you both.

Love, Jane

-- jane ulrich (calros.eire@yale.edu), September 09, 2000.

I was actually thinking of masturbation premarriage, as that is when the church's reputed teachings are in basic conflict with what my body needs. That is non-procreative, but non-married are supposed to be non-procreative.

Masturbation within the context of marriage? If one is stronger than one's partner in one's desires, it can be a way to level the field. But more and more I am agreeing: most of the time the wait makes it worth it. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 09, 2000.

+
Dear jackiea and Jane,

I want to thank and commend you for giving Sean good information and advice on a tough subject.

You were right, jackiea, in saying that masturbation offends a spouse [God, too, of course] and violates the procreative end of marriage.

You were right, Jane, in clarifying three things. Two of them were items about which jackiea said a priest "didn't [provide] a clear answer." I'm thinking of the following (to which I will append some comments):

1. Various forms of stimulation, by either spouse, are permitted if they are truly just a prelude (foreplay) to intercourse and not an end in themselves.

2. Intentional stimulation of oneself when alone, to generate sexual pleasure (whether all the way to a climax, or short of it), is not permitted, because it is not unitive. [And, as jackiea mentioned, it is not procreative, so it is doubly an abuse of the sexual faculties.]

------------ [To answer the last point you raised, Sean ... the Church has always taught that solitary self-stimulation is (objectively speaking) mortally sinful, regardless of whether or not one is married. I notice that you have frequently used the word "need." The dictionary tells us that a "need" is a "physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organism." Although our very disturbed society tries to get us to believe that everyone "needs" sexual pleasure, through intercourse or masturbation, a few minutes reflection will prove to you that such is not the truth. Most unmarried people have temptations toward, or even a strong desire for, sexual pleasure, but the desire is one that God wants to help us to control by what Pope Paul VI called "self-mastery." Tens of millions of unmarried people on our planet are exercising that self-mastery as we write these messages. Even huge numbers of married people are exercising it. (I'm thinking of spouses of the sick, handicapped, distant military, etc..) Sexual pleasure is not a need. Humans as a whole do need love, food, water, clothing, and shelter. But no one ever died of virginity (or of chastity, after becoming a widow[er]). Humans often desire, but do not need sexual gratification, which is something God intends only to occur between husband and wife within marriage.]

3. Mutual masturbation by spouses that intentionally brings about orgasm -- as a subtitute for normal intercourse -- is mortally sinful, because it leaves out both the unitive (gift) and procreative dimensions of marital sex.

---------- [The Church has always taught this. In the 1960s, some priests (especially in the U.S. and Europe) mistakenly began to teach something similar to what jackiea mentioned (i.e., that it's OK "if your intentions are honest," etc.), but this was an error that is gradually going away, through improvement in seminary training. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few middle-aged and elderly priests (mainly some of those educated between 1960 and 1980) who have not overcome this flaw. (Also unfortunately, there still are some bad seminaries that are not instructing men correctly.) And so, there are priests who mean well but who are not faithful to God when they show a misplaced compassion to spouses by telling them that either contraception or mutual masturbation is OK.

---------- [I want to mention again some words that I think jackiea was told by a priest (if I understood her correctly) -- namely that it's OK to engage in mutual masturbation "if your intentions are honest", but not if "you feel any sort of guilt or reservation." I'm sorry, but this is not proper Catholic moral guidance. In my message of Sep. 7, above, I mentioned the factors (from the Catechism) that we must take into account in evaluating an action as morally permissible or not. At the end, I stated this: "... no intention or circumstance of any kind can cause an intrinsically disordered act to become licit." Notice the highlighted word, "intention," in what jackiea was told and in the Catechism's teaching. Masturbation is "intrinsically disordered," so it cannot be transformed into a licit act by intentions or circumstances. Now, what about "feel[ing] any sort of guilt or reservation"? It is possible to lack "guilt or reservation" if one has an unformed conscience (or a dead conscience), but each Catholic has a solemn duty to form his/her conscience by absorbing the Church's moral teachings, including the one that rejects masturbation as gravely sinful.]

Before signing off, I just wanted to address a couple of related things that Sean raised. He wrote:
1. "John, you did not want to intrude into my marriage ... Good and Polite man. But the Church does ..."
Sean, it is not true to say that the Catholic Church "want[s] to intrude into [your] marriage" or anyone else's marriage. What is true is that, even if you remain an Episcopalian, it is God himself who is a sort of "third partner" in a valid marriage. [The famous Bishop Fulton Sheen wrote a book entitled, "Three to Get Married."] Because marriage is blessed by God within a Sacrament and symbolizes the mystical marriage of Christ and the Church, the "consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself ... [and] the marriage bond has been established by God himself" (Catechism #1639 and #1640). Now God made the Church the "custodian" of the sacraments, including Marriage, so she can "bind and loose" in certain ways (establishing marriage-related laws), in keeping with God's will. This is not an intrusion, but a safeguard of holiness and of all Christians' interests. So that I won't be misunderstood, I should add that the Church's moral teaching about masturbation, contraception, etc., is not her own changeable "Church law" on marriage, but rather divine law.

2. "... besides the fact that it does diminish the will to reach out to another, what does the Church have against masturbation? Or is the last part enough? ... I turned to doing myself. The Churches teaching that it was wrong, again and again without any other reason why beside 'we told you so,' was another irritant."
Sean, I'm sorry, but your words seem to be self-contradictory. You started by mentioning various reasons for which masturbation may be wrong [and I copied just the last one above], but then finished by saying that you were irritated that the Church had no reason except "we told you so." Now that you have been conversing with us, on various topics, for a month, I hope that you have come to realize that there are reasons -- not just blind faith -- behind what Catholics do. There are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people converting to Catholicism every year, including dozens of Protestant clergymen/women (by way of the "Coming Home Network") in the past few years. Imagine the millions of objections those people had and overcame -- and definitely not because of a simple "we-told-you-so"!

Here is what the Catechism tells us about masturbation:
"2352. By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. 'Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.' 'The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.' For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of 'the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.' To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability."

The "internal quotations" within the paragraph above are from a document on Catholic sexual ethics, named "The Human Person" (from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975). Here is a broader quotation on this topic, copied from "The Human Person":
"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.'[quotation from Vatican II, GS] 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."

God bless you all. Have a happy Sunday.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 10, 2000.

Hi guys- Thanks John- I was really hoping that someone would find all this stuff because I really didn't have time and besides,(to be perfectly frank) I hate doing that kind of thing, even though it is SO necessary. So thanks.

I wanted to clarify a couple of things. First: there are different problems in a marriage in which both partners try very hard to follow a non-contraceptive course (but not become pregnant). This means that there are fairly long periods during each month where regardless of the level of desire of either partner, sex just ain't an option. But it's kind of hard to just turn things completely off, and while cuddling is fine, everybody knows that there is a fine line between cuddling and something else entirely. That's just the facts. So all these other questions come to the fore- ways to deal with the frustration, either licitly or illicitly. John talked about some of these issues very clearly. But I want to reiterate that the problems are really different between a couple practicing artificial birth control, and one that does not. This is just a practical base-line consideration.

The other point I wanted to discuss is this: I think it is so easy to get into a mentality of "the Church says I can do this and not do that" and to become very legalistic about it.(IE Sean's point that the Church says no about some things in a "just because I say so" kind of way) But especially with something like sex I think it's important to try to keep in mind that the rules are made for our happiness. Not to destroy us or to make us less than human or to just boss us around, but to help us to become really holy. Sex is one of those things that is so much at the crossroads of mind and body and spirit that its SO EASY to get it wrong, and then to suffer for it. It really IS hard to get it right. The Church gives us these guidelines not to punish us, but to guide us into relationships in which we might love others, and also ourselves. And through them God as well.

This is not always (in fact RARELY is) an easy things for us to learn. So many things seem so difficult and unreasonable about it, because what the Church teaches is not always what we think we want. Sometimes we just don't know what we're doing though. We feel like we do but we really don't. I'm sure we've ALL had that experience of thinking that a way of behaving is just fine, only to realize with a crashing sort of horror, that NO it's not fine at all, in fact it really hurts ourselves and others. Certainly this has happened to me.

The Church is trying to help us learn how to make sex beautiful again. Holy. An expression of our creatureliness that God intends to be wonderful. That's the ultimate reason behind all this. Not to just boss us around but to lead us into a new way of being that will make us more alive, and more human, and really holy. At least that is my belief and my hope.

Jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 10, 2000.

Thanks for what you wrote, Jane. You are so right.
What you wrote is really important, and it was missing (both spirit and letter) from my post.

I am particularly grateful that you reminded me of this:
"But especially with something like sex I think it's important to try to keep in mind that the rules are made for our happiness. Not to destroy us or to make us less than human or to just boss us around, but to help us to become really holy."
Far too few people know that the Second Vatican Council emphasized that we have a "universal vocation to holiness" -- that our vocations as married or single people are secondary to the fact that we are all called to be "saints." If we let him, God can help our every good act, including sex, be something beautiful and holy.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 11, 2000.

Oh I don't think it was "missing" from your post- just not emphasized. Can't do everything all in one post, that's just unrealistic. So we all do the best we can and hope that altogether we might come up with something approximating the truth. If we do that we're doing pretty good.

So Sean, how's the job hunting going? You are in our prayers, I am sure.

XOX Jane

-- Jane Ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 11, 2000.

+
Hi, Jane.
In reading the Catechism today, I came across a beautiful paragraph (actually a quotation from early Eastern Father, St. Basil) which reminded me of the following words that you recently wrote here:
"The Church is trying to help us learn how to make sex beautiful again. Holy. An expression of our creatureliness that God intends to be wonderful. That's the ultimate reason behind all this. Not to just boss us around but to lead us into a new way of being that will make us more alive, and more human, and really holy."

Your words explained the motivation of the Church in this. St. Basil's words were "complementary" to yours, I thought, explaining the proper response and motivation of us Christian faithful:
"1828. The practice of the moral life animated by charity [the virtue of love] gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who 'first loved us.' If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, ... we resemble mercenaries. But, finally, if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands ... we are in the position of children."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 12, 2000.

Thank you, John, that is a really beautiful passage. It's things like this, more than anything (other than the reality of God Himself) that make me feel so grateful to be a Christian, and so convinced of the goodness and beauty and truth of the Church. The Church and God and ourselves moving within them begin and end in love. For what else could we ask??

XOX Jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 12, 2000.

John, You say that I contradict myself. I do. I look at both sides of the question, and try to come up with the answers. So in the middle of a real good arguement for my side, I will give the other side its due too. You will find this in all that I have written, and I have found that it has often puzzled you. When I was growning up, I did use masturbation to deny the changes that were happening to me. I liked my blood cool, not hot. Going without release made me 'testy'. Going a while without release hurts. The testicals and other sperm containing organs swell, and that is a low level constant bothering pain that will make nerves jumpy. I wanted to study, to concentrate, and I did not care if my body ever got strong. I chose not to be a jock, but to be a 'nerd'. So for me, this want was a need. I need to express sperm like a woman who is nersing needs to express milk. Now I went much further than that, and some of the lecture of being like an ascetic monk is right on target. And as I said above, this over abuse did get me one very bad habbit that I am now (constantly, actively) countering: the daydreams that hurt me psychologically. And it had other bad effects: I took a while to reach my strength, and I already (see other thread on counseling) was a bit withdrawn, and this did not break me out of that. And also, if I (now) could lecture myself (then) I would consel against much of what I did. I really like your term 'disordered'. It feels more like a term from an attitude that explains things. So yes, I was using it to slow down changes until I could get used to them. This does deny my own sexuality. But I could take it slowly, to the extent that I could. I do not regret the minimal use for this purpose, and I would not get on my younger self's case for this. But beyond that basic stuff, and the no-hot blood minimums, yes I would strongly get on my younger self's case. And for that matter suggest a couple of times of trying to accept my own body to my younger self. So I am not saying I was always right, just sometimes right, depending on reason, attitude, and intent. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 17, 2000.

All, To clarify the above, to seperate out the points: When my body aches, I think that is a need. When I make a lifestyle choice, that is a want, but a want I really 'need'.* All else is want, and often foolish want too.

*story: I got several lectures from John Michael Talbot, the Catholic musican and ecumenical preacher. One was about seperating wants from needs. This lead one of the brothers of his community to remark to him, (and he passed this on to his audiance) "John, this is a want I really need". So in this context I am seperating out the causal from the not causal.

A side comment: I write, and many are confused. Any comments on this would be appriciated, as I must learn to communicate better at work. Which was not the reason I got 'let go' -- halfway between firing and layoff -- when the goof one makes is compounded by other things so that there is not enough work and they do not want to have the mercy of keeping me on until there is. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 17, 2000.

Jane,

If the Church sounded like you, I would be there in a moment. God is Love, and 'hat would Jesus do'

Instead it sounds more like Moses the lawgiver: 600 or more laws concerning everything.

But I must also acknoledge (to John's surprise, I bet) that there is a deaper wisdom in the Bible then in the ordanary wisdom that one picks up in life. Often things work almost backwards: the expected outcome is opposite, and the method is backwards from what one would think. Gods loving methods are like that. Simple 'give me that' is poorer than 'lets share', and there a wonderful many better and more complicated examples. Gods ways are not mans ways, but, surprisingly, they work better. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 17, 2000.

Hi, Sean.
Thanks for your reply, though I'm sorry to see that you are still trying to rationalize a bad thing.

You wrote: "Going a while without release hurts. ... [F]or me, this want was a need. I need to express sperm like a woman who is nersing needs to express milk. ... So I am not saying I was always right, just sometimes right, depending on reason, attitude, and intent. ... When I make a lifestyle choice, that is a want, but a want I really 'need.'"

My reply: Not only is it "not ... always right" to masturbate, but it is never right to do it. As I mentioned previously, it an intrinsically disordered action -- always. It is (objectively speaking) a mortal sin. It can never be justified, no matter what one's intention or circumstances may have been -- in your words, your "reason, attitude, and intent" (e.g, feeling "testy," feeling "hurt," feeling "pain," "want[ing] to study," choosing "to be a 'nerd'").

Appealing to "relief of tension" is a rationalization. Masturbation results in, not just a morally neutral "release" (as is true for a nursing mother who expresses milk), but also deliberately instigated sexual pleasure outside of the marriage act, something Jews and Christians have always known is offensive to God. (By contrast, expressing milk has no ulterior motive nor sinful effect, so it never offends God.)

A man who decides to be honest with himself does not play "word games" related to "want" and "need." The word "need" is related to the word "necessity." To masturbate is NEVER "necessary." It is a choice, and always a wrong choice. A man who relies on the grace of God and makes the right choice is helped by God -- who relieves a man's tension in a natural way. (Could it be that you have always been unaware of this? Or were you actually aware, but unwilling to follow this course of action? It's never too late to begin following it.)

As I also mentioned previously: "Sexual pleasure is not a need. Humans as a whole do need love, food, water, clothing, and shelter. But no one ever died of virginity (or of chastity, after becoming a widow[er]). Humans often desire, but do not need sexual gratification, which is something God intends only to occur between husband and wife within marriage." I hope that someday you will be able to express your belief in this essential moral doctrine, Sean. A Catholic cannot disagree with it.

Sean, you wrote these words to Jane: "If the Church sounded like you, I would be there in a moment. God is Love, and 'What would Jesus do?' Instead it [the Church] sounds more like Moses the lawgiver: 600 or more laws concerning everything. ... God's ways are not man's ways, but, surprisingly, they work better."

My reply: You overlooked a key item that Jane wanted to convey. She was not criticizing the Church's maternal care of her children, expressed by telling us what is right and wrong. Her point was that the Church does this to help us to be holy, to show our love for God and neighbor -- not to be domineering. As Jane stated: "The Church is trying to help us learn how to make sex beautiful again. Holy. An expression of our creatureliness that God intends to be wonderful. That's the ultimate reason behind all this. Not to just boss us around but to lead us into a new way of being that will make us more alive, and more human, and really holy."

You appeared to be critical of the Mosaic Law. Are you perhaps unaware that the moral and ritual laws that Moses gave the Israelites were not his invention, but were given to him by God? Part of the Mosaic Law was the natural, moral law, expressed in the Ten Commandments. God, in Jesus, took away our obligation to obey the disciplinary laws (e.g., animal sacrifices), but the moral law can never be taken away. We have been discussing an act (masturbation) that violates one of God's commandments, not a disciplinary regulation of the Church.

At first it sounds as though you are saying that you would become Catholic again if the Church had no rules and did not interpret the Commandments for us (applying them to concrete situations), but would instead leave morality up to the "honor system" or to our private opinions. ["If it feels good, do it. If not, don't do it."] This would be anarchy, a recipe for the end of civilization. You seem unaware of the implications of your statement that we should be guided by answering the question, "What would Jesus do?" If you really let that be your guide, you would become Catholic again, because it is the Church that tells you (infallibly) "what Jesus would do."

You stated that "God's ways are not man's ways, but, surprisingly, they work better." Yes, and the Catholic Church helps us to know "God's ways," so that we will not follow man's ways when the latter are sinful (e.g., masturbation).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 17, 2000.

John, Christ had real problems with the Mosaic law. Or at least its application at His time on earth. And Christians do not consider that the laws of Moses have much application to them because of Christ's words and example in rejecting the application of that law. Other than then Ten Commandments, do you think that we follow any of that divinely ordained law? Some of us do not even know or follow the Noah commandments, and my Jewish friends assure me that those were for the whole world: example not eating/drinking products made from the blood of an animal: there are a few dishes in the world that do just that, example Polish blood sausage. On the rest, I will think on it. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 17, 2000.

Hi Sean- I am glad that you find me kind and gentle, because that is exactly how I have always experienced the Church, and that is where I learned how to begin to be that way. It is the Church and God acting through the Church that has taught me this, and continues every day to help me to learn more and more how not to judge other people, and how to be compassionate. And the way I learned (and continue to learn) this is through being forgiven a great deal myself. It's not so hard to be compassionate when I myself have messed up in so many ways, and done so many really bad things. Really, who would I be to judge?

I have found people within the Church to be so patient and kind (heroically so) and it has changed my life. But what has changed my life more than anything is God Himself. As a Catholic I believe that God can and will tranform me if I beg Him to. Through the sacraments most tangibly, going to Mass every day, such a beautiful thing, learning to love confession - another incredibly beautiful thing. In these places God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit actually touch me and make me different. I'm not the same person. I'm just different, and it's all His doing. Really.

Believe me, I've been and done as many stupid, thoughtless, and bad things as the next person, more than most probably. Like you, I've had my problems with withdrawal and depression and just plain rebellion. And like you, sometimes I just haven't known WHAT I was doing. I often don't know what I'm doing now.

But it doesn't really matter. What matters is that we let God change us. We all need to do that. No it's not a question of a thousand rules and regulations. It's a question of letting God love us so totally that we become, like Jesus, His children. The Church helps us to beg for this. In my opinion, the rules are secondary to this, although no less important. But unless we let God transform us none of it will ever make sense. He's real. REAL. You can trust Him. He loves you. It's enough to start with. It's enough to end with too, in my opinion. But somewhere in between the "rules" fall into place, if we stay open and listen and stop arguing all the time.

If you want the Church to be kind and tender and forgiving then go ask her to be that for you. It will happen. And then you can be that way for someone else. That seems to be the way the Body of Christ works. We beg for that. We get that. And we give it away. Spread it everywhere. But we can't give it away if we don't get it first.

So don't romanticize me please. I'm just a poor sinner like the rest of us. But He had been incredibly beautiful. So painfully tender. Don't look at me, look at him. Look at this God who will take us back like the prodigal son no matter what we've done, and will (if we beg) take us back into His house as THOUGH IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED, and on top of that, will throw the biggest party you ever saw. I know it's amazing but it's true. That's what the Church is. All you need to do is ask.

XOX Jane

-- Jane Ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 18, 2000.

Hi, Sean.
Jane is soright! The Father has "killed the fatted calf" for both her and me! (I have to admit that he has killed more than one fatted calf for me, so often have I been the prodigal son.) He is so generous and welcoming and "forgetful," never threatening, never desiring to inspire servile fear.

You made an observation and asked me a question: "And Christians do not consider that the laws of Moses have much application to them because of Christ's words and example in rejecting the application of that law. Other than then Ten Commandments, do you think that we follow any of that divinely ordained law?

You must have overlooked this statement of mine last time, in which I think you'll find the answer:
"Part of the Mosaic Law was the natural, moral law, expressed in the Ten Commandments. God, in Jesus, took away our obligation to obey the disciplinary laws (e.g., animal sacrifices), but the moral law can never be taken away."
[When I stated that Jesus removed our obligation to follow the "disciplinary laws," I gave "animal sacrifices" as an example. But I intended to include many other matters, such as ritual washings, dietary prohibitions, circumcision, and the like.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 20, 2000.

So of the 600 or more laws, and the fence around the law, we are left with 10, summarized as 2. Such a reduction! The fence around the law is the idea that you should not trod on God, and should not even come close to this, and so the original law is augmented to keep people away from temptation and blunder, and move the line away from where the original law had it.

Soon there is a fence around the fence around.... and the law gets poor and sometimes silly.

But the spirit of the law was/is important. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 21, 2000.

Sean,

You're posts in this thread are disgusting! In this thread, you sound like a pervert!!

Do you know how many children are lurking out there? You should be ashamed of yourself.

David

-- @ (David@excite.com), September 24, 2002.

Sean,

Please keep your "little techniques" that you devolped to yourself! I can't believe what you wrote.

You should keep this in private e-mail if you want to brag and put time limits on your "techniques". Who cares????

Its one thing to ask questions on your vices in life! But I think you are perverted to brag about............. in your devolped technique.

This is a Catholic forum!

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 24, 2002.

Dear Sean, So, back to your original question--you were asking if it's ok to have sex with your wife even if she's not into it? Of course it's ok as long as it's not against her will. There are lots of things that we have to do in marriage and relationships and that doesn't mean that we always want to do them. I hate the dishes but they need to be done and the trash has to go out too. When you love your partner you want them to be happy so you would have sex if they wanted to even if you're really not in the mood.

Whoever asked the priest to clarify the issue on masturbation and got an unclear answer, try asking ten priests and you will get at least 5 different answers and all five will be cloudy. The same goes for birth control. And yes, I know what the Church teaches about this. And if people follow this path they are not following the Church's teachings and are excommunicated, right? When JFK's plane crashed and all were killed, including his wife and sister in law, some of what washed up on shore was Carolyn Kennedy's birth control pills. And yet, knowing that, they all had a full Catholic funeral televised North America wide. Go figure.

We, here in Canada have some very outspoken higher clergy, one of which no longer welcomes the leader (who is Catholic) of a certain political party to speak at Catholic schools because he rode in a gay pride parade. We also had a Prime Minister who died, and during his lifetime had been involved in an affair and had a child with the woman. It is a good thing he was buried in Ottawa because he would never had gotten a funeral in Calgary.

Then we have priest who give "muddy " answers and those who are adament that "never" is the word of the day. And then we have my priest, Father Joe who STRESSES that the state of your soul is between you and God. You must always strive to get the most information available to you in order to make a reasonable decision on an issue. You may get one answer from Father Ted and one other from Father Jim but when all is said and done, it is still your choice and you have to live with the choices you make. Don't trivialize important matters and don't make small offences into mortal sins. The only two present at your judgment will be you and God and it isn't going to matter what anybody's opinion was --just as long as you did what was in your heart to the very best of your ability. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 24, 2002.

I can't believe you wrote this, Ellen. Just incidentally, Carolyn Kennedy wasn't aboard the plane her brother crashed. I truly doubt that factoid (about pills) would have any basis in reality.

But even if it did; the Catholic Church forbids under penalty of sin all artificial contraceptives. Even if half, or practically all-- Catholics use these methods, it will not change the result: they'll be committing a sin.

Sinful Catholics??? Sure. No one here pretends all Catholics obey the Church's directives. What did you think the so-called Reformation was? Wholesale sin by Catholics is what it was. Nothing can be done as long as sinners don't want to repent. --

You may rationalize: '' Don't trivialize important matters and don't make small offences into mortal sins. The only two present at your judgment will be you and God and it isn't going to matter what anybody's opinion was.''

But Ellen; all you are expressing in that argument is YOUR OWN opinion. It most certainly won't matter at the last judgment what YOUR opinion has been in this life, nor mine either. It will matter that our sins accumulated as we talked them all away. It will matter we were advised what God commanded, but pretended in our hearts that only MEN were saying so.

The ''men'' whom God called to be our shepherds, and to help us on the way to salvation. No sheep can navegate the wilderness without the shepherd. Let me see what Father Joe makes of that--?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), September 24, 2002.

Ellen,

You have NOT changed at all! Why are you bringing up birth control in this thread? You can't keep track of what you say about this. Rember, you are the Canadian that give two different storys about this? I think I rember the thread. ;-)

You silly Mrs. Ellen. Hear you are sreading gossip about what washed up from the plane crash, and you didn't even know who was in the plane!

You silly Canadian woman, you better stop spreading false rumours!

David

-- David (David@excite.com), September 24, 2002.