![\"Godwin](\"https://catholicstand.com/wp-content/uploads/Godwin-Delali-Adadzie-Masturbation.png\")
I stumbled upon Evangelical blogger and author Rachel Held Evans\’ blog post entitled Christians & Masturbation: Seven Perspectives, and I thought it would be great to respond to some of the views raised by the various contributors of that interesting post.
The question that was posed by Rachel to seven Christian adults is:
Is masturbation an acceptable component to healthy sexuality for Christians?
I shall highlight some of the responses here and then give my thoughts.
Response from Abigail Rine (Teacher of Literature and Gender Studies at George Fox University):
I do not see the Bible as giving any sort of indictment against masturbation, although a puritanical narrative of sexuality is often imposed upon the Bible to make it seem that way. I think that masturbation can absolutely be a healthy part of both married and unmarried sexuality.
Response from Anna Broadway (Author of Sexless in the City: A Memoir of Reluctant Chastity):
Whether or not masturbation can be part of healthy sexuality depends on how we define the second part of the question: healthy sexuality. Based on my reading of the Bible, I believe sex is one of the many ways God created humans to bear the image of our maker in the world.
Response from Richard Beck (Professor and Department Chair of Psychology at Abilene Christian University):
In short, I don\’t think the physical act of masturbation should be moralized. The real issue in this conversation, the big elephant in the room, is Jesus\’ prohibition against lust (cf. Matt. 5.27-28). Masturbation per se might not be a sin but what about the attendant lust? Can you masturbate to the point of orgasm without lust being a part of that experience?
Response from Dianna Anderson:
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, absolutely. In fact, I might scratch \”acceptable\” from there and change it to \”important.\”
I think, when thinking about this question, the first thing we need to do is separate masturbation from pornography. Masturbation is not de facto coupled with pornography, and therefore is not in itself problematic. A lot of Christians leap quickly from one to the other, and it\’s important to make a distinction. Pornography is a completely separate beast of a question.
Response from Matthew Lee Anderson (Author of Earthen Vessels: Why our Bodies Matter to our Faith):
In the auto-eroticism of masturbation, we pursue a particular sort of satisfaction or a particular experience of pleasure. But it is through the mutual self-giving in love that our humanity is established (whether in sex or beyond), rather than the abstract experience of pleasure or the fulfillment of a craving or felt need. However enjoyable it might be, masturbation fails to fulfill this form of human sexuality, and as such is corrosive to the integrity of our persons and our intimacy of the Spirit.
Response from Jenell Williams Paris (Professor of anthropology at Messiah College in Grantham, PA):
Christianity is often reduced to a moral system that encourages (or harangues) people toward being good instead of bad. But like life in general, sex seems to defy our attempts to be good; in both masturbation and in sexual partnership, unruly, wild, and unpredictable parts of ourselves often emerge. If cared for, acknowledged, and brought into the light, the wildness of sex still doesn’t submit to domestication, but it can offer practice in humility, humor, and groundedness. When we ignore it, trying to be more angel than human, what is repressed often returns in distorted and harmful forms.
Response from Tara Owens (Spiritual Director, Speaker and Author with Anam Cara Ministries):
I know “yes” or “no” would be easier answers to this question, but I don’t believe that our sexuality was created by God simply to be treated mechanistically. I believe sexuality is a gift and a grace that is given to us by God, and it can produce some of the most radically beautiful and loving acts as well as some of the most horrible and hateful. As the first line of the Didache says, “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways.”
Again the above quotes are just samples of the entire blog post available here. I am at least happy to see someone quote the Didache. I thought it was only for us Catholics lol.
Now from some of the views expressed by these Christian men and women of good will, I generally see ONE ISSUE HERE. THE PROBLEM OF SOLA SCRIPTURA (Scripture alone) that is the assertion held by most non-Catholic Christians that the Bible alone is the sole rule for the Christian faith. This assertion has demonstrated again how problematic it practically is with the issues of FAITH AND MORAL. Now most of them admit that the Bible never addressed masturbation, and this has left them to their own interpretations. Some believe masturbation is healthy for the believing Christian, others also think otherwise.
My personal belief on this is masturbation is wrong and at best spiritually unhealthy. Would you be doing that with a clear conscience in the presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? It is true most males (and surprisingly females too) struggle with (or do they enjoy it?) this.
I don\’t know how masturbation can be compatible with Jesus\’ view of morality here:
\”You have heard that it was said, \’You shall not commit adultery.\’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.\” (Matthew 5:27-30)
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 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, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
Originally posted on HubBlogs with GADEL.
© 2013. Godwin Delali Adadzie. All Rights Reserved.
11 thoughts on “Christians & Masturbation: The Bible Alone Problem”
07/13/2022
@BRIGHTFLASH — The sum total of your comments are clear, concise, lucid, logical, rational, moral and truthful. I am in complete agreement with you and now, for the first time in a half dozen years, I’m suddenly enjoying an unexpected, new peace. Your brightflash fits in perfectly with my unbiased, self appraisal using different, significant criteria defined by the Catholic Church. The conclusion is the same. Thank you for your time and effort in your replying.
July 12, 2022
The trail of comments and replies would be the best I’ve come across while researching this topic since circa 2018 IF there were some order to the way they are presented. I’m tired bouncing up and down comparing the dates written, etc. I’m going to have to return and hopefully I’ll have time, as I’m turning 80 years old next week.
When trolling beware what you fish for. Of all the puerile discussions conjured up from the depths of Leviticus and company this has to be the lowest bar of them all. Onan’s spurned duty to his tribe is what the jealous God smacked him over. Had he not spilled his seed ( as interpreted, reinterpreted ) the ferocious slight to these iron age know it all’s would have been the same. In all 613 laws laid down on every subject (especially sex) not once is masturbation mentioned. Why ? Even God was discreet when making up rules about an organ that spews out toxic waste through the same channel that living seed descends. Whatever else the owner cares to practice, for whatever reason, is understood and need not be discussed. There are plenty of who can sleep with whom in this massive tome of laws but it is imperative that incest is punishable by death – unless you buy into the literal garden story which so many desperate Christians do. How much incest went on in Adam’s 900 years of churning out brothers and sisters who populated the bible; must be staggering – yet, no mention of ‘sin’ when it came to Lot sleeping with his daughters under the guise of being drunk. How pitiful to think such a liaison could be conducted and then defended by that canard . Try putting your minds on why 75 of 100 left the church – and try not to gag when the research points to sex.
A few observations:
1. Most of the comments by these supposedly “Bible alone” Christians made no reference to Scripture.
2. You ask, “Would you be [masturbating] with a clear conscience in the presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?” I take that as a rhetorical question in which the expected answer is “no.” But I would ask, “On what grounds should I ever find myself NOT having a clear conscience?” And I wonder: Is the rhetorical impact of your question “effective” because the answer (that your audience will generally feel it wants to give) is correct . . . or because the manner in which you have framed the question will produce a similar response for many behaviors that are appropriately done only in private. To illustrate: Imagine me asking, “Would you be [having sexual intercourse with your wife] with a clear conscience in the presence of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?” –The problem is not the activity so much as the imagined context: “in the [voyeuristic] presence of our Lord and Savious Jesus Christ.” –One doesn’t want to place Jesus in the position of having to be a voyeur.
3. You quote the Catechism saying that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” because “the use of the sexual faculty . . . outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose” which has to do with the achievement of “the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”
That is a multi-layered statement. It also uses at least one euphemism (“the sexual faculty”) whose referent is unclear. What is “the sexual faculty” in the context of a discussion of masturbation? Are we talking about genitals? Genito-urinary tracts and their associated parts? Human thoughts and feelings? . . .
Depending on how one answers these questions, I would ask:
* Is the use of one’s elbows for self-protection “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” because the use of the elbow as a weapon “is essentially contrary to its purpose” which has to do with enabling a person to move his or her hand with greater flexibility?
* Is the use of one’s teeth to pull a splinter from one’s skin, or to trim one’s nails, or to break a thread “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” because these uses, too, are “essentially contrary” to the purpose of teeth which were, obviously, created as an essential part of the digestive process?
I ask these questions because I believe they show that parts of our bodies which God rather obviously created for certain essential functions may ALSO be used for OTHER functions. And I don’t believe these alternative uses are necessarily either intrinsically or gravely disordered.
Sexual relations with other persons outside of marriage: clearly forbidden in Scripture. The manipulation or use of different parts of our bodies for relief of pain, for mental, emotional or physical soothing, or for pleasure: is there any command of God that condemns such things?
I believe the answer to my question is no. And on that ground, then, I believe that masturbation, by man or woman, in private, and without lustful thoughts, is not to be condemned.
I do not suggest that we should encourage it (more than, perhaps, for those who might benefit from the soothing or relief, to suggest that such behavior might actually provide relief or soothing. –I reference St. Paul’s admonition to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake–pastoral counsel of a very similar nature).
Thanks for providing a thoughtful base for pushing my thought to a higher level.
Your analogous questions about the use of body parts is badly flawed, as is your entire argument. Certainly we can use our body parts in both good and bad ways. I can point to you with my index finger but it would be wrong to stick my finger in your eye and blind you. Similarly I can use my knee to hold up a box I am carrying, but it would be wrong to knee you between your legs in an attempt to inflict pain. And I can use my eyes to view a spectacular sunset but it would wrong to use them to view pornographic images. And as for scripture, you might want to read Genesis 38:8-10.
Gene Van Son: Thank you for responding to my posted reply to Godwin’s meditation.
I saw your suggestion that my question about the use of body parts is flawed. I did not discern that you proposed any grounds for the assertion. I thought you provided some good illustrations of potentially good and bad uses of various body parts. I do not understand how they might relate to the practice of masturbation . . . other than this: every one of your potentially evil uses of different body parts spoke of actions that touch and/or injure someone besides the actor him- or herself.
I thought that was interesting. Especially because, prior to and outside of marriage, if one presses one’s genitals against or into or around any part of someone else’s body, one is pretty obviously violating biblical/godly commands. But, again, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that touching one’s genitals–even for purposes of providing some form of relief, soothing, or pleasure–is wrong.
As for the story of Onan: Where was the sin? Was it in staining the ground with his seed, per se? Or did it have to do with his refusal to raise up children for his brother? I think it is quite obvious from the text that it was not the spilling of seed, per se, that caused his condemnation. Rather, it was his selfishness.
Now, I have had a priest note that, in the law about raising children for a deceased brother (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), we are told, “His sister-in-law, in the presence of the elders, shall go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family.’”
While “this curse together with its accompanying ritual was very humiliating, it’s a far cry from the fate of Onan.” Therefore, said the priest, “Onan must have done something worse than breaking this law! Clearly, it’s not only a question of evil intent but of evil means as well.”
I don’t find his conclusion “clear” at all. His conclusion MAY be correct, but I see nothing in the text to suggest it. Far more likely, it seems to me: God may have treated Onan as He did (and He may have had the story recorded in Scripture) by way of EXAMPLE, to warn others that God very much wanted Israelite men to take their brotherly/kinsman-redeemer duty seriously.
And we see at least one other exemplary extreme result. Look at Numbers 15:32-36 where God kills a man for collecting firewood on the Sabbath. We have no record of Him killing any other Sabbath-breakers.
*******
1 Corinthians 7:2-9 says, “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. . . . Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
I got thinking about this passage in relation to masturbation back when I was in college.
What is Paul saying here? Is it really possible that his advice was along these lines: “To the married I say, ‘Engage in sexual intercourse with your spouse so that Satan will not tempt you.’ But to the unmarried I say, ‘There is no hope’”?
Paul said to the unmarried, “If you cannot control yourself, you should get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
Okay. And what does that mean?
First, is he comparing one really wicked thing to something that, while evil, is not quite so bad? In other words, is he saying that marriage itself is sinful?
In opposition to some of the early ascetic Christians’ views in the matter, I think not. I believe St. Paul held marriage in high regard.
So the comparison is not between two evils. He is not attempting to identify the “lesser” of two evils.
I hear Paul saying he wishes more people (indeed, “all men”) were like him in having what he viewed as a special gift from God. But he recognized that his lack of sexual passion (?) and/or his relative imperviousness to attack from Satan in this area: he recognized this as a special gift. And it fitted him for his peculiar service in the church. But not all men (or women) had this gift.
Point: marriage is not sinful. It is not evil.
What about the matter of “burning with passion”? What is it, and is it sinful?
Let me note, first, that Paul says it is better to marry than to burn with passion. I don’t see him suggesting that marriage is sinful, but I don’t see him speaking strongly enough to suggest that if one “burns with passion” one is, of necessity, engaging in sin, either. I see him suggesting that they are both “acceptable” states of being, though one is to be preferred over the other. Indeed, the one is to be preferred “so that Satan will not tempt you”—i.e., the one state tends to leave most people (those who have not been gifted as Paul was) in a position that is uniquely vulnerable to temptation.
What does it mean to “burn with passion”? Is Paul speaking, here, about lust (at least lust in the sense that Jesus used it in Matthew 5:28)?
I am sure his comments were intended to address such a circumstance. But on the basis of what I have just noted, I believe Paul was also speaking of what I might call a generalized sexual desire, a “fire in the loins,” so to speak, a “permissible” but not necessarily beneficial feeling (I refer once more to 1 Corinthians 6:12).
Clearly, Matthew 5:28-style “lust after a woman” is disallowed. But there are other states of being which we can recognize as neither ideal nor sinful.
Thinking back to my younger years and to conversations I’ve had with hundreds of young people, I imagine he may be referring to circumstances like the 15-year-old boy who finds himself constantly embarrassed because his penis keeps “leaping to attention” when he has offered it no special reason to be in that state. Or the 16-year-old girl who finds that, no matter how hard she tries, there comes a time every day—or every week or two, or even once a month—when she simply “can’t stand the tension” anymore: it keeps her awake at night . . . unless she seeks relief in some manner. Or the 19-year-old young man who, try as he might, keeps experiencing this strange feeling “down there” that he really wishes he didn’t have because it keeps distracting him from the college text he’s trying to study . . . or, if he ignores the “strange” feeling for a few days, it can become a real and literal aching pain. . . .
In the circumstances I’ve just described, we’re not talking “lust” or “lust after a woman (or man).” We’re talking about the natural, hormone-induced drives or physical sensations experienced by a large number of young men and women—drives and sensations very similar to those experienced by the lactating woman whose infant is unable to empty her milk ducts; drives and sensations not unlike those produced by our bodies when we feel we need to urinate or defecate; drives and sensations like those we experience when we feel hunger or sleepiness or the pain of a pimple.
Why do I say they are similar? Because they are physically based. And because the exact same physical circumstance may be completely overlooked by one person while generating unignorable symptoms—even pain, sometimes excruciating pain—in another.
Is the one person (who feels no pain or ignores the symptoms) holy while the other is sinful? I don’t think so. Are these experiences “common to man” (some people being excruciatingly aware while others hardly notice)? I think without doubt!
Let us return to 1 Corinthians 7:2-9.
What is this matter of “lack of self-control” (v. 5) and the comment about unmarried people who “cannot control themselves” (v. 9)?
Is Paul necessarily speaking of people who have engaged in illegitimate sexual activity or immoral sexual thought? Is he only speaking to married people, for example, who, when they have agreed to withhold from sexual relations for a time (perhaps in order that the husband can find work or pursue education at a distance), find themselves going to prostitutes or committing adultery or thinking lustful thoughts about people to whom they are not married? Or, with respect to unmarried people, is he only speaking to those who can’t seem to hold themselves back from “making out” or even “going all the way”?
I don’t think so!
I think he is talking about—and to—these people, yes. But he is also speaking about and to people who find that they “just” can’t get sex off their minds! . . . Or, more accurately: he is talking about and to people who find that thoughts about sexual things . . . —No, again. I don’t believe he is even necessarily talking about and to people whose minds are filled with thoughts about sexual things. I think he is talking about and to even people whose minds keep being invaded by sensations induced by their crazy genitals! They “just” want sexual release.
I have noticed that some people rarely if ever have these experiences. Others have them all the time. And it is to this latter group I hear Paul saying, “If you’re married: don’t withhold. If you’re not married, get married!”
And why does he give this advice?
Is it to get these people to quit sinning?
No! Not necessarily.
For some people—it would not surprise me if they were the majority—it may, indeed, be a matter of offering a way for them to quit sinning.
But for many, I believe it is a matter of trying to give them advice that will help them to avoid engaging in sin sometime in the future: “Do this so that you will not be tempted to sin.”
So, then. St. Paul offers great advice for the people who are married and the people who are in a position to become married.
But what about those who “burn with passion” but have no prospects of getting married? What about that 15-year-old boy, or the 16-year-old girl, or the 19-year-old college student I described above? Or what about the man or woman who finds him- or herself separated from his or her spouse for a protracted period of time?
Will Paul tell young people whose sex hormones are raging more wildly than they will ever rage later in life, “Meditate on Jesus,” or “Run 15 laps and take a cold shower”? Is that the kind of advice he gives married people? That’s not what I see!
To people who are older, married, and have significantly lower sex drives he says, “Don’t withhold yourselves one from the other lest Satan tempt you.”
And for the younger person who has no hope of marriage in the foreseeable future? . . .
We have no direct record of what St. Paul said–or would have said–in the circumstances. But BY ANALOGY, I think it is clear: “. . . To the unmarried I say, ‘Masturbation may help clear your mind. Do not look at or meditate on things you have no business looking at or meditating on, but relieve yourself . . . and move on with your life.'”
As I suggested in my original post, I think that fits with how St. Paul dealt with other subjects . . . whether the husband and wife who might otherwise be given to lust or adultery . . . or someone like Timothy whose stomach would be aided by a little wine.
No, not “every one of [the] potentially evil uses of different body parts spoke of actions that touch and/or injure someone besides the actor him- or herself.” Using your eyes to view pornography does not injure someone else – it injures only to the individual viewing the pornographic images. The same is true of masturbation.
You asked for bible verse about masturbation and I gave you one. You are now trying to interpret it in a manner that is contrary to 2,000 years of Church teaching. Are you smarter than all the theologians and Doctors of the Church? Consider that the devil may be clouding your judgement. He’s pretty good at that.
My point is simple: something good can also be used for evil. Our sexuality (as is our vision and our very existence) is a gift from God. Our sexuality and the ‘marital act’ is intended for procreation – a good thing. Masturbation is a grave sin. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on “The vocation to Chastity” [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM]. “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.”
Aside from the fact that your reasoning is flawed, attempting to convince others in a public forum that a sinful act is not sinful may lead others to sin. This too is sinful.
You might want to read Pope St. John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” which is an excellent analysis of human sexuality.
I surely agree, and know that this is an excellent case of going beyond Sacred Scripture and looking into Sacred Tradition to see the fuller picture.
“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, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”
I think that this last paragraph is hugely important. There are some who are instantly delivered from a habit such as this or perhaps alcoholism, or a dozen other hindrances to our walk with God, and many of us struggle with one or more of these all of our lives. While objectively masturbation is serious sin, I am very glad that the Catechism also presents the realistic observation that one can be fighting such a habit and still be in the state of grace. That is not to say we should sit back and just accept it as a part of our lives, but rather to say that AS we are learning to give this or other habits that are sometimes so deeply ingrained in us to God, our slipping and falling may not be a personal mortal sin, even though it is objectively. Nevertheless it is to be clearly confessed before God and a good priest of God who can counsel each person individually on their path to holiness and help them form a “game plan,” whether it means putting the computer in the living room, praying more, attending daily Mass, or any number of other ways to fight the battle. And even then, for some of us, the battle does still exist. I am just glad we serve a very merciful God. But that mercy is never an invitation to sin. Great post.
Surprisingly females, too? Oh, boy, you know nothing. Women do masturbate. Have you ever heard of toys, vibrators and all kind of sexual devices? Girls, even little girls, do masturbate. Sometimes without knowing it is wrong or sinful, Sometimes concious of acting in a sinful manner.
You seem unable to realize that women are sexual beings too and they struggle to keep chastity. Many catholic women do not engage in hook-up culture, but they suffer from being unable to avoid masturbation…
The fight Against sin is not a male exclusively matter.
The response of Richard Beck of Abelene Christian University said it right, combining the existence of lust which Jesus warned about. Thjose who wish to judge oneself as noy guilty search ways for their justification. Lust in all forms is out of Christian morality
Pingback: Christians & Masturbation: The Bible Alone Problem - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration