Distinction between sexual fantasizing and masturbation?

Esran · #1 Jul 21, '12, 8:20 pm

I ask this question both as a personal concern and as a matter of moral theology. It is my impression that masturbation denotes acts which culminate in ejaculation; therefore, would indulging thoughts which cause arousal but do not end in ejaculation fall under the category of masturbation or of some lesser, venial sin?

I struggle with an inflationist fetishism, which means I do a lot of combat in my head involving my own thoughts. Very often, I will submit to my fantasies for a moment or so, but ultimately fight back. I confess my sin as "indulging in sexual fantasies," but I am not sure I'm using the proper category.

This wouldn't bother me so much if I wasn't such a Thomist!

**Bookcat** · #2 Jul 21, '12, 8:34 pm

Yes "fantasizing" is also (as is all forms of lust) grave matter for mortal sin. It is not venial matter.

(though venial sin can be committed via lack of "full knowledge" or "complete consent" as in all things grave)

Adultery, pornography, lustful desires, lustful thoughts or fantasizing, masturbation, , contraception, pornography etc etc -- all grave.

One must confess all mortal sins in number and kind (and circumstances that change the kind like it was the chalice one stole or your Brother that you murdered).

Know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd --he loves you.

Seek out a good regular confessor to assist you (he can even be a Dominican if you like

)

Wowbagger · #3 Jul 21, '12, 11:08 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esran

I ask this question both as a personal concern and as a matter of moral theology. It is my impression that masturbation denotes acts which culminate in ejaculation; therefore, would indulging thoughts which cause arousal but do not end in ejaculation fall under the category of masturbation or of some lesser, venial sin?

Let me correct that for you: "masturbation" denotes any act in which the genitalia are deliberately stimulated in order to derive sexual pleasure. The act does not need to complete in orgasm, for either man or woman, to be masturbatory.

However, there must also be an actual act for it to be properly masturbation. If you are just fantasizing, it can only be lust. Fun fact: Sufficiently strong lust can culminate in physical orgasm, even without direct stimulation. If not directly intended, I do not believe this is a form of masturbation, but is still lust.

It is, however, pretty bad. I'm not sure where Bookcat gets his claim that lust is always grave matter (I have not heard that, and the CCC doesn't say it is), but Jesus's statement about committing adultery "in one's heart" makes it clear that lust can be mortally sinful in at least some circumstances.

Keep up the fight. I know what a challenge it is, and so does your Lord.

drfye · #4 Jul 21, '12, 11:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Let me correct that for you: "masturbation" denotes any act in which the genitalia are deliberately stimulated in order to derive sexual pleasure. The act does not need to complete in orgasm, for either man or woman, to be masturbatory.

However, there must also be an actual act for it to be properly masturbation. If you are just fantasizing, it can only be lust. Fun fact: Sufficiently strong lust can culminate in physical orgasm, even without direct stimulation. If not directly intended, I do not believe this is a form of masturbation, but is still lust.

It is, however, pretty bad. I'm not sure where Bookcat gets his claim that lust is always grave matter (I have not heard that, and the CCC doesn't say it is), but Jesus's statement about committing adultery "in one's heart" makes it clear that lust can be mortally sinful in at least some circumstances.

Keep up the fight. I know what a challenge it is, and so does your Lord.

ya, I don't know. I was watching a youtube video of Bishop Fulton Sheen on the subject of temptation. I believe he said lust is okay in the proper context because without it we would not have children, family or life it's only when we misplace it or I guess you could say take it out of context that it can become a sin, I'll see if I can find the video.

here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OdSU9zmkc

actually he used the word sex not lust.

jerry74383 · #5 Jul 22, '12, 1:11 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by drfye

ya, I don't know. I was watching a youtube video of Bishop Fulton Sheen on the subject of temptation. I believe he said lust is okay in the proper context because without it we would not have children, family or life it's only when we misplace it or I guess you could say take it out of context that it can become a sin, I'll see if I can find the video.

here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OdSU9zmkc

actually he used the word sex not lust.

"Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes." (CCC 2351) [Note that this also includes within marriage!]

Outside of marriage, intentionally eliciting any form of sexual pleasure, either by physical or mental acts, is gravely sinful. It is not sinful to be tempted or if the pleasure occurs unexpectedly, but once we are aware of it we must not continue to dwell on it and we must remove ourself from the source of the temptation, if possible.

There is a homily on AudioSancto which discusses explains this in detail:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20...mandments.html

Wowbagger · #6 Jul 22, '12, 1:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerry74383

"Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes." (CCC 2351)

This is precisely the text I checked. And, as you show, CCC 2351 does not say that lust is gravely disordered; only that it is disordered. This is a significant omission, because, when the Catechism discusses grave matter, it ordinarily states that it is discussing a grave matter. Consider the other offenses considered in that very chapter:

2352: "...masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."
2353: "Fornication... is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons... Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young."
2354: "Pornography... does grave injury to the dignity of its participants."
2355: "...it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution..."
2356: "Rape... causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act."
2357: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'"

2351 does not state that lust is grave matter, and, considered in context, it seems that the CCC does not consider it grave matter. It instead states only that lust is disordered, which is true of all sin, including venial sin. I am not familiar with any doctrinal authority which does state that lust is grave matter. (The AudioSanctio sermon you link is interesting and well-reasoned, but, outside its citation of Alexander VII on sensuous kissing, it is not a doctrinal authority.) This is the reason for my uncertainty on the gravity of lust.

I agree with you on the other principles you raise. You're right that we mustn't forget the possibility of improper sexual desire within a marriage!

EDIT: Ya'll got me thinking, so I went theology-diving, and quickly came up with some Aquinas on this subject. He concludes that, while not all thoughts about fornication are sinful or mortally sinful, deliberate fantasy of the sort described in the OP does indeed constitute grave matter, and therefore a mortal sin if combined with full knowledge and full consent:

Quote:

Accordingly a man who is thinking of fornication, may delight in either of two things: first, in the thought itself, secondly, in the fornication thought of. Now the delectation in the thought itself results from the inclination of the appetite to the thought; and the thought itself is not in itself a mortal sin; sometimes indeed it is only a venial sin, as when a man thinks of such a thing for no purpose; and sometimes it is no sin at all, as when a man has a purpose in thinking of it; for instance, he may wish to preach or dispute about it. Consequently such affection or delectation in respect of the thought of fornication is not a mortal sin in virtue of its genus, but is sometimes a venial sin and sometimes no sin at all: wherefore neither is it a mortal sin to consent to such a thought. In this sense the first opinion is true.

But that a man in thinking of fornication takes pleasure in the act thought of, is due to his desire being inclined to this act. Wherefore the fact that a man consents to such a delectation, amounts to nothing less than a consent to the inclination of his appetite to fornication: for no man takes pleasure except in that which is in conformity with his appetite. Now it is a mortal sin, if a man deliberately chooses that his appetite be conformed to what is in itself a mortal sin. Wherefore such a consent to delectation in a mortal sin, is itself a mortal sin, as the second opinion maintains.

That's the good ol' classic Summa Theologiae, I-II, Q74, A8 (link). I am persuaded of the point. I just wonder why the CCC did not mention that lust is gravely wrong.

Esran · #7 Jul 22, '12, 4:01 am

Yes. St. Thomas makes good sense on this point here. I will continue to confess my sin as "indulging in sexual fantasies," since that appears to be an accurate label. I guess whether or not the sin is venial or mortal is yet undecided, but that doesn't matter much, because sin is sin and I want it gone.

I wish there was some sort of guidebook to overcoming unusual fetishisms.

Typist · #8 Jul 22, '12, 4:37 am

I dunno, I'm a fool to jump in here, but being a self confessed fool, here goes.

It seems the writings of any human theologian can be reasonably questioned and challenged, given that there are so many of them, and they often disagree amongst themselves. Such a human source of authority would understandably be quite confusing to many people. But...

The authority of the human body can not be challenged, as it was not made by fallible imperfect human beings.

Personally, I prefer to listen to what the maker of the human body actually designed, rather than what somebody says about it.

If any human being stands in a normal posture, their hands are almost perfectly in position to do what the mind will sometimes ask them to do. Personally, I prefer not to believe in a maker who would have deliberately arranged anatomy in such a manner, and then declared the logical outcome of that arrangement to be horribly wrong.

There are so many more important things any of us can quite reasonably feel guilty about. Perhaps moral masturbation is even more distracting from what we should be focused on than the physical kind?

Esran · #9 Jul 22, '12, 6:30 am

Typist, your concern is admirable but predictable and cliched. I've heard it all before, and I don't intend this thread to get derailed and turn into a conversation about whether or not masturbation is a sin. I assure you, I do not suffer from any scrupulosity or hangups about it. I am not obsessed with my bad habits. I do not feel enslaved to either them or to a sense of guilt arising from them. God is patient and forgiving, whence I intend to work with confidence in his grace to overcome all of my vices. I do not feel rejected or hopeless; as long as I work with my Lord, no matter how many times I fall, there is absolutely nothing to fear because his perfect love casts out fear.

Typist · #10 Jul 22, '12, 6:41 am

Esran, my post was not about you personally but the subject in general, and I wish you luck with whatever path you choose to walk.

Esran · #11 Jul 22, '12, 12:47 pm

Thank you.

drfye · #12 Jul 22, '12, 3:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerry74383

"Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes." (CCC 2351) [Note that this also includes within marriage!]

Outside of marriage, intentionally eliciting any form of sexual pleasure, either by physical or mental acts, is gravely sinful. It is not sinful to be tempted or if the pleasure occurs unexpectedly, but once we are aware of it we must not continue to dwell on it and we must remove ourself from the source of the temptation, if possible.

There is a homily on AudioSancto which discusses explains this in detail:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20...mandments.html

I think I see what your saying. it's fine to have urges but it's our actions and intentions in regards to those urges that can cause us to sin. Not sure if It's just me but I think we should also note how some people nowadays seem to tie in the definition of lust with the definition of sexual attractiveness.

therese514 · #13 Aug 2, '12, 10:50 am

What if you indulged in a sexual fantasy but didn't know at the time that it was a mortal sin? Is it still a mortal sin?

Bill Martin · #14 Aug 2, '12, 10:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by therese514

What if you indulged in a sexual fantasy but didn't know at the time that it was a mortal sin? Is it still a mortal sin?

If you don't know that something is a mortal sin, it isn't a mortal sin.

Quote:

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Taken from the Catechism.

Bill Martin · #15 Aug 2, '12, 10:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esran

I ask this question both as a personal concern and as a matter of moral theology. It is my impression that masturbation denotes acts which culminate in ejaculation; therefore, would indulging thoughts which cause arousal but do not end in ejaculation fall under the category of masturbation or of some lesser, venial sin?

I struggle with an inflationist fetishism, which means I do a lot of combat in my head involving my own thoughts. Very often, I will submit to my fantasies for a moment or so, but ultimately fight back. I confess my sin as "indulging in sexual fantasies," but I am not sure I'm using the proper category.

This wouldn't bother me so much if I wasn't such a Thomist!

Deliberately entertaining lustful thoughts is sinful. It is not a sin to have them pop up, since you cannot control that. It's only a sin if you deliberately dwell on them and avoid casting them out.