Are you looking for an answer to the topic “is pulling out a sin in christianity“? We answer all your questions at the website https://chewathai27.com/ppa in category: https://chewathai27.com/ppa/blog. You will find the answer right below.
Table of Contents
Is it a sin to jerk off Christianity?
The biblical story of Onan (Genesis 38) is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation and condemnation thereof, but the sexual act described by this story is coitus interruptus, not masturbation. There is no explicit claim in the Bible that masturbation is sinful.
Who pulled out in the Bible?
When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before he ejaculated and “spilled his seed on the ground” thus committing coitus interuptus, since any child born would not legally be considered his heir. The next statement in the Bible says that Onan did evil and that God slew him.
Is spilling your seed a sin?
practice of birth control. …it as the sin of Onan, who in the Old Testament was censured for spilling his seed; and the Roman Catholic church still officially condemns masturbation as a mortal sin.
Is birth control a sin?
A Mortal Sin
On New Year’s Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned any “artificial” means of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps were defined as artificial, since they blocked the natural journey of sperm during intercourse.
Wikipedia
Until the 1930s, the Catholic Church was not alone in its opposition to contraceptives. In the Christian tradition, birth control has long been associated with promiscuity and adultery and has been strongly condemned. However, after the Anglican Church passed a resolution in favor of birth control at its Lambeth Conference in 1930, other Protestant denominations also began to relax their bans. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church persisted in its opposition.
The Vatican’s position against contraception was centuries old. For much of that time, however, birth control had remained a dormant topic. Since most contraceptives consisted of folk remedies and home-made cervical caps, there was little cause for the Church to react. It was the mass production and availability of rubber condoms and diaphragms in the 1920s and 1930s, made possible by the invention of vulcanized rubber in 1839, that eventually forced the church to take a public stand on certain contraceptives.
A mortal sin
On New Year’s Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned all “artificial” methods of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps have been defined as artificial because they block the natural pathway of sperm during intercourse. Douches, suppositories, and spermicides killed or disabled all sperm and were also banned. According to church teaching, manipulating the “male seed” was tantamount to murder. A common admonition on the subject at the time was “so many contraceptives, so many murders”. Interfering with God’s will was a mortal sin and grounds for excommunication.
The purpose of intercourse
For the Vatican, the primary purpose of intercourse was the sacred act of procreation. If couples were interested in having sex, then they had to be willing to accept the potential for creating another life. For devout Catholics, this left only abstinence or the church-recognized rhythm method (abstaining from sex during the woman’s ovulation). However, the rhythm method was unreliable and many believed it would put a heavy strain on marital relations.
A reformist climate
With the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, many believed the church would change its centuries-old position. The Church was in the midst of reforms, and in this climate of modernization it seemed possible that the Vatican might bow to birth control. Since 1957, canon law has allowed women with “irregular” cycles to take birth control pills to regulate their cycles and allow them to better practice the rhythm method. Approval of the birth control pill, many believed, would soon follow.
“Natural” contraception
The pro-pill Catholics had a powerful ally on their side. John Rock, the eminent Catholic physician associated with Dr. Gregory Pincus, who conducted pill trials, publicly argued that the pill was merely an extension of the body’s normal functioning. Because the pill uses the same hormones already present in the female reproductive system and does not manipulate sperm, Rock felt the church should view the pill as a “natural” form of birth control.
The Vatican convened a commission to study the issue of the pill, but it would take the Church eight years to finalize its policy on the pill. Meanwhile, the pill has quickly become the most popular birth control method among American women, regardless of religion.
Who was the first person killed by God?
Cain, in the Bible (Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament), firstborn son of Adam and Eve who murdered his brother Abel (Genesis 4:1–16).
Wikipedia
The biblical story may have wanted to explain why a certain tribe called Cain had a special tattoo mark and why this tribe always severely avenged any murdered member. History may also explain why this tribe was nomadic rather than sedentary. Some Bible critics believe that the tribe of Cain were the Kenites.
Adriaen de Vries: Cain Kills Abel Cain Kills Abel, bronze sculptural group by Adriaen de Vries, 1622; in the National Gallery of Denmark. Statens Museum for Kunst (National Gallery of Denmark); www.smk.dk (public domain)
According to Irenaeus and other early Christian writers, a gnostic sect called the Cainites existed in the 2nd century AD.
What does the Bible say about preventing pregnancy?
The Bible never explicitly approves of contraception.
Wikipedia
Two parts of the Bible are often quoted to show God’s disapproval of birth control:
First, God commanded his people to “be fruitful and multiply,” and contraception is seen as an explicit disregard of that command.
Second, Onan was killed by God for “spilling his seed,” which is often viewed as divine condemnation of coitus interruptus.
The first of these examples is usually refuted by showing that contraception did not prevent people from being fertile and reproducing.
There are at least two interpretations of the second example:
God may have been angry with Onan for having sex for a purpose other than having children. This interpretation supports the idea that contraception is morally wrong. She also supports the idea that there is only one type of morally good sexual act: sex between a man and a woman who is married and having sex to produce children
God may not have been angry with Onan for preventing conception, but for failing to keep a commandment to father a child with his dead brother’s wife, but this interpretation has no application to modern cultures or morality, which is what nowadays Jewish law requires Onan to be regarded as rape, since the widow’s consent was not required – and this makes the story a very dubious basis for moral argument
Scripture in favor of contraception
The Bible never specifically approves of contraception. However, there are a number of passages where the Bible seems to accept that sex is to be enjoyed for reasons other than the procreation of children, and some people argue that this implies that no wrong is done when a couple has sex with intends not to have children.
Can Catholics use condoms?
The Catholic ban on the use of condoms, or any other device, for contraceptive purposes remains.
Wikipedia
In an attempt to clear up the confusion created over the weekend by the leak of differently translated passages from an interview book with the Pope, his spokesman used his introduction to signal that condom use is acceptable as the lesser evil if the risk there is an HIV infection.
Reactions to the statement across Africa exposed the divisions within the Catholic Church. The pope’s amplified comments may have created a doctrinal dilemma for hardliners.
Matthew Ndagosa, Archbishop of Kaduna Diocese in Nigeria, where Catholicism thrives, said: “Everyone misinterprets the Vatican.
“The Holy Father’s message was clear – there is no change in policy. The Church will continue to believe that indiscriminate condom use encourages promiscuity and makes the situation worse.”
But Boniface Lele, Archbishop of the Diocese of Mombasa in Kenya, where 30% of the population is Catholic, was pleased: To the Vatican’s displeasure, he had campaigned for a change in the Church’s condom policy. “In my diocese, I tell couples to use condoms when one or both are sick. For prevention, it’s a good thing.”
Gabriel Dolan, an Irish priest working among the poor in Mombasa, described the church’s historic stance on condom use as “an injustice to those who are vulnerable” in countries with a serious AIDS problem. “This news is a relief,” he said. “I think this is just the beginning. Making a small concession like that is like taking a brick out of the Berlin Wall.”
According to the German original and English translation of journalist Peter Seewald’s book Light of the World, the Pope said the use of a condom by an HIV-positive male prostitute could be a good thing, as it would represent a first step towards taking responsibility . But in the Italian version the word was used for a female prostitute.
Several commentators, particularly conservative ones, have jumped on the pope’s unusual example, claiming he authorizes no change in his church’s opposition to artificial birth control. By referring in the original to homosexual sex, in which condoms were not used for contraception, he upheld the ban on their use in heterosexual relationships.
But at a press conference at the Vatican to mark the book’s release, his spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said he raised the issue with the Pope on Sunday.
“I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important issue in the choice of male over female,” Lombardi said. “He said ‘no’ to me.”
Lombardi said the key point is, “It’s the first step to taking responsibility, considering the risk of the life of someone else you’re in a relationship with… This applies if you’re a woman, a man, or a trans person.” ”
As several experts have noted, the book cannot change the teaching. But Lombardi’s comments show that the Pope advocated using condoms as a lesser evil when there was a risk of contracting HIV.
The Catholic ban on the use of condoms or other contraceptive devices remains in place. One of the Pope’s most senior officials, Cardinal Rino Fisichella, said at the press conference that condoms are “in themselves an evil”.
The Pope’s comments do not detract from his insistence that abstinence and fidelity are more important in the fight against AIDS.
In Seewald’s book, he reiterates his view that condoms are “not really the cure for the evil of HIV infection.” But when asked whether his church is fundamentally opposed to their use, he gives an answer that falls far short of a clear answer.
“She doesn’t see it as a real or moral solution, of course, but in this or that case it can still be, with the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step towards another way, a human way, of sexuality.” Life.”
The shift appeared to have caught some of its top officials. When asked by the US-based National Catholic Register’s website whether the pope’s statement indicated that condoms would be allowed in some cases, Cardinal Raymond Burke bluntly replied, “No, it isn’t.”
Welcoming the postponement, Elena Curti, deputy editor of Catholic weekly The Tablet, said: “[The Pope] has let the genie out of the bottle. Once you’ve done that, it’s very difficult to put it back in. By allowing this crack of light – despite the cautious language he uses – it opens up the debate.”
The HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust said it was pleased with the announcement. “It represents a tremendous change from what the Vatican has previously said,” said the Trust’s communications director, Genevieve Edwards. “His comments are broad enough to allow people to interpret them as they see fit.”
But John Smeaton, a Catholic and director of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, denied there had been a change in policy. “Pope Benedict, like other Catholics, is bound by the Magisterium of the Church, which he proclaims in Caritas Veritate,” he wrote on his blog. “He probably won’t advocate a change in doctrine in an interview with a journalist a year later – and he doesn’t either.”
Popular Catholic blogger Father Tim Finigan acknowledged there had been a postponement, but warned, “I have to give a reaction of my own to the Holy Father’s comments on AIDS and condoms from the Army: ‘Do you think that’s wise, sir?’ We know that the widespread distribution of condoms to combat the HIV/AIDS problem has not worked in practice.”
Do Catholics believe in abortion?
The official teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
Wikipedia
The official teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II reject all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, stating that “human life is absolutely must be respected and protected from the moment of its conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as a person—including the inviolable right of every innocent being to live.”[1] However, the Church does recognize as morally legitimate certain acts that indirectly result in the death of the fetus, such as when the direct purpose is to remove a cancerous uterus. Canon 1398 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law imposes automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) on Latin Catholics who obtain a completed abortion[2] if they meet the requirements for such a sanction.[3] Eastern Catholics are not subject to automatic excommunication, but according to canon 1450 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, if found guilty of the same act, they must be excommunicated by decree,[4] and they can only be absolved of sin by the Epiarchial Bishop.[ 5] In addition to teaching that abortion is immoral, the Catholic Church in general also makes public statements and takes action against its legality.
Many Catholics, and most in some Western countries, hold views on abortion that differ from the official position of the Catholic Church, which opposes abortion and its legality. Views range from anti-abortion positions that allow for some exceptions to positions that accept the general legality[6][7][8][9][10] and morality[11] of abortion. There is a connection between attending Mass and conforming to official Church teaching on the subject; That is, frequent fair-goers are much more likely to be anti-abortion, while those who attend less frequently (or rarely or never) are more likely to be pro-abortion in certain circumstances.[8][10][]11][12]
Early writings[edit]
According to Respect For Unborn Human Life: The Church’s Constant Teaching, a document published by the United States Catholic Bishops’ Conference Committee on Pro-Life Activities, the Catholic Church has condemned procured abortion as immoral since the 1st century.[13 ]
Early Christian writings opposed to abortion are the Didache, Barnabas, Apocalypse of Peter[14] and the works of early writers such as Tertullian, Athenagoras of Athens,[15] Clement of Alexandria and Basil of Caesarea[16]. The earliest legislation of the Church did not distinguish between “formed” and “unformed” fetuses, as was done in the Greek Septuagint version of Exodus 21:22–23. this position is found in the writings of early church fathers such as Basil of Caesarea and canons of the early church councils (Elvira, Ancyra).[17][18]
In the 4th and 5th centuries, some writers such as Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor took the view that human life began at conception, others such as Lactantius spoke – following Aristotle – more of the soul, which afterwards in the Bodies were “infused” for forty days or more, and such as Jerome and Augustine of Hippo left to God the mystery of the timing of the infusion.[17]
Augustine of Hippo “strongly condemned” the practice of induced abortion” at any stage of pregnancy” as a crime, although he did rank the distinction between “formed” and “unformed” fetuses mentioned in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 21:22–23 did not consider the abortion of an “unformed” fetus to be murder, since he felt it could not be said with certainty whether the fetus had already received a soul.[19] The US Conference of Catholic Bishops considers Augustine’s reflections on abortion of little value today because of the limitations of the science of embryology at the time.[13]
Later writers such as John Chrysostom and Caesarius of Arles, and later church councils (e.g. Lerida and Braga II) also condemned abortion as “gravely wrong” without distinguishing between or defining precisely “formed” and “unformed” fetuses in which stage of pregnancy human life began.[17][18]
Changing ideas about the moment when the embryo acquires a human soul have led to changes in canon law in classifying the sin of abortion.[20] In particular, scholars such as John M. Riddle, Joan Cadden, and Cyril C. Means, Jr. have written that most Catholic authors before the 19th century did not consider abortion prior to “animation” or “animation” as a sinful and inherent fact that “abortion” was commonly understood to mean the termination of pregnancy after acceleration. [21]: 158 [22] [23] [24] The historian John Noonan writes that some Catholic clergymen saw nothing wrong in compiling lists of known abortive herbs and discovering new ones.[25]: 205–211 In the 13th century wrote the physician and cleric Peter of Spain, who according to some sources was Pope John XXI in 1276. became a book entitled Thesaurus Pauperum (Treasure of the Poor), which contained a long list of early-stage abortifacients, including rue, pennyroyal, and other mints.[21]: 33–34 Similarly, the medical writings of Hildegard von Bingen abortifacients such as tansy.[21]: 105
Some theologians, such as John Chrysostom and Thomas Sanchez, believed that post-quickening abortion was less sinful than deliberate contraception,[26]:161[27]:172,180 and Chrysostom believed that contraception was worse than murder.[25 ]: 98-99
As Koblitz writes,[28]: 16
Catholic theologians have long wrestled with the question of whether one can really be forgiven for a sin that one confesses while either still engaged in the sinful practice, or with the full intention of continuing the act once absolution has been obtained. When a woman confesses to having an abortion, she can make a sincere act of repentance if she believes she will never commit the sin again. “It only happened once” is a common (though not necessarily accurate) refrain when it comes to an unwanted pregnancy. The daily use of contraception, on the other hand, is irreconcilable to itself in this way and is therefore a sin that cannot be satisfactorily expunged for many Catholics.
Belief in delayed animation[edit]
Following Aristotle, some “leading Catholic thinkers” of early church history generally held that a human being as such did not come into existence immediately after conception, but only a few weeks later. Abortion was considered a sin but not murder until the embryo was animated by a human soul.[29] In On Virginal Conception and Original Sin 7, Anselm of Canterbury (1033–1109) said that “no human intellect accepts the view that an infant has the rational soul from the moment of conception.”[15] Some decades after Anselm’s death, a Catholic collection of canon law, in the Decretum Gratiani, declared that “he who is not a murderer brings about an abortion before the soul is in the body.”[15]
Even when canon law, consistent with the theory of delayed animation, imposed different penalties for early and late abortion, abortion at any stage was viewed by some commentators as a grave evil.[30] Thus, Thomas Aquinas, who accepted the Aristotelian theory that a human soul was infused only after 40 days for a male fetus, 90 days for a female, considered the abortion of an inanimate fetus to be always unethical,[31] a grave crime, [32] a grave sin, an iniquity, and contrary to nature. He wrote: “This sin, though grave and counting among the misdeeds and against nature, […] is something less than murder […] nor is it to be judged irregular unless one procures the abortion of an already formed fetus.”[15][33][34]
Legal consequences [ edit ]
Most early penitents imposed equal penances for abortions, early or late, but others distinguished between the two. Later penances are usually distinguished by imposing heavier penances for late abortions.[35] In comparison, anal and oral sex and intentional homicide were treated much more harshly.[36]: 67–74 [25]: 155–165 [27]: 135–213
Although the Decretum Gratiani, which remained the basis of Catholic canon law until it was replaced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, distinguished between early and late abortion, this canonical distinction was abolished by the Pope’s bull for a period of three years Sixtus V, Effraenatam, [a] of October 28, 1588. He indiscriminately decreed various penalties against perpetrators of all forms of abortion. Called abortion murder, it decreed that those who accomplished the abortion of a fetus, “animate or inanimate, formed or unformed,” should suffer the same punishments as “true murderers and assassins who actually and truly committed murder.” Besides imposing these penalties on subjects of the Papal States of which he was civil ruler, Pope Sixtus also imposed the spiritual penalty of automatic excommunication (Section 7).[37] According to Riddle, “The bull had a lifespan of about two and a half years and was weak in influence. The succeeding pope countered and returned to the traditional position that contraception was a sin and abortion a crime, but that abortion could not occur until after the fortieth day, when the fetus was ensouled.”[21]: 158
Sixtus’s successor, Pope Gregory XIV, realizing that the law was not having the effects hoped for, withdrew it in 1591 by publishing new regulations in the apostolic constitution Sedes Apostolica [b] (published May 31, 1591) and limited penalties to abortion of a ‘formed’ fetus:[37][38] “When abortion was neither ‘a matter of killing nor of an animate fetus’, Gregory thought it more ‘useful’ to go to the less severe penalties [for premature abortion ] of the sacred canons and profane laws: those who abort an inanimatus [soulless] are not guilty of true murder because they have not actually killed a human being; clergymen involved in abortions have committed a mortal sin, but committed no irregularity.[39] After 1591 Gregory’s Sedes apostolica “remained in force for almost three centuries and was not revised until 1869 by Pius IX.”[14]: 148
With his bull Apostolicae Sedis moderationi from 1869, Pope Pius IX revoked. the not-yet-animated fetus exception of Gregory XIV to the spiritual penalty of excommunication, declaring that those who obtained an effective abortion suffered an excommunication reserved for bishops or ordinaries.[40] From then on, this penalty was imposed automatically by abortion at any stage of pregnancy.[41]
The 1917 Code of Canon Law codified the Bull of Pius IX.[42]
Discussions about possible justifying circumstances
In the Middle Ages, many commentators on the Church condemned all abortions, but the 14th-century Dominican John of Naples is said to have been the first to explicitly state that abortion was indeed permissible when the goal was to save the mother’s life, provided that being the case, animation had not been achieved.[43] This view met with both support and opposition from other theologians. While Thomas Sanchez accepted this, in the 16th century Antoninus de Corbuba made the distinction, which was from then on widely accepted among Catholic theologians, that direct killing of the fetus was unacceptable but that treatment to cure the mother was then given it would indirectly lead to fetal death.[43]
In the 17th century, when Francis Torreblanca authorized abortions intended solely to save a woman’s reputation, the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), then led by Pope Innocent XI, condemned the suggestion that “it It is lawful to perform an abortion before the fetus is ensouled, lest a girl found pregnant be killed or slandered.”[44][45]
Although it is sometimes said that the 18th-century Alphonsus Liguori argued that because of the uncertainty of when the soul enters the foetus, abortion, while generally morally wrong, is acceptable in circumstances such as when the mother’s life is in danger was,[46] He clarified that it is never right to take a drug designed solely to kill a fetus, although it is lawful (at least according to popular theological opinion) to give a seriously ill mother a drug whose direct effect is to save their life, even if it indirectly leads to the expulsion of the fetus.[47] While mentioning the distinction between animate and inanimate fetuses at the time, Liguori explained that there was no consensus as to when the soul is infused, with many agreeing that it occurs at the moment of conception, and said that the Church was kind to the 40-day opinion followed when the penalties of irregularity and excommunication are applied only to those who knowingly caused the abortion of a living fetus.[48]
A disapproving letter published in the New York Medical Record in 1895 stated that the Jesuit Augustine Lehmkuhl considered craniotomy legitimate when used to save the mother’s life. The origin of the report was an article in a German medical journal, denounced as false in the American Ecclesiastical Review that same year, which stated that while Lehmkuhl admitted doubts and floated ideas at an earlier stage of the discussion, he later confessed a view adopted in full accordance with the negative judgments of 1884 and 1889 of the Holy Penitentiary,[50] which had refrained from commenting in 1869.[51] According to Mackler, Lehmkuhl had accepted as a tenable theory that it is permissible to remove even an animated fetus from the uterus since it does not necessarily kill it, but he had rejected direct attacks on the fetus such as a craniotomy.
The craniotomy was therefore banned in 1884 and again in 1889.[50] In 1895 the Holy See ruled out inducing non-viable preterm birth and in 1889 established the principle that any direct killing of the fetus or mother is wrong; In 1902, it barred the direct removal of an ectopic embryo to save the mother’s life, but did not prohibit the removal of the infected fallopian tube, causing an indirect abortion (see below).[51]
In 1930 Pope Pius XI. what he called “the outright murder of innocents” to save the mother. And the Second Vatican Council declared: “Life must be protected with the greatest care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are heinous crimes.”[53]
Church doctrine[ edit ]
Unwanted abortion[edit]
The principle of double effect is often cited in connection with abortions. A doctor who believes that abortion is always morally wrong can still remove a pregnant woman’s uterus or fallopian tubes, knowing that the procedure will result in the death of the embryo or fetus in cases where the woman fails to do so procedure will certainly die (examples are cited aggressive uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy). In these cases, the intended effect is saving the life of the woman, not termination of the pregnancy, and death of the embryo or fetus is a side effect. Fetal death is an undesirable but unavoidable consequence.[54][55]
Ectopic pregnancy[ edit ]
An ectopic pregnancy is one of the few cases where the foreseeable death of an embryo is permissible, since it is an indirect termination of pregnancy. This view was also supported by Pius XII. Represented in an address to the Italian Society of Urology in 1953.[56]
Applying the Thomist principle of totality (removal of a pathological part to preserve the person’s life) and the doctrine of double action, the only moral action in an ectopic pregnancy where a woman’s life is directly threatened is removal of the tube, containing the human embryo (salpingectomy). The death of the human embryo is unintentional, although foreseen.[57]
The use of methotrexate and salpingectomy remains controversial in the Catholic medical community, and the Church has not taken an official stance on these procedures. The Catholic Health Association of the United States, which issues guidelines for Catholic hospitals and health care systems there, allows both procedures. The argument that these methods amount to indirect termination of pregnancy revolves around the notion that removing the fallopian tube or, in the case of methotrexate, chemically destroying the trophoblastic cells (those that later form the placenta) does not have a direct effect on the developing embryo. However, individual hospitals and physicians may choose to ban these procedures if they personally interpret these acts as direct abortion.[58][59] Despite the lack of an official church statement on these treatments, in a 2012 survey of 1,800 ob/gyns working in religious hospitals, only 2.9% of respondents said they felt restricted in their treatment options by their employers, which suggesting that in practice, physicians and healthcare facilities generally choose to treat ectopic pregnancies.[60][61]
Embryos [ edit ]
The Church considers the destruction of any embryo to be an abortion and therefore opposes embryonic stem cell research.[62]
sanctions [edit]
Catholics who obtain a completed abortion are subject to a latae sententiae excommunication.[2] This means that the excommunication is not imposed by any authority or judicial process (as with a ferendae sententiae sentence); rather, as canon law expressly states, it arises ipso facto when the offense is committed (latae setentiae penalty).[63] Canon law states that in certain circumstances “the accused is not bound by a late sentence”; among the ten circumstances listed is the commission of an offense by a person under the age of sixteen, or by one unaware of the existence of the penalty without negligence, or by one “whose compulsion was from grave, if only proportionate, fear, or on account of of necessity or serious inconvenience.”[64][65]
According to a 2004 memorandum by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Catholic politicians who consistently support and vote for legal abortion laws should be briefed by their priest on Church doctrine and warned not to refrain from the Eucharist or risk refusing it until they stop those activities. [66] This position is based on Canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and was also personally endorsed by Archbishop Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, former Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.[67] Pope Francis reiterated this position in March 2013 when he stated that “[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, especially when it comes to abortion, euthanasia and other serious crimes against life and the family acts. This responsibility rests particularly on legislators, government leaders and health professionals.”[68]
Forgiveness for women who have abortions[edit]
Aside from pointing out in the Catholic Church in its canon law that automatic excommunication does not apply to women who abort out of great fear or because of serious inconvenience, the Catholic Church, without such distinctions, assures women who have had an abortion the possibility of the forgiveness to. Pope John Paul II wrote:
I want to say a special word now to women who have had abortions. The Church is aware of the many factors that may have influenced your decision and has no doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even devastating decision. The wound in your heart may not have healed yet. Certainly what happened was and is terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Instead, try to understand what happened and deal with it honestly. If you have not already done so, surrender to repentance with humility and trust. The Father of Mercy is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the sacrament of Reconciliation.[69]
On the occasion of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in 2015, Pope Francis announced that it would be reserved for all priests (during the Jubilee year – that on the 20th, bishops and certain priests who received such a mandate from their bishop.[70] This policy was enforced by a apostolic exhortation entitled Misericordia et misera (Mercy and Misery), issued November 21, 2016.[71][72]
Recent Statements on Church Position[ edit ]
The Church teaches that “human life must be absolutely respected and protected from the moment of conception. From the moment of his existence a human being must be recognized as a person – including the inviolable right of every innocent being to live.”[1] This follows from the fact that probability theory must not be used when human life is at stake ;[73][74] the Catholic Catechism teaches that from conception the embryo is “as” (Latin: tamquam, “as if”) a human person.[75]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia concludes:[76]
At a certain stage of intrauterine development, it is perfectly obvious that fetal life is fully human. Although some may speculate as to when this stage will be reached, there is no way to obtain this knowledge by any known criterion; and as long as embryonic life is likely to be human from the first moment of its existence, purposeful termination is (immoral).
Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center writes that the modern Magisterium has carefully avoided confusing “man” with “human person” and avoids concluding that every embryonic human being is a person, which would raise the question of “animation” and immortal destiny.[77] https://web.archive.org/web/20220714181602/https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/the-wisdom-of-the-church-is-in-her-silence-too
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that since the 1st century the Church has affirmed that any assisted abortion is a moral evil; the Catechism states that this position “has not changed and remains unchangeable”.[78]
The Church teaches that the inalienable right to life of every innocent human being is a constitutive element of civil society and its legislation. In other words, society has a legal obligation to protect the life of the unborn child.[79]
Catholic theologians trace Catholic ideas about abortion to early Christian teachings such as the Didache, Barnabas, and Peter’s Apocalypse.[14] In contrast, in A Brief, Liberal, Catholic Defense of Abortion, Catholic philosophers Daniel Dombrowski and Robert Deltete analyzed the theological history of the Church and the “development of science” to argue that a pro-abortion position “is defensibly Catholic “ be.[80]
attitudes of lay Catholics
Although the church hierarchy fights against abortion and its legalization under all circumstances, including threats to a woman’s life or health and pregnancy from rape, many Catholics disagree with this position, according to several polls of Western Catholic views.
United States[edit]
A majority of US Catholics hold views that differ from official church doctrine on abortion, although they also hold more anti-abortion attitudes than the general public.[81] According to a 1995 survey by Lake Research and the Tarrance Group, 64% of US Catholics say they disagree with the statement that “any abortion is morally wrong.”[82] According to a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, 51% of US Catholics say “having an abortion is morally wrong.” with church policy that abortion should be illegal in all cases; the rest of the respondents held positions ranging from supporting legal abortion in certain limited circumstances to fully accepting abortion in all cases.[6][7][8][84] According to a 2009 Pew Research Center poll, 47% of American Catholics believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases,” while 42% of American Catholics believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.” should be illegal.[10] When asked the binary question of whether abortion is acceptable or unacceptable, rather than whether it should or should not be allowed in all or most cases, polls show that 40% of American Catholics said so conducted by Gallup in 2006-2008 was acceptable, about the same percentage as non-Catholics.[11] According to the National Catholic Reporter, about 58% of Catholic women in America feel they do not have to obey their bishop’s teaching on abortion.[85]
However, results in the United States differ significantly when polls distinguish between practicing and/or ecclesiastical Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. Those who attend church weekly are more likely to be anti-abortion.[8][10][11][12] According to a 2008 poll by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, 36% of practicing Catholics, defined as those who attend church at least twice a month, consider themselves “pro-choice”; while 65% of non-practicing Catholics describe themselves as “pro-choice,”[86] According to polls conducted by Gallup in 2006-2008, 24% of practicing Catholics in that poll defined those who “weekly or nearly every day “going to church week,” believing that abortion is morally acceptable.[11]
It is said that “Latino Catholics” in the United States are more anti-abortion than “White Catholics”.[12]
Some reasons for rejecting the Church’s position on the legality of abortion, aside from deeming abortion morally acceptable, are: “Personally, I am against abortion, but I think the Church focuses its energies too much on abortion and not to social action”[ 87] or “I do not wish to impose my views on others.”[88][89][90][91]
According to a poll conducted by Zogby International, 29% of Catholic voters choose their candidate solely on the candidate’s position on abortion; most of them vote for anti-abortion candidates; 44% believe a “good Catholic” cannot vote for a politician who supports abortion rights, while 53% believe you can.[6]
According to a 2011 report by the Public Religion Research Institute, 68% of American Catholics believe you can still be a “good Catholic” if you disagree with the church’s position on abortion, about as many as members of other religious groups.[12] Commenting on this long-standing phenomenon of a number of Catholics disagreeing with the Church’s official position on abortion, Pope John Paul II commented: “Sometimes it is asserted that contradiction to the Magisterium is perfectly compatible with being a ‘good Catholic ‘ and not an obstacle to receiving the sacraments. Das ist ein schwerer Irrtum.“ In dem, was die Los Angeles Times eine wichtige Ermahnung nannte, fügte er hinzu: „Es war nie einfach, die Lehre des Evangeliums in ihrer Gesamtheit anzunehmen, und das wird es auch nie sein.“[92][93] Viele behaupten jedoch, dass dies so ist das Problem, dass einige der stärksten Anti-Abtreibungs-Befürworter scheinbar unbesorgt über kritische soziale Fragen im gesamten Spektrum der moralischen Lehre der Kirche sind.[94] US-Kardinal Bernardin und Papst Franziskus waren prominente Befürworter dieses „nahtlosen Kleidungsstücks“-Ansatzes.[95] Die US-Bischöfe haben die Katholiken aufgefordert, alle Gefahren für das Leben und die Menschenwürde abzuwägen, bevor sie ihre Stimme abgeben:[96] Das Schlagwort “intrinsic evil” kann zu einer übermäßigen Vereinfachung von Themen führen.[97] In seiner Kolumne in der Jesuitenzeitschrift America bemerkte Professor John F. Kavanaugh, S.J.:[98]
Die meisten Menschen, die offen für die Fakten sind, erkennen, dass ein menschliches Leben am Ende des ersten Trimesters einer Schwangerschaft begonnen hat. An diesem Punkt kann eine gemeinsame Grundlage zum Schutz des ungeborenen menschlichen Lebens gefunden werden. Der politische Wille, diesen Schutz zu gewährleisten, ist vorhanden; aber solange die extremen Positionen bestehen, wird nichts unternommen.
United Kingdom[ edit ]
Eine Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2010 ergab, dass einer von vierzehn britischen Katholiken die Lehre der Kirche akzeptiert, dass Abtreibung unter keinen Umständen erlaubt sein sollte.[9] Eine Umfrage aus dem Jahr 2016 ergab, dass die Katholiken in Nordirland in ihren Ansichten zur Abtreibung weitaus konservativer waren als die Menschen in Großbritannien.[99]
Poland[ edit ]
In Polen, wo 85 % der Bevölkerung katholisch sind,[100] ergab eine Umfrage von Pew Research aus dem Jahr 2017, dass 8 % der polnischen Befragten der Meinung waren, dass Abtreibung in allen Fällen legal sein sollte und 33 %, dass sie in den meisten Fällen legal sein sollte. Andererseits waren 38 % der Meinung, dass es in den meisten Fällen illegal sein sollte, und 13 %, dass es in allen Fällen illegal sein sollte.[101]
Australia[ edit ]
Einer Umfrage zufolge sagen 72 % der australischen Katholiken, dass die Entscheidung für eine Abtreibung “den einzelnen Frauen und ihren Ärzten überlassen werden sollte”.[102]
Italy[ edit ]
Laut dem italienischen Meinungsforschungsinstitut Eurispes glauben zwischen 18,6 % und 83,2 % der italienischen Katholiken, dass Abtreibung je nach den Umständen akzeptabel ist. Die höchste Zahl, 83,2 %, befürwortet den freiwilligen Schwangerschaftsabbruch bei Lebensgefahr der Mutter.[103]
Letzte Ereignisse [Bearbeiten]
Belgien [ bearbeiten ]
Vor 1990 war Belgien eines der wenigen europäischen Länder, in denen Abtreibung illegal war. Abtreibungen waren jedoch inoffiziell erlaubt (und wurden sogar aus „Krankenkassen“ erstattet), solange sie als „Kürettage“ registriert waren. Es wurde geschätzt, dass jedes Jahr 20.000 Abtreibungen durchgeführt wurden (im Vergleich zu 100.000 Geburten).[104]
Anfang 1990 verabschiedete eine Koalition aus sozialistischen und liberalen Parteien trotz des Widerstands der christlichen Parteien ein Gesetz zur teilweisen Liberalisierung des Abtreibungsrechts in Belgien. Die belgischen Bischöfe wandten sich mit einer öffentlichen Erklärung an die breite Bevölkerung, in der sie ihre doktrinäre und pastorale Opposition zum Gesetz darlegten. Sie warnten die belgischen Katholiken, dass jeder, der „effektiv und direkt“ bei der Beschaffung von Abtreibungen mitarbeite, „sich selbst aus der kirchlichen Gemeinschaft ausschließt“. Motiviert durch die starke Haltung der belgischen Bischöfe teilte König Baudoin dem Premierminister am 30. März mit, dass er das Gesetz nicht unterzeichnen könne, ohne sein Gewissen als Katholik zu verletzen.[105] Da die Gesetzgebung ohne die Unterschrift des Königs keine Gesetzeskraft hätte, löste seine Weigerung, zu unterzeichnen, beinahe eine Verfassungskrise aus.[106] Das Problem wurde jedoch durch eine Vereinbarung zwischen dem König und Premierminister Martens gelöst, durch die die belgische Regierung den König für regierungsunfähig erklärte, seine Autorität übernahm und das Gesetz erließ, woraufhin das Parlament am nächsten Tag für die Wiedereinsetzung des Königs stimmte. [104][107][108][109][110][111] Der Vatikan beschrieb das Vorgehen des Königs als „edle und mutige Entscheidung“, die von einem „sehr starken moralischen Gewissen“ diktiert wurde.[112] Andere haben vorgeschlagen, dass Baudoins Aktion “kaum mehr als eine Geste” war, da er nur 44 Stunden nach seiner Absetzung als König wieder eingesetzt wurde.[105]
Brazil[ edit ]
In March 2009, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said that by securing the abortion of a nine-year-old girl who had been raped by her stepfather, her mother and the doctors involved were excommunicated latae sententiae.[113][114] This statement of the Archbishop drew criticism not only from women’s rights groups and the Brazilian government, but also from Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who said it was unjust,[115] and other churchmen. In view of the interpretations that were placed upon Archbishop Fisichella’s article, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a clarification reiterating that “the Church’s teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change.”[116] The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil declared the Archbishop’s statement mistaken, since in accordance with canon law, when she had acted under pressure and in order to save her daughter’s life, the girl’s mother certainly had not incurred automatic excommunication and there was insufficient evidence for declaring that any of the doctors involved had.[117]
England [ edit ]
In September 2013, Archbishop Peter Smith, Vice-President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, decried the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed against two doctors who accepted a request to perform an abortion as a means of sex selection, a procedure that is illegal in Britain and that Archbishop Smith described as one expression of what he called the injustice that abortion is to the unwanted child.[118][119]
Indien [ bearbeiten ]
Mother Teresa opposed abortion, and in the talk she gave in Norway on being awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize for Peace, she called abortion “the greatest destroyer of peace today”.[120][121] She further stated that, “Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want.”[122][123][124][125]
Ireland[ edit ]
In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar died at University Hospital Galway in Ireland, after suffering a miscarriage which led to sepsis (blood poisoning), multiple organ failure, and her death. She was denied abortion under Irish law because the fetus had a heartbeat and nothing could therefore be done. A midwife explained to her, in a remark for which she later apologized: “This is a Catholic country.” Widespread protests were subsequently held in Ireland and India, and there was a call to re-examine the Irish abortion laws.[126][127][128][129] On 25 May 2018, the Irish electorate voted by a majority of 66.4% to repeal the 8th Amendment which banned abortion in almost all circumstances, thus allowing the government to legislate for abortion. An exit poll conducted by RTE suggested that almost 70% of those who voted yes considered themselves to be Catholic. New law created by the Irish Parliament allowed for abortion in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy (with an exception to the time limit if the woman’s life is at risk). Abortion services commenced on 1 January 2019.
Italy[ edit ]
Speaking to a group of anti-abortion activists from the Congress of the Movement for Life of Italy, Pope Francis called them Good Samaritans and encouraged them “to protect the most vulnerable people, who have the right to be born into life.” He called children a gift, and emphasized the dignity of women. He said they were doing “important work in favor of life from conception until its natural end.”[130]
Poland[ edit ]
It is widely believed that the Catholic Church in Poland is the main source of opposition to the liberalization of abortion laws and the reintroduction of sex education in Polish schools in accordance with European standards. However, research studies have shown that Polish Catholics have a wide range of views on sex and marriage. Many Polish people, including devout Catholics, complain that the Catholic Church makes demands that very few Catholics want and are able to satisfy.[131]
Before the transition to democracy, Poland’s government presided over some of the highest abortion rates in Europe, with approximately 1.5 million procedures done per year. Polling in 1991, coming after the collapse of the past communist regime in Poland, found that about 60% of Polish people supported nonrestrictive abortion laws.[132]
That being said, ultra-conservative groups remain prominent in Polish politics and often use notions of Polish-Catholic national identity to encourage factionalism and support an agenda that includes weakening democratic institutions like the judiciary and free press as well as supporting restrictions on reproductive decision-making.[133]
United States[edit]
An advocacy organization called Catholics for Choice was founded in 1973 to support the availability of abortion, stating that this position is compatible with Catholic teachings particularly with “primacy of conscience” and the importance of the laity in shaping church law.[134] In October 1984, CFC (then Catholics for a Free Choice) placed an advertisement, signed by over one hundred prominent Catholics, including nuns, in the New York Times. The advertisement, called A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion contested statements by the Church hierarchy that all Catholics opposed abortion rights, and said that “direct abortion … can sometimes be a moral choice.” The Vatican initiated disciplinary measures against some of the nuns who signed the statement, sparking controversy among American Catholics, and intra-Catholic conflict on the abortion issue remained news for at least two years in the United States.[135] Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz excommunicated Catholics in his jurisdiction who were associated with this organization in 1996,[136] and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stated in 2000 that “[CFC] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the USCCB.”[137]
Political debate over legalization of abortion [ edit ]
Position of the Church [ edit ]
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” Catechism of the Catholic Church[79]
Since the Catholic Church views procured abortion as gravely wrong, it considers it a duty to reduce its acceptance by the public and in civil legislation. While it considers that Catholics should not favour direct abortion in any field, according to Frank K. Flinn, the Church recognizes that Catholics may accept compromises that, while permitting direct abortions, lessen their incidence by, for instance, restricting some forms or enacting remedies against the conditions that give rise to them. Flinn says that support may be given to a political platform that contains a clause in favour of abortion but also elements that will actually reduce the number of abortions, rather than to an anti-abortion platform that will lead to their increase.[138]
In 2004, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declared: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”[139]
Church treatment of politicians who favor abortion rights [ edit ]
Many controversies have arisen between the Church and Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In most cases, Church officials have planned to refuse communion to these politicians. In other cases, officials have quietly urged the politicians themselves to refrain from receiving communion.[140]
Medical personnel and hospitals [ edit ]
Some medical personnel, including many Catholics, have strong moral or religious objections to abortions and do not wish to perform or assist in abortions.[141][142] The Catholic Church has argued that the “freedom of conscience” rights of such personnel should be legally protected. For example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supports such “freedom of conscience” legislation arguing that all healthcare providers should be free to provide care to patients without violating their “most deeply held moral and religious convictions.”[143][144] The Virginia Catholic Conference expressed support for pharmacists who consider that they cannot in conscience be on duty during a sale of emergency contraception, which they believe is the same as abortion.[145]
In response to such concerns, many states in the U.S. have enacted “freedom of conscience” laws that protect the right of medical personnel to refuse to participate in procedures such as abortion.[145] In 2008, towards the end of the second Bush administration, the U.S. federal government issued a new rule that ensured that healthcare workers would have the right to “refuse to participate in abortions, sterilizations or any federally funded health service or research activity on religious or ethical grounds.” The new rule was welcomed by anti-abortion organizations including the Catholic Church; however, abortion rights advocates criticized the new regulation arguing that it would “restrict access not only to abortion but also to contraception, infertility treatment, assisted suicide and stem-cell research.” The incoming Obama administration proposed to rescind this rule.[146]
Attempts have been made to oblige Catholic hospitals to accept an obligation to perform emergency abortions in cases where the pregnant woman’s life is at risk;[147] however, hospitals that agree to perform abortions in contradiction to Church teaching may lose their official qualification as “Catholic”.[148][149] Church authorities have also admonished Catholic hospitals who, following medical standards, refer patients outside the hospital for abortion or contraception, or who perform tests for fetal deformity.[150]
One Catholic hospital devotes care to helping women who wish to stop an abortion after the process has begun.[151][152]
In November 2009, when Sister Margaret McBride, as a member of the ethics board of a Catholic hospital, allowed doctors to perform an abortion to save the life of a mother suffering from pulmonary hypertension, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted determined that she had incurred a latae sententiae excommunication, on the grounds that direct abortion cannot be justified.[153][154][155]
As of December 2011 , the hospital stated that McBride had reconciled with the Church and is in good standing with her religious institute and the hospital.[156]
See also[edit]
Notes [edit]
References[ edit ]
Further reading[edit]
What does the Bible say about having children?
“Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him.” “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Wikipedia
🌻 Join the Country Club today and enjoy exclusive access to house tours, seasonal crafts, recipes and more!
Who was Tamar in Bible?
Tamar, whose story is embedded in the ancestor narratives of Genesis, is the ancestress of much of the tribe of Judah and, in particular, of the house of David. She is the daughter-in-law of Judah, who acquires her for his firstborn son, Er.
Wikipedia
Although readers know that God killed two of Judah’s sons, Judah does not. He suspects that Tamar is a “mortal woman,” a woman whose sexual partners are all doomed to die. So Judah is afraid to give Tamar to his youngest son Shelah. As a result, Judah wrongs Tamar. According to Near Eastern custom, known from Middle Assyrian laws, if a man had no son over ten years of age, he could consummate the marriage between a widow whose husband died childless (Yevamah) and the brother of the deceased (Yavam or Levir).Levirate Marriage (Yibbum) obligation itself; If he does not do this, the woman is declared a “widow” and can remarry. Judah, perhaps afraid of Tamar’s deadly character, could have freed her. But he doesn’t – he sends her to her father’s house as a “widow”. Unlike other widows, she cannot remarry and must remain chaste on pain of death. She is in limbo.
Tamar is said to be just waiting for Shelah to grow up and mate with her. But after some time she realizes that Judah will not bring about this union. She therefore devises a plan to secure her own future by getting her father-in-law to have sex with her. She’s not planning incest. A father-in-law must not sleep with his daughter-in-law (Lev 18:15), just as a brother-in-law must not sleep with his sister-in-law (Lev 18:16), but in -law incest rules are suspended for the purpose of levirate. After all, the levir is only a substitute for the dead husband.
What is a breaking anointing?
The concept of “The Breaker Anointing” is the ability to call on God to break through any spiritual hindrance either individually or corporately, that would impede His Kingdom and His purposes for the Church in this age. Jesus is the Breaker who goes before us.
Wikipedia
Sorry, we just need to make sure you’re not a robot. For best results please make sure your browser accepts cookies.
Is using birth control a sin?
See some more details on the topic is pulling out a sin in christianity here:
Is withdrawal method a sin? – Quora
First off, are you married? If not, any premarital intercourse/penetration is a sin. Although, if you are married, it is not a sin. However, it’s not smart …
Source: www.quora.com
Date Published: 12/6/2022
View: 307
Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment
The evil of the contraceptive act stems from its willful, unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. It violates natural law.
Source: www.ncregister.com
Date Published: 2/27/2022
View: 1526
Why is natural family planning not a sin but pulling out is?
Consering contraception and natural family planning are thought of as Catholic issues, whether something is or isn’t in the Bible isn’t really relevant. The …
Source: www.reddit.com
Date Published: 3/14/2022
View: 3038
Is it a sin to use the withdrawal method to prevent conception?
The problem with the rules are that they are man-made. You will find that they do not come from the Bible, but what the Roman Catholics call their traditions.
Source: lavistachurchofchrist.org
Date Published: 2/26/2021
View: 5853
Did you know that Pull Out Game Is Sinful? – Religion – Nigeria
Lol.. pull out, pull in, pull off,pull over are all sinful.. so far you aint married to the fellow,.. all its fornication/ adultry.. Leave the sinful path and …
Source: www.nairaland.com
Date Published: 4/5/2021
View: 5736
What is onanism? Is onanism a sin? | GotQuestions.org
Onanism is yet another English word that has its roots in the Bible. The term itself comes from a character in the book of Genesis.
Source: www.gotquestions.org
Date Published: 3/11/2021
View: 2805
Is the withdrawal method allowed by the Catholic Church?
NO! The story of Onan has been misinterpreted by the Catholic church in order to get more parishioners. His sin was NOT the withdrawal method (which is not very …
Source: 4thstcog.com
Date Published: 9/9/2022
View: 5819
Is the withdrawal method a sinful way to prevent pregnancy in …
No. Why? Because the Bible doesn’t say so in any way. Onan sinned by spiting his brother and his sister-in-law.
Source: www.christianteenforums.com
Date Published: 6/16/2021
View: 9745
Onan and Contraceptive Sin – Catholic Answers
25:5-10). Not wanting his deceased brother’s wife Tamar to conceive, Onan “wasted his seed on the ground” during sexual intercourse with her. And, the Bible …
Source: www.catholic.com
Date Published: 5/22/2022
View: 5901
Is Permanent Birth Control a Sin? | Desiring God
We would like to know what the Bible teaches about birth control, especially permanent surgeries like vasectomies and other options out …
Source: www.desiringgod.org
Date Published: 6/3/2021
View: 372
Is withdrawal method a sin?
Something went wrong. Wait a moment and try again.
Try again
Religious views on masturbation
Views on masturbation vary widely among world religions. Some religions view it as a spiritually harmful practice, others see it as not spiritually harmful, and others take a situational view. Among these latter religions, some consider masturbation permissible when used as a means of sexual self-control or as part of healthy self-exploration, but prohibit it when done for motives they believe to be wrong or as an addiction. For example, Christian denominations have different views on masturbation. Today, Roman Catholic (including Eastern Catholic), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and some Protestant Christians consider masturbation a sin. Many Protestant churches in Northern and Western Europe and some Protestant churches in North America and Australia/New Zealand do not consider masturbation a sin.
According to Björn Krondorfer, “Autoerotic sex only became conceivable as a distinct entity among sexual sins when the autonomous self emerged.”[1] He further quotes Laqueur: “It was only after the Freudian revolution … that a cultural change took place. Masturbation was now considered an adult, non-pathological, pleasurable activity valued. “Starting in the 1950s, with feminism in the 1960s and early 1970s, with the subsequent sex wars, and with the global gay movement of the 1950s, in the last quarter of the century it became an arena for sexual politics and for the arts in a broad spectrum of society …Because of this cultural shift across the spectrum, even theological reappraisals of masturbation as a positive sexual practice were possible—although, admittedly, rare.”[1]
A 2016 Psychology Today article states that the more religious people are, the more likely they are to limit their sexual fantasies, have fewer sex partners, use less pornography, and express greater disapproval of sex toy use. [2]
Abrahamic religions[edit]
Bible Studies[ edit ]
The biblical story of Onan (Genesis 38) is traditionally associated with reference to masturbation and its condemnation[3] but the sexual act described in this story is coitus interruptus, not masturbation.[4][5][6][7 ] [8] There is no explicit statement in the Bible that masturbation is sinful.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][excessive quotations]
According to James Nelson, there are three interpretative investigations into why Onan’s act is condemned: The Onan story reflects the firm “reproductive” accent of the Hebrew interpretation regarding sexuality, a constant of the “pre-scientific mind” to accommodate that the child is contained in semen just as a plant is contained in its seed, and male masturbation and homosexual acts have been more strongly condemned in the Judeo-Christian tradition than the same acts by women.[18][19]
Ilona N. Rashkow states, “It is debatable whether masturbation is considered a category of ‘negative’ sexual activity in the Hebrew Bible” and that Leviticus 15:16 “refers to the emission rather than to its circumstances.”[20] Jones and Jones note James R. Johnson’s biblical view of masturbation: “to treat a solitary sexual experience, whether wet dream or masturbation, as a purely ceremonial matter of cleanliness and not a question of morality.”[14] They say: “Johnson suggests that Leviticus 15:16-18 should set the tone for our dealings with masturbation. Verses 16 and 17 say that a man who has ejaculation should wash and be ceremonially unclean until evening. Verse 18 goes on to say that when a man and woman engage in intercourse, the same rules of cleanliness apply. By mentioning intercourse separately, the passage certainly implies that the ejaculation in verses 16 and 17 was for the man individually. The passage may refer to a nocturnal ejaculation or wet dream as masturbation, but the passage is not specific. Johnson suggests that this passage from Leviticus is relevant to the treatment of a solitary sexual experience, be it a wet dream or a masturbation, as a purely ceremonial issue of purity rather than a question of morality. The passage also no more disapproves of the experience of loneliness than of intercourse. Because Christians today generally regard the ceremonial law of the Old Testament as no longer valid, this author proposes that from a biblical perspective, masturbation is not in itself a moral issue, nor is it a ceremonial issue.”[14]
TJ Wray explains what the Bible actually says (and does not say) about masturbation: “Returning to the Levitical list of sexual taboos, strangely enough, any mention of masturbation is absent from the list.”[13] She then continues the discussion of Genesis 38 and continues Leviticus 15 to conclude that “None of this, however, constitutes a clear condemnation of masturbation.”[13]
Carl L. Jech states that “masturbation is never mentioned in the Bible”.[11] M.K. Malan and Vern Bullough have stated that “nowhere in the Bible is there a clear, unchallenged reference to masturbation” and that “there is no mention of masturbation in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon.”[12]
According to The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender, some scholars suggest that the word “hand” at Matthew 5:29-30, Mark 9:42-48, and Matthew 18:6-9 may imply masturbation Mishnah (m. Nid. 2.1).[21]:204 Regarding these Scriptures, the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Gender Studies notes Will Deming’s view: “Sining with eye, hand, and foot may stem from a formulaic tradition warnings against lustful gaze (with the eyes), masturbation (with the hand), and adultery (with ‘foot’, the Hebrew euphemism for genitals).”[22] Alongside the eye, Deming argues that “the hand plays a major role in lust as well through masturbation”.[23]
Christianity [edit]
Early Church[ edit ]
The Graeco-Egyptian church father Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215) writes in his Paedagogus or The Instructor of Children:
Because of its divine arrangement for man’s procreation, the seed is not to be cast out in vain, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.
Scholars such as Raj Bhala and Kathryn M. Kueny say that Clement’s testimony includes both coitus interruptus and masturbation, the acts that “hurt against nature.”[24] According to Kueny, this also includes the “use of spermicide potions.”[25] John G. Younger considers that Clement’s Paedagogus speaks of masturbation as well as “manly women and effeminate men” and mentions the violation of nature “to have sex for any purpose other than the begetting of children”.[ 26]
Apart from Clement, the Fathers of the Church were practically silent on the question of masturbation,[27] both they and pagan writers apparently considered both masturbation and homosexuality unimportant before the rise of monasticism in the 4th and 5th centuries[28]. 29] and “paying little attention to masturbation and homosexual practices”[30], the Catholic academic Giovanni Cappelli conducted a study “on the problem of masturbation in the first millennium in the new there is an explicit confrontation with the issue of masturbation.(2 ) Cappelli finds no mention of masturbation in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.(3) The first explicit references to masturbation are found in the sixth-century Anglo-Saxon and Celtic “Penitence Ritual,” where the subject is treated practically and legally.(4) It would be but wrong, fathers’ silence on masturbation as a tacit consent to it or factual indifference.”[15] James A. Brundage takes a different view on the fourth point. He believes that neither pagan nor early Christian writers paid much attention to these things because they “apparently thought them trivial”.[29]
Thomas Laqueur agrees. He states: “The ancient world paid little attention to the subject; it was a backlog of Jewish and Christian teaching about sex. Indeed, lonely sex can be dated as a serious moral issue with an accuracy rare in cultural history; Laqueur identifies it with the publication of the anonymous tract Onania around 1722. Masturbation is a creation of the Enlightenment, some of its most important figures and the most profound changes it sparked, it is modern, it concerned not the conservatives at first but the progressives. It was the first truly democratic sexuality that could be of ethical interest to both women and men, boys and girls as well as their elders.”[31] This is because Laqueur asserts that masturbation “can only be named as could become so when the ‘self’ emerged as an autonomous being.”[1]
Giovanni Cappelli, quoted by James F. Keenan, argues that as monastic communities developed, the sex life of monks came under scrutiny by two theologians, John Cassian (365–433) and Caesarius of Arles (470–543), who this commented on the “vices” of the “lonely” life. Cappelli asserts that “their concerns were not with the act of masturbation, but with the monks swearing chastity. The monks’ promise made masturbation an illegal act; the act itself was not considered a sin.” Keenan adds: “Indeed, as Cappelli, Louis Crompton, and James Brundage note, before Cassian, masturbation for anyone was not considered a sexual offense.”[32]
Brundage notes in his book that Cassian “regards masturbation and nocturnal pollution as central themes of sexual morality and pays close attention to both matters”. Cassian considers the “nocturnal emission” to be a very important problem, since it is an indication of “carnal lust” and if a monk has still not overcome it, “his religious life and salvation may be in jeopardy”.[29 ] In the Conlationes, Cassian uses the word “uncleanness” (immunditia, as written at Colossians 3:5) as an equivalent substitute for masturbation and nocturnal emissions, apparently regarding masturbation as an unacceptable form of “sexual redemption.”[33] In the De institutis coenobiorum he particularly emphasizes “the sin of fornication, which includes masturbation and sexual fantasies”.[34] Brundage sees that Caesarius holds views similar to those of Cassian. In his sermons, Caesarius “regards all sexual desire, let alone willful self-indulgence, as a grave sin and equates it with adultery or excessive intercourse in married persons.”[29]
Catholic researchers such as Bernard Hoose and Mark Jordan suggest that claims about the Church’s continuing teaching on issues of sex, life and death, and crime and punishment “simply are not true.” Not only has there been “inconsistency, inconsistency and even incoherence” in the teachings of the Church, but the work of researchers has led to the insight that tradition itself “is not the guarantor of the truth of a particular teaching.”[32] However, Orthodox Catholic theologians completely reject this claim, pointing to the consistency of moral teaching found among the early and later Fathers of the Catholic Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy[ edit ]
The Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Christian Church regards sexuality as a gift from God that finds its fulfillment in the marital relationship, and thus abusing the gift of human sexuality is sinful. Because the act of masturbation is self-directed and inherently incapable of expressing love and concern for another person, it is viewed as a distortion of utilizing the gift of sexuality. This is especially evident when masturbation becomes an addiction. At the very least, the practice of masturbation is viewed as not fulfilling the purpose of God’s gift of sexuality.[35]
The sexual sins of fornication, adultery, and masturbation, as well as hatred, jealousy, drunkenness, and other sins are considered sins of the heart as well as of the body. Turning away from sexual sin is believed to be turning away from licentiousness for the purpose of masturbation. Instead of turning to the lusts of the flesh, the Orthodox Christian turns to the Holy Spirit, whose fruit is said to be love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[36]
Epiphanius of Salamis (310/320 – 403), a Byzantine Church Father and Doctor of the Church, speaks of the Egyptian Gnostics in relation to his earlier experiences with them and says in his Panarion or Medicine Chest:
They perform genital acts but prevent the conception of children. They are greedy for corruption, not to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust.[37]
John T. Noonan Jr. said that the Gnostics described by Epiphanius practiced “non-procreative sexual acts” as the center of their religious rituals. Epiphanius calls these practices, which include coitus interruptus, masturbation, and homosexual acts, “the rites and ceremonies of the devil.”[37]
Oriental Orthodoxy[ edit ]
The Coptic Orthodox Church considers masturbation a sin because it is seen as “a form of sexual pleasure outside of God’s plan.”[38] Shenoute (348-466), another Byzantine saint in Oriental Orthodoxy, regards masturbation as sexual “misconduct”[39] and “totally illicit sexual activity”.[40]
Roman Catholicism[ edit ]
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church teaches:
Masturbation is the intentional stimulation of the genitals to induce sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church and the moral sensibilities of the faithful, throughout a standing tradition, have not doubted and have firmly asserted that masturbation is an intrinsic and serious disorder.” “The willful use of sexual ability, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside “the sexual relationship required by the moral order, in which the total sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation is achieved within the framework of true love”. In order to form a fair judgment on the moral responsibility of those affected and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account affective immaturity, the force of acquired habit, anxiety or other psychological or social factors that are diminishing, if not on a Minimum to be reduced, moral guilt.[41]
Although “it is evident from psychology and sociology that [masturbation] is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, particularly in young people,” this does not alter the fact that it is “an intrinsic and seriously disturbed act” and “that which also always The motive for this action, the intentional use of the sexual capacity outside of normal marital relationships, essentially contradicts the finality of the property, because the sexual relationship required by the moral order is missing, namely the relationship that “realizes the full meaning of reciprocity”. . Bestowal and human procreation in the context of true love.'”[42]
For the intentional use of sexual capacity outside of marriage, according to the Church’s teaching, contradicts its primary purpose of procreation and the union of man and woman in the sacrament of Matrimony.[43] In addition, the Church teaches that all other sexual activity—including masturbation, homosexual acts, sodomy, any sex outside of or before marriage (fornication), and the use of any form of contraception or contraception—is seriously disturbed,[42] as it thwarts the natural order, purpose, and goals of sexuality.[44] In order to form a fair judgment on the moral responsibility of those affected and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account affective immaturity, the force of acquired habit, anxiety or other psychological or social factors that are diminishing, if not on a Minimum to be reduced, moral guilt.[45]
The Roman Catholic Church’s official condemnation of masturbation, for example: Pope Leo IX. Ad superbum nientis (1054),[46] the decree of the Holy Office of March 2, 1679,[47] Pope Pius XII. Allocutio (8 Oct. 1953),[46] 48] and Acta Apostolicae Sedis 48 of 19 May 1956.[49]
Scholars such as Robert Baker and Simon Lienyueh Wei believe that Augustine of Hippo (354–430) considered masturbation a sin.[50][51][52] Other scholars, Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks and Carly Daniel-Hughes, say that Augustine condemns all sexual activity contrary to procreation, including homosexual acts and masturbation—or “solitary pleasure”. Carly says that Augustine also regards “mutual masturbation” as “unnatural intercourse” based on Romans 1.[54] Isidore of Seville, another Latin Father and Doctor of the Church, considers masturbation a “soft” habit,[55][56] although the early penitentiaries do not particularly agree with him.[57] In his Etymologiae (c. 600–625), Isidore says that by masturbating a man dishonours “the power of his sex through his indolent body”.
According to Simon Lienyueh Wei, as quoted by some scholars, John Cassian and Augustine of Hippo consider it a sin if the nocturnal emission is the result of a “pleasurable encounter or a pleasant memory”; otherwise it is considered “a physical function”.[51][52]
Aurélie Godefroy states that masturbation has not always been considered a “mortal sin” classified as a sexual deviancy.[58]
Mark W. Elliott says that Pope Gregory I (c. 540–604)—commonly known as Gregory the Great, a Latin Father and Doctor of the Church—treats Leviticus 15, which deals with ritual defilements, as “rules for all.” the ecclesiastical community, by relating the emission to that of sexual intercourse and not to the previous monastic interpretation of “nocturnal emission” consent (i.e. masturbation), they are problematic.”[59] Drawing a parallel between female menstruation and ” the involuntary loss of semen,” Gregory explains that “natural superfluities” do not prevent both lay and clergy from participating in the Eucharist. [60]
Canon 8 of the sixth-century Synod of the Victory Grove enacts penance on “he who has relations between the thighs, [three] years. However, if by one’s own hand or the hand of another, two years.” [61] These acts refer to “mutual masturbation” and “femoral fornication.”[62] Another earliest set of rules also prescribing penance for masturbation are excerpts from the Book of St. David[63] and the Canons of John the Faster.[64][65] Later, many early penances, such as Penitential of Finnian, Penitential of Columban, Penitential of Cummean, Paenitentiale Theodori, Paenitentiale Bedae, and the two “Synods of Saint Patrick”, impose penances of varying severity for masturbation (alone or in company). ) to monks and lay people.[21]: 299 [51][61][63][66][67]
From the sixth to the eleventh centuries there is more reference to masturbation in the penances, but it is viewed with far more leniency than the other sins of the flesh. For example, in the Penance written by Archbishop Theodore of Tarsus (seventh century), “the penance of seven days for the clergyman who has shed his semen without touching himself, to fifty days for one who voluntarily masturbates in a church , distributed . Fifty days may seem a lot, but it is tiny when you know that a young man touching a virgin woman gets a whole year at the same time.”[58]
After the first millennium, more and more theologians began to condemn masturbation more and more harshly. Peter Damian, a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, wrote in his to Pope Leo IX. directed Book of Gomorrah that masturbation is the lowest level of homosexual sin. If left unchecked, it can “step up” to “caressing each other’s male parts” (mutual masturbation), which can lead to “fornicating between the thighs” (femoral intercourse) “or even behind” (anal intercourse). ).[68] Thomas Aquinas, a well-known doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, writes that masturbation is an “unnatural vice,” which is a kind of lust like sodomy, sodomy, and pederasty, and that “by causing pollution [i.e. H. ejaculation outside of sexual intercourse] , without copulation, for the purpose of sexual pleasure…referring to the sin of ‘impurity’, which some call ‘effeminacy’ [Latin: mollitiem, lit. ‘softness, unmanliness’].”[69 ]
Pope Leo IX himself condemned masturbation more clearly, since then it has traditionally been perceived as a mortal sin and classified as a sexual deviance. But tolerance remained high, as historian François Lebrun notes: “It is significant to note that [masturbation] … is the only one of all sins against nature that never appears in the list of cases reserved to say its absolution on account of their severity is reserved for the bishop alone. Isn’t it proof that it is far too common for any priest to have the opportunity to speak them immediately without consulting his superior?”[58]
In the late Middle Ages, Jean Gerson wrote a confessional manual entitled On the Confession of Masturbation.[70] According to researcher Chloe Taylor, this manual urges clergymen to “insist that (male) penitents admit the sin of masturbation, which … was considered … [at the time] a sin even more serious than raping a nun, incest or Kidnapping and rape of virgins and wives, however, increasingly common and indeed universal (among men), a sin that was supposed, judging by the incredulity with which one should meet those who denied masturbation…”[71]
Taylor continues, “Medieval theologians realized that by asking in…suggestive detail and with…leading questions, they risked teaching sinful behaviors to penitents who were previously unaware of the full range of sexual opportunities available to them stood. However, they concluded that in order to save the larger number who are already masturbating without admitting it, it is worth teaching some young penitents how to masturbate.” She notes that, according to Gerson’s book, “Even if the penitent has admitted his sin, the priest need not be satisfied and is to ask for more details… Particularly noteworthy are the instructions that the priest feigns a certain nonchalance and that he addresses the confessor with disarming affection, calling him “friend” and pretending that masturbation is neither sinful nor sinful shameful to get the penitent to admit it, suggesting that he can relate to the penitent’s deeds – “Friend, I believe it” – only to then backtrack and still condemn the deed as sinful and shameful .”[71]
Laity did not make regular confession at this time, but “For those, like the ordained and the conscientious, who have undergone frequent and rigorous confessional review, the duty of confessing, perhaps, such as Gerson describes, is even for the most routine and most private sins Masturbation led to states of anxiety… Early medieval penance applied only to grave sins, but now dire attention could be paid to the most common sins.”[71]
The Roman Catholic Church accused the Albigensians of masturbation as part of its propaganda campaign against them.[72]
Brundage notes that medieval “fines occasionally mentioned feminine autoeroticism and lesbianism. They treated female masturbation in the same way as male act, although they treated female sexual play involving dildos and other mechanical devices in a more censored manner than male mechanical devices in masturbation.”[73]
Pierre Humbert explains: “In the Middle Ages, masturbation—so-called “softness”—was considered an unnatural sin, but for the vast majority of theologians, priests, and confessors, the offense was much less serious than fornication, adultery, or bestiality; and they generally preferred not to talk about it too much, lest their existence be implied to those who knew nothing.”[74]
According to Aurélie Godefroy, “masturbation did not occupy a large place in the Catholic imagination until the eighteenth century, when it was most commonly referred to as simple interruptus coitus,” while Protestants treated it much more seriously as a major in deviation.[58]
Speaking of dissident Catholic theologian Charles Curran, James J. Walter and Timothy E. O’Connell said that “Curran used the idea [of the fundamental option] as early as 1968 to make sense of the fact that the Catholic Die Tradition has long maintained that masturbation is an objectively serious abuse of human sexuality, although statistical evidence suggests that the overwhelming majority of people—including many whose behavior otherwise suggests a generous and loving attitude toward life—engage in this behavior this paradox?…Curran suggests that the claim that masturbation is an “objectively serious matter” is unconvincing for several reasons. “[75] Curran later explained in his works: “In general, I believe that masturbation is wrong, since it does not integrate sexuality into the service of love. Masturbation indicates a lack of total integration of sexuality into the person. This inaccuracy is not always serious; in fact, more often it is not … Catholic educators should openly teach that masturbation is not always a serious matter and most often, especially for young people, is not so important … However, the teacher should not fail the youngster in impression that there is absolutely nothing wrong with masturbation.”[76][77] In 1986, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, banned Curran from teaching Catholic theology for his teachings on “contraception, sterilization, masturbation, divorce and homosexuality”.[78]
A study[79] commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America (CTSA) in 1972 but not approved by its board when published in 1977, entitled Human Sexuality: New Directions in American Catholic Thought, showed that a number of dissenting Catholic theologians have come to the view that an act of masturbation should not be judged as an objective moral evil but should be judged in the context of the life of the person concerned. The book’s authors take a position similar to Curran’s, not stating that masturbation is not a sin, only that “not every act of masturbatory consciously intended constitutes the serious matter required for a mortal sin.”[15]: 3 Response to the study of 1977 showed that the dissent was not unanimous, leading to controversy within the CTSA itself.[80][81]: 73 In 1979, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an Opinion deploring and identifying the “erroneous conclusions” of the books “numerous misinterpretations of Vatican II teaching” and said the book “reduces the morality of sexual love to a matter of ‘personal sentiments, sentiments [and] customs'”[81]:74 [82] George Weigel repeats that “These theological errors have led to practical guidelines which either distance themselves from Catholic teaching or are directly related to it contradict’ as taught by the highest teaching authority of the Church.”[81]: 74
While Curran might say that masturbation might be morally acceptable under certain conditions, according to Richard A. Spinello, Pope John Paul II does not say that masturbation is always immoral because “the physical act itself is wrong and disorderly”. He does not examine physical action as the sole basis for moral judgments. In Veritatis splendor vertritt Johannes Paul II. die Auffassung, dass „die Moral der menschlichen Handlung“ beurteilt wird, indem man berücksichtigt, was man rational durch „den bewussten Willen“ und durch „das unmittelbare Ende“ wählt. In seiner Enzyklika schreibt er: „Um den Gegenstand einer Handlung erfassen zu können, der diese Handlung moralisch präzisiert, ist es daher notwendig, sich in die Perspektive der handelnden Person zu versetzen.“[83] Selbstbefriedigung ist nicht immer schwerwiegend Sünde oder Todsünde, aber es kann nicht gesagt werden, dass Masturbation weder „schwerwiegend falsch“ noch „schwerwiegend“ ist.[84] Joseph Farraher kommt zu dem Schluss, dass Masturbation eine lässliche Sünde nach sich zieht, falls “die Handlung nur mit teilweiser Verwirklichung oder nur teilweiser Wahl des Willens ausgeführt wird” oder, in Harveys Worten, “keine schwere Sünde … während es ihm an Bewusstsein mangelt, wie wenn er es ist halb wach oder halb schlafend, oder wenn eine Person von einer plötzlichen Leidenschaft mitgerissen wird und trotz des Widerstands des Willens die Tat begeht.“[85]
In seinem Versuch, die Theologie des Körpers von Johannes Paul II. zu erklären, schreibt Anthony Percy in seinem Buch, dass „Pornografie und Masturbation die Zerstörung der symbolischen und ehelichen Bedeutung des menschlichen Körpers darstellen … Gott gibt allen Männern und Frauen erotische Energie. Wir Nennen Sie es den Sexualtrieb. Das ist gut und bildet einen Teil dieser Anziehung zwischen Mann und Frau, die selbst Teil der bräutlichen Bedeutung des Körpers ist. Sexuelle Energie muss daher ihr Ventil in der Liebe finden, nicht in der Lust.. .Bei der Selbstbefriedigung wird diese erotische Energie auf einen selbst gerichtet … Selbstbefriedigung ist daher ein Symbol, nicht der Liebe, sondern der Einsamkeit.“[86] Jeffrey Tranzillo fügt hinzu, um zu erklären: „Immer wenn Mann und Frau den Körper zur Simulation einsetzen Liebe oder Authentizität aus Gründen, die letztendlich eigennützig und daher für sich selbst und andere zerstörerisch sind, verfälschen sie die Sprache, für die sie geschaffen wurden. Das ist es, was der Sünde des Ehebruchs zugrunde liegt. Er sagt, dass “ein solcher Missbrauch des Körpers auch anderen sexuellen Sünden wie Empfängnisverhütung, Masturbation, Unzucht und homosexuellen Handlungen zugrunde liegt”.[87]
Protestantism[ edit ]
Laut Brian F. Linnane „waren bis zum 20. Jahrhundert die tatsächlichen moralischen Normen für sexuelles Verhalten sowohl für Protestanten als auch für Katholiken ähnlich, obwohl die Rechtfertigungen für diese Normen … ziemlich unterschiedlich sein könnten … für beide Gruppen sexuell Der Ausdruck war auf lebenslange, monogame, heterosexuelle Ehen beschränkt. Vorehelicher Sex, Ehebruch, homosexuelle Beziehungen, Masturbation und die Verwendung von Geburtenkontrolle wurden alle von den christlichen Kirchen verboten.“[88] Rainer Brandes bemerkt: „Lange Zeit hat die protestantische Theologie die Sexualität ausschließlich in den Dienst der Fortpflanzung gestellt.“[89][90] Adrian Thatcher sagt, Protestanten betrachteten Masturbation historisch als Sünde, obwohl sie sich „wo immer möglich direkt auf die Bibel berufen “.[91]
Protestantische Reformatoren wie Martin Luther, der Gründer der lutherischen Kirchen, sowie Johannes Calvin, der Gründer der reformierten Kirchen, verurteilten in ihren Werken die Selbstbefriedigung.[92] Ebenso glaubte ein Vorläufer der Reformer, Girolamo Savonarola, dass Masturbation eine Todsünde sei.[93]
Lutheranism[ edit ]
Martin Luther, der protestantische Reformator, betrachtete die Selbstbefriedigung als unmoralisch. Er schrieb, dass er “diese armen Mädchen und jungen Männer bemitleidete, die nachts leibhaftig gequält werden”.[94]
Luther saw masturbation as a sin more terrible than heterosexual rape since such rape was considered to be “in accordance with nature”, while masturbation was “unnatural”.[95] He also viewed masturbation and coitus interruptus the same act as killing children before they have a chance to be born, therefore, for him, masturbation was basically the same as abortion.[96]
Luther argued that the marital act is a way to avoid the sin of masturbation: “Nature never lets up…we are all driven to the secret sin. To say it crudely but honestly, if it doesn’t go into a woman, it goes into your shirt.”[97]
Luther, citing the apostle Paul, makes his case: “”For is it better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” I have no doubt that everyone who wants to live chastely, though unmarried and without special grace for it, will understand these words and what they convey. For St. Paul is not speaking of secret matters, but of the common, known feeling of all those who live chastely outside of marriage but do not have the grace to accomplish it. For he ascribes this flaming with passion to all who live chastely but without the necessary grace, and prescribes no other medicine than marriage. If it were no so common or if there were none other advice to be given, he would not have recommended marriage. This thing is known in German as “the secret disease,” but this expression would not be so common either if the ailment were truly rare…There can also be no doubt that those who have the grace of chastity still at times feel evil desires and are tempted. But it is transitory, therefore their problem is not this burning. In short, “aflame with passion” is the heat of the flesh, which rages without ceasing, and daily attraction to woman or to man; we find this wherever there is not desire and love for chastity. People without this heat are just as few and far between as are those who have God’s grace for chastity. Now such heat is stronger in some, and weaker in others. Some among them suffer so severely that they masturbate. All these ought to be in the married estate…If they relieve themselves outside of marriage, then the pangs of conscience are soon there, and this is the most unbearable torment and the most miserable of earthly estates. This is the unavoidable result, that most of those who live without marriage and without grace in celibacy are forced to sin bodily in unchastity, and the others are forced to outward chastity and inward unchastity. The former must needs lead a damnable life, the latter an unholy useless one. And where are the spiritual and secular rulers who consider the plight of these poor souls? Every day they are helping the devil to increase this misery with their pressures and compulsion.”[98]
In his writing on 1 Thessalonians 4:3–5 (“It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;”), Luther advises that, “All young people should…resolve to strengthen themselves against lust and sexual passions by reading and meditating on a psalm or some other portion of God’s Word…If your sexual appetites continually tempt you, be patient. Resist them as long as necessary, even if it takes more than a year. But above all, keep praying! If you feel that you can’t stand it any longer, pray that God will give you a devout spouse with whom you can live in harmony and true love…I have known many people who, because of their crude and shameful fantasies, indulged their passion with unrestrained lust. Because of their insatiable desires, they abandoned self control, and lapsed into terrible immoralit j. In the end, they had to endure dreadful punishment.”[99]
Immanuel Kant, (who was raised as a Pietist), when writing on masturbation, argued that “…the question here is whether the human being is subject to a duty to himself with regard to this enjoyment, violation of which is a defiling (not merely a debasing)” of the humanity in his own person. The impetus to this pleasure is called carnal lust (or also simply lust). The vice engendered through it is called lewdness; the virtue with regard to this sensuous impulse is called chastity, which is to be represented here as a duty of the human being to himself. Lust is called unnatural if one is aroused to it not by a real object but by his imagining it, so that he himself creates one, contrary to [natural] purpose; for in this way imagination brings forth a desire contrary to nature’s end, and indeed to an end even more important than that of love of life itself, since it aims at the preservation of the whole species and not only of the individual. That such an unnatural use (and so misuse) of one’s sexual attribute is a violation of duty to oneself, and indeed one contrary to morality in its highest degree, occurs to everyone immediately, with the thought of it, and stirs up an aversion to this thought to such an extent that it is considered indecent even to call this vice by its proper name. But it is not so easy to produce a rational proof that unnatural, and even merely unpurposive, use of one’s sexual attribute is inadmissible as being a violation of duty to oneself (and indeed, as far as its unnatural use is concerned, a violation in the highest degree). — The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself merely as a means to satisfy an animal impulse. But this does not explain the high degree of violation of the humanity in one’s own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness, which seems in terms of its form (the disposition it involves) to exceed even murdering oneself. It consists, then, in this…unnatural lust, makes man not only an object of enjoyment but, still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a loathsome object, and so deprives him of all respect for himself.”[100]
In Germany during the Weimar Republic period, there were Protestant societies for moral purity that opposed masturbation. In the Adenauer era, there was very strict sexual morality in the Church. However, at the end of the 1960s, Protestant theologians set about redefining human sexuality. Siegfried Keil emerged as a leading figure in this movement but even he continued to oppose masturbation, seeing it as immoral. However, in 1971, the Church published its “Denkschrift zu Fragen der Sexualethik” (“Memorandum on Issues of Sexual Ethics”), which took an extremely liberal position on masturbation. Sexologist Volkmar Sigusch claimed the positions in the memorandum read like they could have been written by liberal sex education teachers, rather than by pastors and theologians. Despite this liberalization, there was a growing alienation between the Church and faithful in the 1970s as people no longer turned to the church for advice on sexual morality but to doctors and sexual magazines. This was a dramatic shift from the 1950s, when the Churches had dominated the field of public and private morality in Germany. In the 1960s, theologians had been either criticised or respected by the media as moral figures but now they were simply ignored. However, the liberalization of the theologians and the pastors chiefly served to brand the majority view in the Church as backward-looking and traditionalist.[101]
Despite its liberalism, the 1971 memorandum still forbade sex outside of marriage, pornography usage and group sex. Sigusch wrote, “Protestant ethics disqualifies most sexual relations. the unmarried have today…[However] the attitudes of the Lutheran Church in Germany (EKD) memorandum on masturbation, contraception, [and] various sexual practices…are…largely liberal…Sexually deviant behaviors enjoy tolerance.”[102] There has not been another memorandum on sexuality since that time, despite an attempt to draft one between 2010 and 2015.[89]
Today, Frank Muchlinsky and Maike Weiß of the EKD argue that masturbation is not a sin.[103][104][105]
Despite its official liberalism, the EKD contains Christians with a much more conservative view of sexuality. A 2015 academic study found that although Germany is a relatively sexually-liberal country and that young people’s viewing of pornography is linked to masturbation, pornography use is lower amongst religious youth. The authors of the study found that “…organizational religious activity was negatively associated with pornography use. Participants attending church or other religious meetings on a regular basis were older at their first exposure (weak association) and used pornography less often (strong association). This result confirmed findings from previous research on associations between religiosity and sexual behaviour: frequent attendance of religious services is generally related to greater sexual abstinence, fewer lifetime sexual partners, delayed age of sexual debut and lesser likelihood of premarital sex…We also found a negative relationship between non-organizational religious activity and current pornography engagement (relatively large effect). Spending time in private religious activities, such as prayer, meditation, or Bible study, was associated with lower frequency of pornography use in the last six months…In agreement with the findings in several previous studies…we found that religious attendance was negatively associated with pornography use.”[106]
There are ongoing debates about sexual ethics between liberal and conservative pastors in the German church.[107]
The sexually-liberal Church of Sweden argues that masturbation is not a sin. The church’s pastors frequently address the issue in confirmation classes for adolescents.[108] The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland also has a positive view of masturbation, noting that it provides a secure approach to sex for single people by reducing the temptation to drift into promiscuity.[109] The Lutheran churches in the Scandinavian countries are known for being, generally speaking, sexually very liberal compared with, for example, the Lutheran churches in the Baltic states, which are more traditional.[110]
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Metropolitan Chicago Synod believes that masturbation is sinful.[111]
The conservative Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations says the following regarding masturbation: “To view our sexuality in the context of a personal relationship of mutual love and commitment in marriage helps us to evaluate the practice. Chronic masturbation falls short of the Creator’s intention for our use of the gift of sexuality, namely, that our sexual drives should be oriented toward communion with another person in the mutual love and commitment of marriage.”[112]
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has said the following regarding masturbation: “Masturbation is self-stimulation to some form of arousal and climax. God gave sex as a gift and a blessing to human beings for marriage with a life-long partner of the opposite sex. Self-stimulation is a corruption of God’s gift and blessing of sex.”[113]
Doctor John Kleinig, Lecturer Emeritus at the Australian Lutheran College, argues that, “The regular use of pornography for masturbation is a kind of sexual addiction. When Paul speaks about impurity and sexual greed as idolatry in Ephesians 5:3-7 and Colossians 3:5, he accurately describes how it works. It begins with sexual impurity, the defilement of our imagination by depictions of sexual intercourse that present naked bodies as idols for us to admire. Our fixation on these images arouses disordered desires and make us more and more greedy for sexual satisfaction from things that God has not given to us for our enjoyment. Yet they fail to satisfy us and serve only to feed our growing appetite for them…Where masturbation is involved…the more ashamed we become, the more secretive we become; the more secretive we become and the more we hide in the darkness, the more vulnerable we become to the accusation and condemnation of Satan…You need to be careful that Satan does not distort your perception by making a fool of you and getting you to focus on the wrong thing. Nowhere in the Bible is masturbation explicitly forbidden. There is good reason for this because the problem does not come from masturbation, which is in itself neither good or bad, but the adulterous sexual fantasies that accompany it, as Christ makes clear in Matthew 5:28. That’s the problem spiritually!…That’s how Satan gets a hold on us through our imagination. If you use pornography to masturbate, you put another woman, an idol that promises heaven and gives you hell, sexually, in the place of your wife. It arouses your greed for what you don’t have, greed for what God has not given for you to enjoy, greed that increases as you give in to it. The more you indulge it, the more dissatisfied and empty you become.”[114][115]
reformed [ edit ]
John Calvin, the founder of the Reformed tradition (which includes the Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and many Anglican Churches), taught that the Onan passage actually condemned coitus interruptus.[116] In his Commentaries on Genesis (1554), Calvin teaches that “the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is double monstrous.”[91][116] Nevertheless, Calvin was strongly against masturbation.[117]
For Reformed Christians, masturbation came to be considered, as early as the 17th century, a major deviation, as evidenced by the writings of the Calvinist Richard Capel: “The pollution of oneself is the worst and most polluting of sins of impurity.”[118] Protestants at this time looked on masturbation much more seriously than Roman Catholics did.[58]
According to Humbert, “Protestants, by rediscovering the Bible, had brought up to date the Old Testament notions of the Jewish religion, and among them the requirement of purity…In the Calvinist exegesis of the Bible, children were affected from the moment of their birth by original sin, so that parents had to start early to give them a strict education on proper morals. In this context, it explains the insistence to eradicate the slightest caress observed, the least weakness, and this from the youngest age.” The Swiss Calvinists had a frantic quest for purity, and regarded gratuitous sexual pleasure an abomination.[74]
Calvin’s views permeated Geneva and influenced the way Huguenots thought about masturbation. For instance, “For Rousseau the puritanical moralist and citizen of the theocratic republic founded by John Calvin, masturbation is exclusively the activity of an inflamed erotic imagination; it is not a legitimate or acceptable expression of sexuality, but a perverted and sterile self-indulgence that saps one’s energies and destroys one’s mental and physical health.”[119]
In the United States, the influence of Calvin and the Puritans on perceptions of female sexuality, including masturbation, was gradually eroded from the latter part of the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century onwards: “the birth control movement, the women’s suffrage campaign, the Free Love Movement, and finally the need for female labor in factories began to counterbalance the influence of John Calvin, the Mathers and “Mrs Grundy.””[120]
Calvinists were renowned for their moral rigor and strict adherence to their interpretation of Biblical standards of morality. Indeed, “Churches fashioned in the Calvinist tradition have typically set extremely high standard of behavior.”[121]
The traditionalist Calvinist pastors of the United Protestant Church of France (EPUdf), believe that masturbation is a sin, stating, “Masturbation…is not one of the prohibitions of God, so it can not be said that the Bible clearly defines masturbation as a sin. However, the Bible unquestionably presents the place of sexual life in the context of a committed and faithful couple (see Matthew 19:12). And it exhorts us to have our actions and thoughts meet this ideal. The masturbatory practice and the thoughts that may accompany it obviously do not correspond to this ideal, and are in this sense sin. Of course, we do not always answer the perfection to which God calls us…but to seek perfection is the call of the Christian, to give glory to God (1 Corinthians 6:20) because this is our vocation as men created in the image of God, and the way of life for today and in the perspective of eternity. Masturbation is not the act of an accomplished Christian, called to live the blessing of marriage and to fulfill his partner in this setting (1 Corinthians 7:5).”[122]
In contrast, a more liberal strand of EPUdf thinking is represented by the L’Oratoire du Louvre in Paris. According to its website, this parish believes that masturbation is not sinful, providing that the act is not done in a spirit of rebellion against God and providing that it does not become addictive.[123]
In Switzerland, the liberal Calvinist theologians Michel Cornuz, Carolina Costa and Jean-Charles Bichet have all said that masturbation is not a sin, provided that the use of pornography is not involved.[124][125][126]
In a 1991 report on human sexuality, the Presbyterian Church (USA) declared that “churches need to repudiate historically damaging attitudes toward masturbation and replace them with positive affirmations of the role of masturbation in human sexuality.”[127]
The Tenth Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia which is affiliated with the more conservative Presbyterian Church in America argues, in contrast with the PC USA, that masturbation is a sin.[128]
The Protestant Church in the Netherlands’ Doctor G. A. van Ginkel stated, when asked if it was sinful to masturbate if you are unmarried and you are fantasising about an unmarried girl, “What is all-important is that you see your body as not of yourself. Your life belongs to the Lord! Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit. God hates uncleanness. That may sound harsh, but God’s Word speaks clearly when it comes to that. It would be best if you could project your desire in sincere love and faithfulness to her that God gives you!…But there’s a problem there. You do not have her. You are not married. And maybe you do not want a woman out of God’s hand at all!? You want to project your sexual fantasy on an unmarried woman. In your mind “do it” with her. Focused on yourself. However understandable, this is not a good solution…You seek biblical legitimacy and believe it to be in the fact that the Bible does not speak about self-gratification. (The passage about the sin of Onan does indeed have nothing to do with self-gratification.) But the Bible does speak out about a holy and God-focused life. Paul writes to the church in Corinth: All that you do, do it to the glory of God. Thinking of this Word alone, you have no biblical legitimacy for your sexual projections. Pray for God on your side, with whom you may live life to the honor of His Name. This includes your sexual life! This is desirable!”[129]
The American conservative Calvinist website, Reformed Answers, argues that masturbation is only sin if it entails lustful fantasies for someone other than the person’s spouse: “…if an act of masturbation expresses the sin of lust, then that act of masturbation can be condemned as sinful. But this argument cannot condemn acts of masturbation that do not give expression to the sin of lust.” The site notes that masturbation can only be opposed on moral grounds, not natural ones: “Some argue that masturbation is wrong on the basis of nature. That is, in a fashion similar to the argument based on Onan’s sin, they argue that God did not design the human body and reproductive system to work in this manner, that God’s general revelation in nature condemns the practice. This is a tenuous argument at best. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. For example, many human beings learn to masturbate without ever having been taught it or having heard about it. It would seem to be their “natural” impulse. Moreover, human beings are naturally equipped with the necessary body parts to accomplish masturbation (unlike most animals). It could be argued on these bases that it is natural. Moreover, most Protestants reject the idea that what is natural is necessarily what is good—especially in light of our “sin nature.” This is simply a poor ground on which to base the argument against masturbation.”[130]
The American Reformed author Jay E. Adams argues that “masturbation is clearly wrong since it constitutes a perversion of the sexual act”, citing 1 Corinthians 7:3-4 to support his argument.[131]
Another American, Puritan Publications’ C. Matthew McMahon, argues, “…if any form of sin is a product of lust, then it is an evil and wicked action. If a man masturbates while watching a sensual movie, then he has sinned. When masturbation grows out of a sense of this need for physical release due to unclean thoughts, it is sin. This is easily understood and biblically undeniable…Self-love, turning to lust, is at the heart of masturbation…Instead, the Christian man must set in motion an attitude of holiness and purity, instead of uncleanness and defilement. When he does this, he then “practices what he preaches.” Though he says that holiness is right and good, he has to live that way as well. The question arises and must be answered “Is masturbation itself condemned?…Is it, in and of itself, a sin? I am biblically persuaded that masturbation…can only be achieved through lust”[132]
McMahon also states, “The need for a Biblical treatment of lust and masturbation is necessary. Satan has conveniently disguised this “awful” topic as something that ought not to be mentioned, and never to be preached. The church’s response to this is a deafening silence…The topic of lust may sometimes be alluded to, but never developed into the precise “doctrine” of the Bible’s teaching on lust and masturbation, which really develops into a study on the fruit of the Spirit (love to Christ more than “self”, and self-control)…Since we are in desperate need for Biblical teaching on this subject, we turn to the church to teach us what it means to be sexually pure. But, Christian men who struggle with this sin have little practical help from their local church.”[132]
What is clear is that Calvinists oppose “sexual touching” (including mutual masturbation) between unmarried parties, even if they are engaged to each other. This is because it is a form of fornication.[133][134]
Anglicanism[ edit ]
The Church of England does not have a position on whether masturbation is a sin or not.[135]
Historically, in 1948, a writer for the Church Times could still say, “Masturbation is condemned by all Christian moralists because it implies the solitary and essentially individualistic use of sexual activities intended to be used in association. It disregards the truth that with these powers God provides physiological means for exercising them in a joint and common act.”[136]
In 1945, an Archbishop’s Commission was appointed to study the issue of artificial human insemination. The resulting report, published in 1948, “discusses the legitimacy of masturbation in this context and concludes that although masturbation impairs the natural unity of the sexual act, its use as a last resort is justifiable. ‘The act which produces the seminal fluid, being in this instance directed towards the completion (impossible without it) of the procreative end of the marriage, loses its character of self abuse. It cannot in this view, be the will of God that a husband and wife should remain childless merely because an act of this kind is required to promote conception.'”[136][137]
In his letter to a Mr Masson dated 6 March 1956, C.S. Lewis writes: “For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides…Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres. After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”[138][139]
The conservative Anglican Diocese of Sydney believes that masturbation “can help us find sexual release when we cannot control our desire nor satisfy it through a marital relationship and in this sense it can be helpful.” However, the Diocese notes that it can become associated with sin if it leads to either the consumption of pornography or to looking lustfully at people in real life in order to fuel fantasies. They warn that either of these can, in turn, suck someone into a cycle that cannot be controlled. The site goes on to note, “Jesus condemns looking at women or girls in order to lust after them. (Matt 5:28) So perving…which lots of 17 year old guys would treat as normal, is a sin and offends God. It’s easy to get sucked into a cycle which fuels sexual desire to the point where it can’t be controlled…When masturbation leads to unhelpful sexual thinking and lust you are sinning and need to do something about it. Make the conscious, aggressive decision to look somewhere else, or go somewhere else, or turn the computer off or whatever it takes! Jesus promises that when we are being tempted, he’ll give us a way out. (1 Cor 10:13). Ultimately I think that it is much better to resist the temptation to masturbate.”[140] (The 1998 Lambeth Conference’s Resolution I.10 says that the use of pornography is sinful and includes it in a list of the forms of sexual activity inherently contrary to the Christian way of life. Masturbation itself is not mentioned in the resolution at all, either in positive or negative terms.)[141]
Methodism[ edit ]
John Wesley, founder of Methodism, as quoted by Bryan C. Hodge, believed that “any waste of the semen in an unproductive sexual act, whether that should be in the form of masturbation or coitus interruptus, as in the case of Onan, destroyed the souls of the individuals who practice it”.[142] Wesley considered masturbation an unacceptable way to release “sexual tension”. Like his contemporaries, he believed that many people had become badly sick and even died because of “habitual masturbation”.[143] He argued that “nervous disorders, even madness, could be caused by another form of bodily excess – masturbation.”[144] He wrote his Thoughts on the Sin of Onan (1767), which was reproduced as A Word to Whom it May Concern in 1779, as an attempt to censor a work by Samuel-Auguste Tissot.[145] In that document, Wesley warned about “the dangers of self pollution”, these being the bad physical and mental effects of masturbation,[144][145] records many such cases along with the treatment recommendations.[143]
Dale Kaufman, a clergyman in the Free Methodist Church, teaches:[146]
Solitary masturbation is not an act which harms the individual’s body (and in fact, the release of sexual tension can promote the wellbeing of the body), nor does it involve the joining of one body and spirit to another as is the case with sexual intercourse. Through the releasing of sexual tensions, it can act as a barrier to seeking release through immoral outlets. A part of honoring God with our bodies is doing whatever’s necessary to keep our bodies under control—and in the area of sexuality, masturbation can be an effective way of doing so…It’s imperative that we let them know that masturbation can and should be used as a viable, God-honoring way to deal with the stresses of their newly acquired sexuality. With a sex-saturated society all around us, we as parents, youth pastors, and other caring adults, need to give our young men and women the ability to live godly lives in the midst of a perverse culture. Masturbation, within the Biblical boundaries, helps give them that ability.[146]
The United Methodist Church does not have an official position on masturbation.[147]
The Uniting Church in Australia teaches that “masturbation is an important part of childhood and adolescent discovery and sexual development. It should not be stigmatised.”[148] However, the Church has long been wracked by controversies and divisions over sexuality. “The Church’s Interim Report on Sexuality…was released in May 1996. It became arguably the most explosive document in the UCA’s short history. The report was bound to be controversial for some given it spoke positively about the ordination of homosexual ministers, suggested pre-marital sex was not ‘living in sin’ and described masturbation as a “natural sexual activity (which) can be a positive experience”. Not only did it attract much debate from within the Church but also from the mainstream media, which covered it – and the fallout – extensively. In the following months Crosslight [the Uniting Church’s magazine] was flooded with letters of complaint about the report and its authors…The Church received more than 8000 responses to the report with almost 90 per cent – representing the views of 21,000 members – negative.”[149]
During the debates, former Assembly of Confessing Congregations chair Rev Dr Max Champion “argued that any proposal to change the Church’s current position…needed to be grounded in theology, something he did not believe had occurred…Dr Champion said he believed there had been a shift in thinking from some within the Church who had moved away [from Biblical positions]…to arguing for diversity to be the main theological base.”[149]
Pentecostalism[edit]
A Church of Christ in Tulsa, United States, has also taken the view that “Masturbation is not mentioned in the Bible and isn’t the same thing as sexual immorality. The historical church has had difficulty explaining this practice, but there is no good reason to lump it with sexual immorality and heap guilt on single people in particular…For most males and females, masturbation is a natural part of self exploration. However, masturbation can program us to think sex can be done alone. Coupled with pornography, we get two steps away from married sexual love…The warning is for masturbation not to become an obsession that impacts your conscience, future sex life, and leads you into fantasizing with pornography.”[150]
A Swedish Pentecostal pastor, Christian Mölk, also says that the Bible does not explicitly mention masturbation as a sin. He notes that Onan’s sin was about failing to do his duty under the Levirate law mentioned in Deu 25:5-6. Under this law it was “the closest brother’s duty to ensure that his family survived by marrying the widow. When Onan “spilled his seed on the earth,” it means that he refused to get a seed to his brother and instead utilized his brother’s widow for his own sexual pleasure.” He goes on to note that another text which is sometimes invoked is Matthew 5:27-30. Here, he says, Jesus is simply warning that it is not only wrong to cheat in one’s action but also that it is wrong to cheat in one’s heart. Therefore a person should not look with lustful intent at someone else’s wife. He says these texts are not about masturbation and that the Bible does not explicitly mention that masturbation is a sin.[151]
Another Swedish Pentecostal, Christer Åberg, has written about the practice on a Welsh language site. He states, “First of all, nowhere is masturbation discussed in the Bible…But is masturbation a sin? As I understand it, it is not a sin. The answer is “no.” But it can lead to sin, so, therefore, I think one should be careful with it. I mean if a guy masturbates and fantasizes with desire for a girl, it will be wrong…It’s really like everything: It’s not a sin to drink alcohol, but it can lead to sin if you drink yourself drunk. Nor is it a sin to dance, but it can lead to sin, etc., etc. The Bible says that “Everything is legal to me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is granted to me, but I will not let anything take power over me.” (1 Corinthians 06:12).”[152] In a follow-up article, he wrote, “Some time ago, I wrote an article about masturbating and surprised some. I wrote that it was not too bad to masturbate, but it could lead to sin. Maybe the best advice in today’s society is to help with masturbation. I think of an article in the Expressen newspaper about a “masturbation competition”. This is a clear example that it can open you up to an evil influence, and lead you to sin. We live in a time when it is important to lead a clean and devoted life to Jesus Christ. For you, live near Jesus so that you do not risk going wrong. And then you will have no interest to try the things of this “good” world.”[153]
The Texan Pentecostal pastor and church founder, Tom Brown, has written on the subject of “Is Masturbation a Sin?”, stating that “Masturbation has been around for a long time, and since God does not clearly condemn it, I would not be too bothered with it, either. Masturbation is practiced far more than adultery or fornication, yet God is practically silent on the issue. This ought to tell you that God is not overly concerned with it…However, let me caution you against addiction to masturbation. Just like most things, masturbation can turn into an addiction…Paul said, “‘Everything is permissible for me’—but I will not be mastered by anything” (1 Cor 6:12). This includes masturbation. Also, you should never use pornography to masturbate…Concerning single people, I have no advice other than a prohibition [on] pornography.”[154]
He goes on to note, “If a believer uses masturbation to alleviate sexual temptation, that’s far better than actually being tempted to commit fornication or adultery. I would rather have a man masturbate than go to a prostitute…Another thought, if masturbation is sinful, then you would expect there to be bad health consequences to it, such as found in adultery, homosexuality, and fornication (diseases for one thing). Instead, research has found that masturbation serves to release sexual tension.”[154]
Baptist [ edit ]
A 2011 article in Canadian Mennonite magazine notes that Anabaptists, such as Mennonites, have always historically had a sex-negative attitude but goes on to state that “Masturbation is one of the most common sexual experiences across the spectrums of age, culture, partnered and single life situations, and genders…Finding pleasure in our own God-given bodies can be good…[but]if it draws someone away from God, then for God’s sake, don’t do it. But we ought to release the stranglehold of guilt formerly associated with the practice of self-pleasuring.” (The article also argues that Anabaptists should commit themselves to avoiding pornography for a wide variety of reasons).[155]
Baptists[ edit ]
Southern Baptist Convention cleric David Platt in the Baptist Press declared that masturbation “goes against the design of God” and that “God designed sex to be relational; masturbation is lustful”.[156] The Baptist publication characterized masturbation as “isolating, noncommittal and self-centered.”[156]
Quaker[edit]
In 1960, the British Friends Home Service published a pamphlet on marriage that was read and approved on both sides of the Atlantic that stated that “Masturbation as a child is healthy, but not as an adult.” However, four years later, in 1964, the Quaker physician, Dr. Mary Calderone, argued for the emerging view that masturbation was a normal useful means for “relieving natural tension in a healthy and satisfying way.”[157]
More recently, Quakers, while formulating a testimony on sexual intimacy, have noted that “one possibility for a testimony of intimacy is a pronatalist position that is focused on the imperative to have children. This is a long-standing position of the Roman Catholic Church and a teaching that has considerable sway among many Protestant Evangelicals…In this teaching, [the] main purpose [of sex] is procreation…In this pronatalism, masturbation is…wrong, as is contraception, but there are no clear scriptural texts against these practices. Their prohibition is taken to follow from the central teaching that the purpose of sex is the creation of legitimate offspring…For several reasons, Friends are likely to feel uncomfortable with this pronatalist framing of the morality of intimate relationships. For many Friends, the most serious objection of all…would be pronatalism’s steadfast focus on increasing the population. With seven billion human beings alive today on planet Earth, further population increase should hardly be the predominant emphasis informing relationships of intimacy. Yet the central warp thread of this teaching is the urgency of procreation.”[158]
In 1994, members of the Christian Medical Fellowship debated in a journal article whether or not masturbation is a sin.[159]
The Australian non-denominational Christian teen sex education website, “Boys Under Attack”, argues that masturbation is not a sin, provided that it does not become addictive, does not involve the use of pornography and is done alone, not with another person or group of people. The site refers to teachings by James Dobson and an American Lutheran pastor on the matter.[160][161][162]
Journalists for Ekklesia, a Nigerian non-denominational magazine, argue that masturbation is a sin: “Masturbation (sex with self or auto sex) is usually carried out with the intention of releasing tension and getting sexual satisfaction without “sinning” with another person. Apart from the fact that it violates a basic rule of lovemaking which is genital union, masturbation is often in response to a sexual fantasy. That sexual fantasy could be borne out of exposure to pornographic materials. We learn from Philippians 4:8 on how we are to use our minds. Within that context, masturbation qualifies to be called a sin…Finally, as with every other sin, masturbation leads to spiritual weakness and loss of intimacy with God.”[163]
In the 1940s, Evangelical sex advice books advised against masturbation, considering it a very serious sin, but such warnings disappeared from the books during the 1960s, “because evangelicals who noticed that the Bible said nothing directly about masturbation believed that they had made a mistake to proscribe it.”[164] Also, they considered that masturbating is preferable to falling into “sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll”.[164]
One of the most prominent American evangelical leaders,[165][166][167] James Dobson, has stated: “Christian people have different opinions about how God views this act. Unfortunately, I can’t speak directly for God on this subject, since His Holy Word, the Bible, is silent on this point.”[16] He also stated: “The Bible says nothing about masturbation, so we don’t really know what God thinks about it. My opinion is that He doesn’t make a big issue of it.”[17] He also stated “Despite terrifying warnings given to young people historically, it does not cause blindness, weakness, mental retardation, or any other physical problem. If it did, the entire male population and about half of females would be blind, weak, simpleminded, and sick.”[168]
Others make a distinction between masturbation and sexual fantasy.[169] Richard D. Dobbins proposes that it is permissible for teenagers to fantasize about their future spouse during masturbation.[170]
Garry H. Strauss, a psychologist counseling the students at Biola University in the United States, wrote that there is no mention of masturbation in the Bible, therefore masturbation is permissible, but pornography and sexual fantasies are not permissible.[171]
Two Evangelical scholars, Alex W. Kwee and David C. Hooper, addressed the issue in an academic paper. They note that “The Bible presents no clear theological ethic on masturbation…Of the many aspects of human sexuality that we address in our work, masturbation ranks as the most misunderstood for the lack of open, rational dialogue about this topic within the Christian community…Within evangelical frameworks of sexual ethics…there has never been a well-defined theological ethic of masturbation, in contrast to the ethics of pre-marital sex, marriage, and divorce that are worked out from foundational Christian anthropological assertions about gender, sexuality, and their relationship to the imago Dei…Masturbation falls thus within the proverbial grey area of evangelical sexual ethics.”[10]
They go on to note that “we find that the questions that Christian young people ask about masturbation can be reduced to two essential queries. Christian youth want to know whether masturbation is “right or wrong” (i.e., what is the “correct” moral stance to take based on what the Bible says?), and whether masturbation is “normal” (i.e., what can we say about the psychological dimensions of masturbation?)”[10]
Answering the first question, they note that “The Bible does not directly address masturbation, leaving Christians to articulate a moral stance from various scriptures that in our view cannot support a deontological prohibition of masturbation…Today the general consensus in the Christian community is that Genesis 38:6-10 is irrelevant to masturbation. Modern readers of course understand Onan’s act not as masturbation but as coitus interuptus. The technical designation of the act, however, is unimportant compared to the ethical violations manifesting through the act. The interpretive context for Genesis 38:6-10 is found in the ancient Israelite law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)…Whatever his reasons for not consummating intercourse, Onan was punished for violating a specific Hebrew law and for failing in his covenantal duty to his deceased brother. Onan was judged for undisclosed but probably exploitative intentions…and certainly for his callous repudiation of his traditional obligations of familial care and responsibility.”[10]
They state also that “Our…objection to using Matthew 5:27-30 as a basis for the blanket condemnation of masturbation is that such an interpretation can only be supported by de-contextualizing this passage from Jesus’ overall message…[and]…proper contextual interpretation of Leviticus 15:16-18 would therefore support the view that masturbation in and of itself is morally neutral.”[10]
They note that “There is a moral difference between masturbation done in the presence of pornography or the phone sex service (inherently selfish and exploitative mediums), and masturbation as the sexual expression of a fuller yearning for connectedness, i.e., connectedness that is not primarily sexual”,[10] concluding that “Scripture does not directly address masturbation, giving rise to guilt-inducing misconceptions about a behavior that is extremely salient to unmarried college-aged Christian men whose value system leads them to eschew pre-marital sex”.[10]
The American Evangelical scholar, Judith K. Balswick, in her book, Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach, argues that “Masturbation can be a healthy, enjoyable way for a person without a sexual partner to experience sexual gratification.”[172]
Another American Evangelical writer, James B. Nelson, notes in his book, Embodiment: An Approach to Sexuality and Christian Theology, that “The physiological intensity typical in masturbatory orgasm frequently surpasses that of intercourse, and relational fantasies usually accompany the act in compensation for the absence of the partner”, implying this is a gift from God for those who lack a spouse.[173]
In the book, Singles Ask: Answers to Questions about Relationships and Sexuality, by Howard Ivan Smith, the Fullerton Evangelical theologian Archibald Hart is quoted as saying that, “I do not believe that masturbation itself is morally wrong, or…sinful.”[174]
Masturbation is seen as forbidden by some evangelical pastors because of the sexual thoughts that may accompany it.[175][176] However, evangelical pastors have pointed out that the practice has been erroneously associated with Onan by scholars, that it is not a sin if it is not practiced with fantasies or compulsively, and that it was useful in a married couple, if his or her partner did not have the same frequency of sexual needs.[177][178]
Restorationism[ edit ]
Jehovah’s Witnesses [ edit ]
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that masturbation is a habit that is a “form of uncleanness”, one that “fosters attitudes that can be mentally corrupting”.[179]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[ edit ]
On many occasions spanning over a century, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) have taught that adherents should not masturbate as part of obedience to the code of conduct known as the law of chastity.[180]: 80–127 [181][182] The LDS Church places great emphasis on the law of chastity, and a commitment to following these sexual standards is required for baptism,[183] receiving and maintaining a temple recommend,[184] and is part of the temple endowment ceremony covenants devout participants promise by oath to keep.[185][186] While serving as church president, Spencer W. Kimball taught that the law of chastity includes “masturbation…and every hidden and secret sin and all unholy and impure thoughts and practices.”[187] Before serving full-time missions, young adults are required to abandon the practice as it is believed to be a gateway sin that dulls sensitivity to the guidance of the Holy Ghost.[188][189] The first recorded public mention of masturbation by a general church leader to a broad audience was in 1952 by apostle J. Reuben Clark,[190][191] and recent notable mentions include ones in 2013[192] and 2016.[193]
Though rhetoric has softened and become less direct, the majority of Mormons’ views are at odds with those of top church leaders.[180]: 118 However, the prohibition on masturbation remains in place, though its enforcement and the opinions of local leadership vary.[180]: 118 During regular worthiness interviews LDS adherents—including teenagers[194]—are required to confess of any sexual sins like masturbation to church leaders in order to be deemed worthy to participate in the sacrament and temple rites.[180]: 118 They are sometimes asked specifically about their masturbation habits.[195][196][197]
Seventh Day Adventists [ edit ]
Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in the mid-19th century said she had spiritual visions from God that gave her guidance on the Christian life. She warned against overly-stimulating foods, sex, and masturbation, which she referred to as “solitary vice.” She warned her followers of her visions of disfigured humans and the consequences of masturbation not only destroying one’s life, but preventing access to Heaven when Jesus comes in the first resurrection. She said that masturbation was the cause of many sicknesses in adults from cancer to lung disease. White even stated that masturbation claimed many sinners’ lives prematurely. She believed that one’s diet had a direct correlation with one’s urge to masturbate. She said that a healthy diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, wheat breads, and water would lead to a diminished urge to masturbate and thus would lead to a healthier and more fulfilling life. To ultimately produce a guide for future generations she said solitary vice was the cause of hereditary insanity, cancer, and other deadly diseases; clearly appealing to parents to protect their children by not engaging in solitary vice.[198]
Armstrongism [ edit ]
The United Church of God, an Armstrongnite church, believes that “sexual love is the supreme expression of love between a husband and wife and that only this use of the sexual organs glorifies or reflects God’s design and purpose.” The church also says that, according to 1 Corinthians 6:16,18, any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful and that according to Matthew 5:27-30, sexually arousing thoughts alone are enough for a person to be guilty of such sin. The church encourages its members to “guard and control their thoughts, as well as their actions.”[199]
Islam [edit]
In Islam, masturbation (Arabic: استمناء, romanized: istimnā’) is forbidden or makruh (discouraged) according to the majority of scholars’ opinions. However, a minority viewpoint within some Islamic schools of thought permits masturbation as an alternative to zina (fornication), or if one is unable to marry.[200][201] Bathing (ghusl) is compulsory after any kind of seminal discharge whether through sexual intercourse, masturbation, or nocturnal emissions (wet dream).[202]
Judaism [edit]
Maimonides stated that the Tanakh does not explicitly prohibit masturbation.[203] On the matter of masturbation, the biblical story of Onan is traditionally interpreted by Jews to be about the emitting sperm outside of the vagina and condemnation thereof,[204] applying this story to masturbation,[204] although the Tanakh does not explicitly state that Onan was masturbating.[204] By virtue of Onan, traditional Judaism condemns [male] masturbation.[203]
Leviticus 15:16–18 states that any male who emits semen is considered ritually impure – whether the emission came through masturbation, nocturnal emission, or sex between married heterosexual partners.[14][205] The traditional rabbinical interpretation of Leviticus 15 was that it applies to all sperm flows, including sperm flows due to masturbation. Other than this ritual impurity, no consequences or punishments are specified.
Indian and Iranian religions [ edit ]
Hinduism [edit]
Seeking bodily pleasure is only considered condemned for those who dedicate themselves to chastity. There are no references in Hindu religious texts to suggest that masturbation itself desecrates sexual purity. For those who are dedicated to chastity, this sin is absolutely minor, and can be absolved either by taking a bath, or by worshiping the Sun, or by saying three prayers.[206][207][208]
Buddhism[ edit ]
The most used formulation of Buddhist ethics are the Five Precepts. These precepts take the form of voluntary personal undertakings, not divine mandate or instruction. The third precept is “to refrain from committing sexual misconduct”.[209] However, different schools of Buddhism have differing interpretations of what constitutes sexual misconduct.
Buddhism was advanced by Gautama Buddha as a method by which human beings could end dukkha (suffering) and escape samsara (cyclic existence). Normally this entails practicing meditation and following the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path as a way to subdue the passions which, along with the skandhas, cause suffering and rebirth. Masturbation (Pali: sukkavissaṭṭhi) is accordingly seen as problematic for a person who wishes to attain liberation. According to a lecture by Lama Thubten Zopa Rinpoche, it is important to abstain from “sexual intercourse, including masturbation, any action that brings an orgasm and so forth, because this results in a rebirth.”[210] He clarifies: “Generally, the action that is the opposite of the precept brings the opposite negative result, takes us further from enlightenment, and keeps us longer in samsara.”[210]
Shravasti Dhammika, a Theravadin monk, cites the Vinaya Pitaka in his online “Guide to Buddhism A to Z”, and states the following:
Masturbation (sukkavissaṭṭhi) is the act of stimulating one’s own sexual organs (sambādha) to the stage of orgasm (adhikavega). In the Kāma Sūtra male masturbation is called “seizing the lion” (siṃhākāranta). Some people during the Buddha’s time believed that masturbation could have a therapeutic effect on the mind and the body (Vin. III, 109), although the Buddha disagreed with this. According to the Vinaya, it is an offence of some seriousness for monks or nuns to masturbate (Vin. III, 111) although the Buddha gave no guidance on this matter to lay people. However, Buddhism could agree with contemporary medical opinion that masturbation is a normal expression of the sexual drive and is physically and psychologically harmless, as long as it does not become a preoccupation or a substitute for ordinary sexual relations. Guilt and self-disgust about masturbating is certainly more harmful than masturbation itself.[211]
His opinions regarding non-Buddhists notwithstanding, the Buddha did encourage his serious disciples to limit their sexual behaviour or to embrace celibacy.[212] Indeed, emphasis on chastity in Buddhism is strong for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis (renunciates), who vow to follow the rules of the Vinaya. Not only are monastics celibate, but they also take more and stricter vows in order to conquer their desires. In the Theravadin tradition, masturbation is also stressed as being harmful for upāsakas and upāsikās (lay devotees) who practice the Eight Precepts on Uposatha days, leading a more ascetic lifestyle that does not allow for masturbation. Indeed, masturbation is explicitly not characterised as sexual misconduct in the mahāyāna Upāsakaśīla sūtra:
“If sex is practised under the inappropriate times (times not allowed by precepts), [at] inappropriate place[s] (places not allowed by precepts), with non-female[s], with virgin[s], with a married wife, if sex relates to self-body, it is known as sexual misconduct.”[213]
Nevertheless, some contemporary writers on Buddhism suggest that masturbation is essentially harmless for a layperson.[214][215]
Zoroastrianism[ edit ]
The act of masturbation is known as Shoeythra Gunaah, or Shoithra-gunah, which can also be used to refer to onanism.[216]
The Zoroastrian holy book Avesta, with its stress on physical cleanliness, lists voluntary masturbation among the unpardonable sins that one can commit. This view was supported by James R. Russell.[217] The Verses 26-28 of Fargard VIII, Section V of the Vendidad state
O Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! If a man involuntarily emits his seed, what is the penalty that he shall pay? Ahura Mazda answered: ‘Eight hundred stripes with the Aspahê-astra, eight hundred stripes with the Sraoshô-karana.’ O Maker of the material world, thou Holy One! If a man voluntarily emits his seed, what is the penalty for it? What is the atonement for it? What is the cleansing from it? Ahura Mazda answered: ‘For that deed there is nothing that can pay, nothing that can atone, nothing that can cleanse from it; it is a trespass for which there is no atonement, for ever and ever.’ When is it so? ‘It is so, if the sinner be a professor of the law of Mazda, or one who has been taught in it. But if he be not a professor of the law of Mazda, nor one who has been taught in it, then this law of Mazda takes his sin from him, if he confesses it and resolves never to commit again such forbidden deeds.
The scholar Sorabji Edalji Dubash has also written:
If a man resorts to the evil practice of masturbation to overcome his passion, his tissues, both muscular and nervous, become relaxed in tone. By the waste of muscular tissue he is hardly able to undergo the exertion required for the discharge of his daily duties. But it is the nervous tissue that suffers most, inasmuch as his memory fails, his intellect becomes dull, he becomes morose and peevish, and shuns the agreeable society of his friends and relatives, and consequently he becomes subject to melancholia. His mind soon becomes exhausted after slight application and its power of retaining impressions is lost. If he becomes subject to melancholia, he sometimes attempts to commit suicide. When we consider these evil effects following masturbation, we do not wonder why it is considered an inexpiable crime.[218]
Masturbation is also considered a Drujih-I-Buji which is caused by the menstrual discharge of a woman if proper precautions are not followed. Thus also enumerated in the Expiatory prayer of Dasturan Dastur Adarbad Mahrespand fall under Drujih-i-Buji. A right knowledge of Drujih-I-Buji and of the ill-effects is said to save young boys of the age of puberty from the fangs of masturbation.[219]
In the story of Jamshid and Taxmoruw (Tahmuras) preserved in a Parsi rivayat, Ahriman is shown to be a masturbator.[220]
Zoroastrian hell is also said to have sinners forced to defecate and masturbate continually.[221]
East Asian religions [ edit ]
Taoism [ edit ]
Some teachers and practitioners of Traditional Chinese medicine, Taoist meditative and martial arts say that masturbation can cause a lowered energy level in men. They say that ejaculation in this way reduces “origin qi” from dantian, the energy center located in the lower abdomen. Some maintain that sex with a partner does not do this because the partners replenish each other’s qi. Some practitioners therefore say that males should not practice martial arts for at least 48 hours after masturbation while others prescribe up to six months, because the loss of Origin Qi does not allow new qi to be created for this kind of time.[citation needed]
Some Taoists strongly discouraged female masturbation. Women were encouraged to practice massaging techniques upon themselves, but were also instructed to avoid thinking sexual thoughts if experiencing a feeling of pleasure. Otherwise, the woman’s “labia will open wide and the sexual secretions will flow.” If this happened, the woman would lose part of her life force, and this could bring illness and shortened life.[222]
Wiccan[edit]
Wicca, like other religions, has adherents with a spectrum of views ranging from conservative to liberal. Wicca is generally undogmatic, and nothing in Wiccan philosophy prohibits masturbation. On the contrary, Wiccan ethics, summed up in the Wiccan Rede “An it harm none, do as thou wilt”, are interpreted by many as endorsing responsible sexual activity of all varieties. This is reinforced in the Charge of the Goddess, a key piece of Wiccan literature, in which the Goddess says, “all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals”.[223]
Bibliography[edit]
Wile, Douglas. The Art of the Bedchamber: The Chinese Sexual Yoga Classics including Women’s Solo Meditation Texts . Albany: State University of New York, 1992.
. Albany: State University of New York, 1992. Numbers, Ronald L, “Sex, Science, and Salvation: The Sexual Advice of Ellen G. White and John Harvey Kellogg,” in Right Living: An Anglo-American Tradition of Self—Help Medicine and Hygiene ed. Charles Rosenberg, 2003.
See also[edit]
Wikipedia
Biblical Figure; second son of Judah
Onan (Hebrew: אוֹנָן, modern: ʾŌnan, Tiberian: ʾŌnān “Mourners”; Greek: Αὐνάν Aunan), found in the book of Genesis, chapter 38,[1] was the second son of Judah and Shua. He was Er and Shelah’s brother. Like his elder brother Er[2], Onan was slain by Yahweh. Onan’s death was in retaliation for being wicked in the eyes of Yahweh (or Lord) and disobeying a direct command of the Lord by unwilling to father a child by his widowed sister-in-law.
Biblical account[ edit ]
New international version
8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and do her the duty of a brother-in-law; raise up offspring for your brother.” [1]
9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he shed his seed on the earth when he went to his brother’s wife, so as not to give his brother offspring. [2]
10 What he did did not please the Lord, and he killed him too.[3] [4]
Standard English version
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and do her the duty of a brother-in-law and raise up offspring to your brother.”
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. Every time he went to his brother’s wife, he wasted the seed on the ground so as not to give his brother offspring.
10 And what he did was evil in the sight of the LORD, and he killed him also.
New American Standard Bible
8 Judah said to Onan, “Talk to your brother’s wife and do your duty as a brother-in-law to her and bring up a child for your brother.”
9 Now Onan knew that the child would not be his; So when he had relations with his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground so that he would not give his brother a child.
10 But what he did did not please the Lord; that’s how he took his life.[6]
New revised standard version Updated edition
8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and do her the duty of a brother-in-law; raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he shed his seed on the earth when he went to his brother’s wife, so as not to give his brother offspring.
10 What he did did not please the Lord, and he killed him too.[7]
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version 5th Edition
8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and do her the duty of a brother-in-law; raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he shed his seed on the earth when he went to his brother’s wife, so as not to give his brother offspring.
10 What he did did not please the Lord, and he killed him too.[6]
The Jewish Study Bible: Second Edition 2nd Edition
8 Judah said to Onan, Join your brother’s wife and do your duty as brother-in-law with her, and provide for your brother’s offspring.
9 But Onan, knowing that the seed would not be counted as his, let it decay if he conjoined with his brother’s wife, so as not to bring his brother offspring.
10 What he did displeased the Lord, and he also took his own life. [7]
After Yahweh killed Onan’s eldest brother Er, Onan’s father Judah told him to fulfill his duty[8][9] as his brother Er’s brother-in-law by entering into a levirate marriage[10][11][12][ 13][ 14][15][9][16] with Tamar his brother’s widow to give her offspring. Religion professor Tikva Frymer-Kensky has pointed out the economic implications of a levirate marriage: Any son born of Tamar would be considered the heir of the deceased Er and could claim twice the firstborn’s share of any inheritance. However, if He were childless or had only daughters, Onan would have inherited as the eldest surviving son.[17]
When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before ejaculating[18][19] and “spilled his semen on the ground”, thereby committing coitus interuptus[20] since any child born was not legally considered his heir would.[21] [22][23][24][25] The next statement in the Bible is that Onan did evil and that God killed him.[26] Onan’s crime is often misconstrued as masturbation, but there is general agreement among Bible scholars that Onan’s death is attributed to his refusal to fulfill his obligation of levirate marriage to Tamar by committing coitus interruptus.[27][28]
However, Onan’s reluctance to give his sister-in-law a child may reflect a rejection of this custom already established in society. The regulation of levirate marriage at Deuteronomy 25:5–10 shows that the custom had met with some opposition. The law in Deuteronomy that allowed a man to refuse his duty was a concession to a reluctance to conform to custom. Because Onan was unwilling to bear his dead brother a son, Yahweh was dissatisfied with Onan and killed him too (Gen 38:10).[30][5]
interpretation [edit]
The implication from the narrative is that Onan’s action as described evoked divine displeasure.
Early Jewish views[edit]
One opinion expressed in the Talmud argues that this was the origin of the imposition of the death penalty.[31] However, the Levitical regulations regarding ejaculation, whether as a result of sexual intercourse[32] or not,[33] prescribe only ritual ablution, and the following evening ritual defilement began until the next day.
Classical Christian Views[edit]
Early Christian writers sometimes focused on semen spilling and the sexual act used for non-reproductive purposes. This interpretation was held by several early Christian apologists. Jerome, for example, argued:
But I wonder why he, the heretic Jovinianus, gave us Judah and Tamar as an example, unless perhaps even whores give him pleasure; or Onan, who was killed because he begrudged his brother his seed. Does he imagine that we approve of all sexual intercourse except the procreation of children? – Jerome, vs. Jovinian 1:19 (AD 393)
Epiphanius of Salamis wrote against heretics using coitus interruptus, calling it the sin of Οnan:[34]
They pollute their bodies, minds and souls with unchastity. Some of them masquerade as monks and their companions as female monks. And they are bodily depraved, because they satisfy their appetites, but, to put it politely, by the act of Onan son of Judah. For as Onan mated with Tamar and satisfied his appetite, but did not complete the act by planting his seed for God-given [purpose] procreation, and instead harmed himself, so [he] did the abominable, so did these People have used their supposed [female monks] to commit this shame. Because purity is not their concern, but a hypocritical purity in the name. Their concern is limited to ensuring that the woman the apparent [ascetic] has seduced does not become pregnant – either to avoid causing childbirth, or to avoid detection as they wish to be honored for their alleged celibacy. At least they do, but others try to get that dirty satisfaction in other ways, not with women, and soil themselves with their own hands. They, too, imitate the son of Judas, soiling the ground with their forbidden practices and drops of dirty liquid, and rubbing their excreta into the earth with their feet – Epiphanius of Salamis, Boston, 2010, p. 131
Although Clement of Alexandria does not specifically mention Onan, he similarly reflects an early Christian view of abhorrence of seed spilling:
Because of man’s divine arrangement for procreation, the seed is not to be cast out in vain, nor damaged, or wasted. —Clement of Alexandria, The Tutor of Children 2:10:91:2 (AD 191)
Having intercourse other than begetting children is a violation of nature. – Clement of Alexandria, The Children’s Teacher 2:10:95:3
Roman Catholic views[edit]
The papal encyclical Casti connubii (1930) invokes this biblical text in support of the Catholic Church’s teaching against sex with contraceptives.
Early Protestant Views
Referring to Onan’s offense of calling masturbation a sin, John Calvin wrote in his Commentary on Genesis: “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between a man and a woman is a monstrous thing that can fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. “[35][36] Methodism’s founder John Wesley, according to Bryan C. Hodge, “believed that any waste of semen in an unproductive sexual act, whether that be in the form of masturbation or coitus interruptus, as in the case of onan, destroyed the souls of the individuals who practiced them.”[37] He writes his Thoughts on the Sin of Onan (1767), reproduced as an attempt in 1779 as A Word to Whom it May Concern, a work by Samuel-Auguste Tissot to censor.[38] In this letter, Wesley warns of “the dangers of self-pollution,” the ill physical and mental effects of masturbation,[39][38] writing many such cases along with recommendations for treatment.[40]
disputes [edit]
According to some Bible critics who read this passage in context, the description of Onan is an origin myth about fluctuations in the constituency of the tribe of Judah, with Onan’s death reflecting the extinction of a clan;[41][42] he and Onan are thus each represented as representatives of a clan, with Onan possibly representing an Edomite clan named Onam[42] mentioned in an Edomite genealogy in Genesis.[43]
There is general agreement among Bible scholars that the biblical story of Onan is not about masturbation or contraception per se, nor about the “wasting of semen”, but rather about his refusal to commit his obligation to levirate marriage to Tamar by committing a coitus to fulfill interruptus.[44][27] [45][19][46][28][47][9][48][49]
The text emphasizes the social and legal situation, with Judah explaining what Onan must do and why. A simple reading of the text is that Onan was killed because he refused to follow orders. Scholars have argued that the secondary purpose of the narrative of Onan and Tamar, which includes the description of Onan, was either to assert the institution of levirate marriage or to present a myth for its origin; [41] Onan’s role in the story is thus that of the brother who abuses his duties by consenting to intercourse with his deceased brother’s wife, but refusing to thereby allow her to conceive. Emerton considers the evidence for this to be inconclusive, although classic rabbinical authors have argued that this narrative describes the origin of levirate marriage.[50]
John M. Riddle argues that “Epiphanius (4th century) interpreted the sin of Onan as coitus interruptus”.[51] John T. Noonan Jr. says that “St. Epiphanius gave a clear interpretation of the text as condemning contraception, and he did so only in the context of his anti-Gnostic polemics”.[52]
Bible scholars have claimed that the story does not refer to masturbation but to coitus interruptus.[3][49][53][28] Bible scholars even claim that the Bible does not say that masturbation is sinful.[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]
Although the story of onan does not involve masturbation, according to Peter Lewis Allen, some theologians found “a common element” in coitus interruptus (aka onanism) and masturbation, as well as in anal intercourse and other forms of illegitimate and non-marital sex acts that are considered unlawful Actions apply.[62]: 81–82
Masturbation [ edit ]
The term onanism refers to “masturbation” in many modern languages—for example, Hebrew (אוננות, onanút), German (Onanie), Greek (αυνανισμός, avnanismós), Japanese (オナニー, onanī), and Swedish (onani)—based on a Interpretation of the Onan story.
The word “masturbation” is not based on the biblical story of Onan itself but on an interpretation of that biblical story, nor is the word “masturbation” found in any form in the biblical texts. Therefore, the etymological connection of “onanism” (meaning masturbation) with Onan’s name is misleading.[63][49]
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “masturbation” as
(1) masturbation (2) coitus interruptus (3) masturbation.
Related searches to is pulling out a sin in christianity
Information related to the topic is pulling out a sin in christianity
Here are the search results of the thread is pulling out a sin in christianity from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic is pulling out a sin in christianity. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
