Dear Bro. Julius,
Today in the midst of problems and difficulties in the lives of Catholics, I a still surprised and excited by meeting a true devoted Catholic in serving the Lord. I hate saying good byes because it symbolizes the end of something, but this good bye I am making to you does not show the end but the temporary farewell untill we see each other again.
You have been with us for about 5 months or so which may seem such a short time but you have greatly influenced me a lot. Ever since I met you, I felt/ see you as a very strict person that we won't have fun with but after sometimes I saw who you really were a firm, friendly and loving servant of God... We have talked to each other and have a lot in common, sabi nyo nga kung magklaklase tayo, naku tawa ng tawa tayo the whole day. I had a lot of fun with you bro and I reallized how it is important to educate the youth of Christ and His saving ministry. With such a short time you have touch my life. Sayang nga na paalis na po kayo marami pa po ako matutunan sa inyo. When you included my name in your program in RadyoVeritas, you made me feel so special. I was laughing, thinking myself in ythat kind of position.
In you, I see greatness, I see the glory and glory of being a priest. You will, one day, be the best priest you can be and you will proudly proclaim God's message of Salvation.You would be a priest, a strong confident priest that would be able to move the live of millions. In you is the devotion of serving God. I wish and pray that you would continue your devotion to become a priest. I would never forget you po. One day we would be able to celebrate the mass together as both priests!
God bless Bro. Julius! More power! Always count on me for your prayers!!! God bless again bro! Keep in touch! 'Till we meet again, Au Revoir!!
Frater in Christo
Anton Heinrich L. Rennesland
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
An Open Letter: My Sentiments to the People I Served
Feast of St. Francis of Assisi (October 4, 2010)
Dearest KOA and your parents,
I bet that while you are reading this, you have too many assumptions of what should be the content of this letter. Dont worry! This is a fraternal letter, a simple sharing g of thoughts.
I understand that many of you have known me as a very “strict” formator. Perhaps it was very much evident when I burst out with my emotion last September 26 right after your investiture/ renewal.
To tell you honestly, my (almost) 5 months of formation program with you is neither easy nor a joke. For you to know, in every meeting that we had, I was seeing to it that my modules are well-prepared with all the lecture, visual aids, and quizzes. For our practical trainings on altar services, I had to study the movements that are demanded by the liturgy and missal. There were also moments that I had to “fly” from an appointment (from my other apostolates) just to be on time for our meeting. Behind all these, however, I had the first hand experience of waiting for you until 2 or 3pm while our meeting was actually set at 1pm. While many were coming late (if not absent), I noticed that many of you were speaking even louder than I do during meetings while chatting with seatmates. I know and I am convinced that many who were there had the intention to listen and to learn but they were sidetracked by some who were playing and chatting about the computer games they played that caused the delay of the meeting.
Behind all these observations, the most common thought that I got (even from parents) was: “Brother, ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!”. I just wonder if that reason can be given to your teachers when they observe the same from you.
During our preparations for the investiture/ renewal, last August 15, I remember vividly that I requested you to bring your “2x2 picture” to be attached to your application form for investiture/ renewal. I also remember joking with you after some weeks of waiting for your pictures: “kahit hindi na 2x2 picture. Kahit pa may katabi kayo sa picture, gupitin nyo na lang ang sarili nyo para lang may mailagay kayo dito.” Would you believe that up to this moment, October 4, I have at hand only 25 application forms and 17 pictures out of the 32 altar servers who were present during the investiture? What happened? During our practices for the rite of investiture and renewal, many were absent. Did you forget that you were the ones who chose the date of those practices? More so, many of those who were present were playing even in front of the altar to the extent that I asked one of you to lead the group in taking a “bow” after the rite in order to satisfy his desire to be noticed by many. I will not forget as well that a number of you were drinking coke inside the Church describing himself as “natutuyo na po ako!”. While I muse over those experiences, mind you, I cannot control myself from laughing because I already imbibed the common line “Brother, ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!”.
September 25 and 26 were the days jam-packed with events. That was the date when PYM had an overnight retreat with me. The following day, nevertheless, was supposed to be the “big day” for the KOA, I was caught by numerous surprises behind our preparations... I mean one after the other... There was an absentee who was supposed to be there, there was somebody present there whom I saw for the first time after all the meetings, there were bloopers caused by no less than the persons who were playing around during practices. I was indeed surprised that I told myself: “gusto ko matunaw sa hiya!" One thing, however, that I did not take as a surprise was the reaction of Fr. Neil. It was not surprising at all; perhaps if I were in his place I will also react that way.
I know that many of you garnered a hard feeling when I got mad on that same night. I don’t blame you. In fact, I thank those who took courage to approach me to explain their side and to say sorry as much, you are forgiven though! Meanwhile, I humbly admit my fault especially when I called you as “mga tanga”. Back then, I was no longer speaking as a seminarian, whom you are expecting to be meek, soft-spoken, and good at all times. I was speaking then, however, as a human being... a very tired and disappointed formator. I humbly beg for your pardon because that particular part of my piece was not true. The truth is that you are all intelligent and good, so much that I was hurt when you don’t use those “powers” to prove that you can do something more than computer games, absences and complaints on meetings, bloopers during the special rite, failure to show up on your schedule, and a lot more. At one hand, I am no longer angry! I want to clarify that to all of you. On the other hand, I exhort all of you to ponder upon these thoughts; including myself and your parents too...
1. Why is it so easy for us to demand from priests (and even from priests-to-be) to become "good models" but we when are the ones demanded to become "good followers", we respond with no other than our resounding "REKLAMO"! Why?
2. Is reason like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!” be the best answer when we notice the deterioration of values among the young? Bakit? Wala na bang naituturo ang mga magulang dahil lang sa “mga bata yan”? If disciplinary problems are rampant with the students of Catholic and exclusive schools, what more can we expect from those who did not get any education?
Until when should reasons like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!” be effective? What if they grow old undisciplined because they are tolerated now? If that happens, I will not be surprised if I will hear reasons like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata pa lang sila, ganyan yan eh!” I hope not!
Dear friends, don’t get me wrong! I told you, I’m no longer angry. I am just sharing my thoughts in the light of reflections, thus without any hard feeling at all. In fact, I am enjoying my last days in your parish seeing that many youth are still responding well to the invitations of the Church. What a hope!
I am praying that the Lord may lead us to the fulfilment of our goal to serve His altar with committed hearts. Rest assured that I will always be your “Kuya Julius” who praise you when you accomplish your duties, who go round the bend when you fail, and who admit my fault in humility when I know I hurt you. Salamat sa karanasan! PLEASE PRAY FOR ME TOO!
I would candidly crack once again my closing joke during our last practice: “Now you are happy because I am leaving. Yes, you are now free again! But, please do not celebrate that much because soon I’ll be back... as you parish priest!” Please keep in touch! I hope good Catholics would bloom from your group and vocation to priesthood would resound to your hearts... Let’s make these happen. Let it be now!
In the Lord,
BRO. JULIUS DE SAGUN
Dearest KOA and your parents,
I bet that while you are reading this, you have too many assumptions of what should be the content of this letter. Dont worry! This is a fraternal letter, a simple sharing g of thoughts.
I understand that many of you have known me as a very “strict” formator. Perhaps it was very much evident when I burst out with my emotion last September 26 right after your investiture/ renewal.
To tell you honestly, my (almost) 5 months of formation program with you is neither easy nor a joke. For you to know, in every meeting that we had, I was seeing to it that my modules are well-prepared with all the lecture, visual aids, and quizzes. For our practical trainings on altar services, I had to study the movements that are demanded by the liturgy and missal. There were also moments that I had to “fly” from an appointment (from my other apostolates) just to be on time for our meeting. Behind all these, however, I had the first hand experience of waiting for you until 2 or 3pm while our meeting was actually set at 1pm. While many were coming late (if not absent), I noticed that many of you were speaking even louder than I do during meetings while chatting with seatmates. I know and I am convinced that many who were there had the intention to listen and to learn but they were sidetracked by some who were playing and chatting about the computer games they played that caused the delay of the meeting.
Behind all these observations, the most common thought that I got (even from parents) was: “Brother, ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!”. I just wonder if that reason can be given to your teachers when they observe the same from you.
During our preparations for the investiture/ renewal, last August 15, I remember vividly that I requested you to bring your “2x2 picture” to be attached to your application form for investiture/ renewal. I also remember joking with you after some weeks of waiting for your pictures: “kahit hindi na 2x2 picture. Kahit pa may katabi kayo sa picture, gupitin nyo na lang ang sarili nyo para lang may mailagay kayo dito.” Would you believe that up to this moment, October 4, I have at hand only 25 application forms and 17 pictures out of the 32 altar servers who were present during the investiture? What happened? During our practices for the rite of investiture and renewal, many were absent. Did you forget that you were the ones who chose the date of those practices? More so, many of those who were present were playing even in front of the altar to the extent that I asked one of you to lead the group in taking a “bow” after the rite in order to satisfy his desire to be noticed by many. I will not forget as well that a number of you were drinking coke inside the Church describing himself as “natutuyo na po ako!”. While I muse over those experiences, mind you, I cannot control myself from laughing because I already imbibed the common line “Brother, ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!”.
September 25 and 26 were the days jam-packed with events. That was the date when PYM had an overnight retreat with me. The following day, nevertheless, was supposed to be the “big day” for the KOA, I was caught by numerous surprises behind our preparations... I mean one after the other... There was an absentee who was supposed to be there, there was somebody present there whom I saw for the first time after all the meetings, there were bloopers caused by no less than the persons who were playing around during practices. I was indeed surprised that I told myself: “gusto ko matunaw sa hiya!" One thing, however, that I did not take as a surprise was the reaction of Fr. Neil. It was not surprising at all; perhaps if I were in his place I will also react that way.
I know that many of you garnered a hard feeling when I got mad on that same night. I don’t blame you. In fact, I thank those who took courage to approach me to explain their side and to say sorry as much, you are forgiven though! Meanwhile, I humbly admit my fault especially when I called you as “mga tanga”. Back then, I was no longer speaking as a seminarian, whom you are expecting to be meek, soft-spoken, and good at all times. I was speaking then, however, as a human being... a very tired and disappointed formator. I humbly beg for your pardon because that particular part of my piece was not true. The truth is that you are all intelligent and good, so much that I was hurt when you don’t use those “powers” to prove that you can do something more than computer games, absences and complaints on meetings, bloopers during the special rite, failure to show up on your schedule, and a lot more. At one hand, I am no longer angry! I want to clarify that to all of you. On the other hand, I exhort all of you to ponder upon these thoughts; including myself and your parents too...
1. Why is it so easy for us to demand from priests (and even from priests-to-be) to become "good models" but we when are the ones demanded to become "good followers", we respond with no other than our resounding "REKLAMO"! Why?
2. Is reason like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!” be the best answer when we notice the deterioration of values among the young? Bakit? Wala na bang naituturo ang mga magulang dahil lang sa “mga bata yan”? If disciplinary problems are rampant with the students of Catholic and exclusive schools, what more can we expect from those who did not get any education?
Until when should reasons like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata yan eh!” be effective? What if they grow old undisciplined because they are tolerated now? If that happens, I will not be surprised if I will hear reasons like “ganyan talaga! Mga bata pa lang sila, ganyan yan eh!” I hope not!
Dear friends, don’t get me wrong! I told you, I’m no longer angry. I am just sharing my thoughts in the light of reflections, thus without any hard feeling at all. In fact, I am enjoying my last days in your parish seeing that many youth are still responding well to the invitations of the Church. What a hope!
I am praying that the Lord may lead us to the fulfilment of our goal to serve His altar with committed hearts. Rest assured that I will always be your “Kuya Julius” who praise you when you accomplish your duties, who go round the bend when you fail, and who admit my fault in humility when I know I hurt you. Salamat sa karanasan! PLEASE PRAY FOR ME TOO!
I would candidly crack once again my closing joke during our last practice: “Now you are happy because I am leaving. Yes, you are now free again! But, please do not celebrate that much because soon I’ll be back... as you parish priest!” Please keep in touch! I hope good Catholics would bloom from your group and vocation to priesthood would resound to your hearts... Let’s make these happen. Let it be now!
In the Lord,
BRO. JULIUS DE SAGUN
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Disclamer of Bishop Odchimar on the Issue of Pres. Aquino's Excommunication
I deny the news report aired in TV network this evening that I threatened President Aquino with excommunication in the interview with Radio Veritas this morning. While the prevailing... ...sentiment of a number of bishops was that of dismay and frustration over the reported stance of the President regarding artificial contraceptives, imposition of the canonical sanction has not been contemplated by the CBCP.
I stated that the initial approach of this issue is to be in the spirit of dialogue and not of confrontation. Threat of excommunication at this point of time can hardly be considered to be in line with dialogue. I maintained that the traditional position of the Church is that human life starts at conception and not at implantation. Some contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacient. Any completed act to expel or kill the fertilized ovum is considered to be an act of abortion.
I went on to say that the penalty of excommunication is meted out to the principals and accomplices of abortion when certain conditions are verified. Canon Law and Morals demand that the sanction is imposed under moral immutability of the sinner. The Church intervenes in this issue because this is a moral question. Among other things this concerns the right to life particularly of the unborn child in the mother’s womb. The bishops support the initiatives of the laymen to protest the passage of the RH bill. When asked whether the bishops will participate in mass action, I replied that we would be considering our options what steps to take when we have to cross the bridge.
+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, DD,
Bishop of Tandag, CBCP President
30 September 2010
I stated that the initial approach of this issue is to be in the spirit of dialogue and not of confrontation. Threat of excommunication at this point of time can hardly be considered to be in line with dialogue. I maintained that the traditional position of the Church is that human life starts at conception and not at implantation. Some contraceptive pills and devices are abortifacient. Any completed act to expel or kill the fertilized ovum is considered to be an act of abortion.
I went on to say that the penalty of excommunication is meted out to the principals and accomplices of abortion when certain conditions are verified. Canon Law and Morals demand that the sanction is imposed under moral immutability of the sinner. The Church intervenes in this issue because this is a moral question. Among other things this concerns the right to life particularly of the unborn child in the mother’s womb. The bishops support the initiatives of the laymen to protest the passage of the RH bill. When asked whether the bishops will participate in mass action, I replied that we would be considering our options what steps to take when we have to cross the bridge.
+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, DD,
Bishop of Tandag, CBCP President
30 September 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
"Better than I"
I was trying to catch the message of this music video. Honestly, I seldom appreciate animated clips and films but this one... mind you... made my day complete!
This cartoon clip is "FOR ADULTS... ALSO!"
This cartoon clip is "FOR ADULTS... ALSO!"
Panuntunan sa Buhay...
mayroon akong 5 panuntunan sa buhay... prinsipyo.., yung tipong napapagnilayan ko lang kapag nasa kagipitan... tulad ngayon!!!
una: matakot sa Diyos!
pangalawa: mangarap! mangarap! at muling mangarap!
ikatlo: magsikap na tuparin ang pangarap!
ikaapat: sundin ang kalooban, wag ang iba... kasi hindi sila ang mahihirapan sakaling magkamali ka!
ikalima: 'wag makialam sa iba!
una: matakot sa Diyos!
pangalawa: mangarap! mangarap! at muling mangarap!
ikatlo: magsikap na tuparin ang pangarap!
ikaapat: sundin ang kalooban, wag ang iba... kasi hindi sila ang mahihirapan sakaling magkamali ka!
ikalima: 'wag makialam sa iba!
MASTURBATION AND PREMARITAL SEX: THEIR MORAL PROBLEMS AND THE STANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
by JULIUS DE SAGUN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Preface
Chapter 2: A Situationer: The Elation in Masturbation and Premarital Sex
2.1 Masturbation
2.2 Pre-marital Sex
Chapter 3: The Moral Problem in Masturbation and Premarital Sex
3.1 Masturbation Condemned
3.2 Sex: Proper to Married People Alone
Chapter 4:The Theological Response of the Church: Towards a “Theology of the Body”
4.1 Necessary Affirmation of Man’s corporeality
4.2 The Dignity of the Human Body
4.3 The Body: Temple of the Holy Spirit
Chapter5:Conclusion
5.1 Theological Reflection
5.2 Summary
Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω
CHAPTER I
1.0 PREFACE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
“Sex” is always an interesting matter yet, as a topic, it is always perceived by many as taboo. Remember: “To the pure, everything is pure but to the impure, nothing is pure.” (cf. Titus 1:15)
In a world wrapped in tensions brought about by poverty of all kinds, natural calamities, and social oppressions, people cannot help but look for way out of their miseries. For some who have no possible way to escape from the trouble, they just look for some temporary remedies that can make them feel better off at least for a dumpy moment. Some people resort to vices like smoking, alcoholism, gambling, etc. Some others, however, resort to sexual acts as quick relief for tension.
The Catholic Church in her teachings, at one hand, resolves to oppose the practice of all kinds of “sexual misconducts”. Moreover, many people, even baptized Catholics, still engage into practice of sex outside marriage and masturbation (apart from other forms of sexual acts), believing that these are just natural for human maturity and growth. Where then does the problem lie, such that the Catholic Church lingers in opposition to premarital sex and masturbation, no matter how pleasurable it shows?
The option of the researcher to write on this topic is rooted on his longing to understand “sex” and “sexuality” in the light of priestly life. Along with it is his desire to understand sex outside marriage and masturbation in the context of celibacy and chastity which are demanded by Catholic Priesthood. The complexity of the thoughts of Moral Theology, however, particularly in the realm of Sexual Ethics cannot all be contained in this brief study. If the student-researcher will try to do so, he may not be able to express the depth of such theological thought, which had been developed and continuously developing in Catholic Church’s whole existence.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In his research, the student-researcher will try to spot the problems on the phenomenon of masturbation and pre-marital sex, as specified by the Catholic Church through Moral Theology.
Hence, the student-researcher will answer the following questions in his research:
1.2.1 What makes Masturbation and Premarital Sex Moral Problem?
1.2.2 What is the response of the Catholic Church to these moral problems?
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The student-researcher will try to analyze the theological points of Moral Theology that qualifies masturbation and pre-marital sex as moral problem. This study will not focus solely on the psychological development of man that affects his sexual behavior. Rather, it will analyze Church’s consciousness of realities on the lives of the people engaged in the problem at hand. Hence, the student-researcher will focus his study mainly on the analysis of the problem along with the response of the Church on the matter.
1.4 RATIONALE
The research seeks to expose some realities that are being experienced by the common people – as they grow as “sexual beings”. In the light of Moral Theology, this research seeks to evaluate the problem of masturbation and pre-marital sex along with the response of the Church on the matter.
Furthermore, this research also serves as a reminder that the theology students’ intellectual interventions in realities are not just confined to the classroom setting, but that these interventions actually make them aware of the common problem faced by many if not all of human beings. Thus, the researcher will know to balance his response when these problems arise both to him and to others too.
CHAPTER II
2.0 A SITUATIONER: THE ELATION IN MASTURBATION AND PRE-MARITAL SEX
“The language of sex is easy to speak but hard to make meaningful!”
- Lester Kierhendall
In order to put the mindset of the audience into context, the author desires to begin with the definition of terms at issue.
2.1 MASTURBATION is a self stimulation of genital organs by means other than intercourse aiming at orgasm (cf. Merriam Webster Dictionary). Those means, for males, are usually by one’s own hands. More so, other parts of the body may be involved especially among females and the use of other objects too. Almost the same as the aforementioned definition, the “cyberspace” commonly known as the internet refers to masturbation as “a sexual stimulation, especially of one's own genitals stimulation performed manually or by other types of bodily contact, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods” (cf. Wikipedia: “Masturbation”)
The studies of Alfred Kinsey, a sociologist, show that 90% of male and 60% of female have tried masturbation sometime in their lifetime. (cf. Kinsey. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 499 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 520.) Frequency of masturbation is determined by many factors, e.g., one's resistance to sexual tension, hormone levels influencing sexual arousal, sexual habits, peer influences, health and one's attitude to masturbation formed by culture. More so, medical causes have also been associated with masturbation.
Need not to say, masturbation is very much popular to many (if not to all) of young people and old ones alike. It is a quick source of pleasure for a weary body tired in toils and thirsty in flesh. For males, many engage into it thinking that it is a safe way to orgasm without the harm of impregnating a woman. Thus, it is asserted that after experiencing the pleasure of orgasm, the one who did masturbation has no responsibility towards another person, so that it is called “safe”. Masturbation, moreover, can be part of a full repertoire of sexual intercourse. It may be used as an interlude, foreplay, or as an alternative to penetration. For some people, non-penetrative sex or “frottage” is the primary sexual activity of choice above all others. Participants who do not want full sexual intercourse thus still enjoy mutual masturbation.
Mutual masturbation is practiced by people of all sexual orientations. When used as an alternative to penile-vaginal penetration, the goal may be to preserve virginity or to prevent pregnancy. Some people choose it as an alternative to casual sex because it results in sexual satisfaction without actual sex. For some people, masturbating with friends helps lift the stigma they feel surrounding the act. This helps them develop their orgasm, increase its pleasure, and inspires them to masturbate on a more frequent basis.
2.2 PRE-MARITAL SEX (or fornication) is identified as an act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman occurring before marriage. (cf. Kinsey) More so, premarital sex is generally used in reference to individuals who are presumed not yet of marriageable age, or between adults who will presumably marry eventually, but who are engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage.
Many lovers around the terrain commonly assert that sex is desirable and necessary to prove a relationship to be real and authentic. Premarital sex, as a topic, is always timely. Much as a topic, others would say that it is also a pleasurable act to be performed. Usually, people do not formally learn about it in a classroom setting but on peer conversations. For those who do such act, they share their experience while and after performing such act. As a result, the topic tickles the young minds of their peers who deign to experience the same pleasure which their colleagues enjoyed. The process continues and the topic persistently spread throughout the terrain. Often, this phenomenon is called machismo.
CHAPTER III
3.0 THE MORAL PROBLEM OF MASTURBATION AND PREMARITAL SEX
“The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord.”
- 1 Corinthians 6:13b (NRSV)
This verse proves that exploitation of the body is very much morally unacceptable even in scriptural sense.
The exploitation of the body is an immoral act, a way of going against God’s will and, therefore, a sin. “When sin is defined as a transgression of God’s law, we add that it is a voluntary transgression.” (cf. Piet Schoonenberg. Man and Sin: A Theological View, 16.) Thus, sin is one’s personal and free decision to deviate from the ordination of God and to choose idols. By “idols”, it may refer to man’s choice which opposes God’s design. “As love goes out to God and creation, so sin, which is a denial of love, is also directed against the whole reality of God and his creation, of the world and its God.” (cf. Schoonenberg)
More so, to contextualize the aforementioned claims in this study about the moral problems of masturbation and premarital sex, it is quite important to consider and note the following:
3.1 MASTURBATION CONDEMNED
Many look at masturbation as an alternative to sex. Sexologists regard continual masturbation as a normal outlet for adults in certain circumstances –e.g.: in prison, in the armed forces, on trips away from home and spouse, etc. Thus, masturbation has been a diverting force for suppressed sexual drive. Meanwhile, the same sexologists asserted that “when adults prefer masturbation to normal intercourse, we are dealing with an abnormal situation.” (Wiliam Masters and Virginia Johnstons. Human Sexual Response, 95.) This problem is much seen in a psychological sense.
The Catholic Church condemns the practice of masturbation by saying: “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”. (Cathechism of the Catholic Church # 2352)
In the Sacred Scripture, there is no clear and explicit moral prohibition of masturbation in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. However, some moralists see the following Pauline references as the “ultimate scriptural word against masturbation” (Gennaro P. Avvento. Sexuality: A Christian View, 100.):
(1) “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor boy prostitutes… will inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6: 9b-10, NAB)
(2) “Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lust of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.” (Romans 1: 24, NAB)
(3) “Now the works of the flesh are obvious… adultery, impurity… I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21, NRSV)
Furthermore, it is quite significant to look at the point of the Second Vatican Council on the matter, it says, “Although it cannot be established that the sacred scripture condemned masturbation by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly taken it to have been condemned by the New Testament when it speaks of ‘uncleanness’ and ‘unchastity’ and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.” (Sacred Congregation on the Doctrines of Faith. Personae Humanae # 8.)
Gennaro P. Avvento, a Catholic moralist, enumerated some of the statements of the Church’s magisterium that condemn masturbation:
(1) Pope Leo IX’s De Malitia Masturbationis: Masturbators should not be admitted to Sacred Orders.
(2) Decree of Sacred Penitentiary, 1904: Masturbatory acts of women during the absence of their husbands are gravely illicit.
(3) Pope Pius XII’s The Christian Education of Youth: Adolescent lapses such as masturbation should be seen as grave faults.
(4) Sacred Congregation for Religious, 1952: Habitual masturbation is an impediment to religious life.
(5) Guide to Formation in Priestly Celibacy, 1974: Masturbation is a sign of sexual imbalance.
(6)Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, Persona Humana, 1975: Masturbation is immoral for all followers of Christ.
Much had been said against the immorality of masturbation. However, it must be clear that immorality of masturbation is viewed in the context of psycho-spiritual realm. As a person grows up and develops physically, masturbation becomes his way of coping to bodily changes and to the challenges of the environment. Masturbation “becomes morally wrong when it becomes psychologically harmful” (cf. Avvetto, 104) and threatening to one’s spirituality due to an abuse of the body.
3.2 SEX: PROPER TO MARRIED PEOPLE ALONE
“It is the human capacity for responsibility and fidelity that makes marriage possible; it is the human inclination to infidelity that makes marriage necessary.”
- Gennaro P. Avvento
Fr. William F. Allen, a sexual ethicist wrote: “Premarital sex exposes [people] to a sort of sexual obsession and deprives [them] of all the superior values outlined in Christian tradition on marriage.” (cf. William F. Allen. Sexuality Summary, 152.) Sexual action done outside marriage is morally unacceptable to the Catholic Church. It is a way of using one another for sexual gratification. Therefore, premarital sex is immoral. The fundamental casual factors of premarital sex are often identified with the following: (1) lack of available courses on sex and family life (or Sex Education); (2) depiction of sex by the media and environment; (3) problems caused by breakdown of family ties which leads to the loss of support structure for a meaningful future.
Another term for premarital sex is fornication that is a practice of “sexual intercourse with mutual consent between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman”. (cf. Avvetto., 118.) “It has viewed that all forms of premarital intercourse as fornication, as violation of personal dignity, as manipulation and hence gravely sinful.” (cf. Avvetto) The Catholic Church condemns such practice, saying: “Fornication is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of the spouses and the generation and education of children.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2353)
The sacred scripture also forbids the practice of premarital sex as indicated by the following:
(1) “If a man has carnal relations with a female slave who has already been living with another man but has not yet been redeemed or given her freedom, they shall be punished...” (Leviticus 19:20, NRSV)
(3) “Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Ephesians 5:5, NRSV)
It is quite important to recognize that sexual intercourse is an expression of one’s whole being and the deepest core of his or her personality to someone whom he or she has chosen to remain with for the rest of one’s existence. Sex is beautifully willed by God as an expression of union between hearts-in-love yet “sex is prostituted when it becomes a source of self-enslavement and not a growing phase in the total development of mutual concern between two people.” (cf. Bertocci, 131.) Often, spoiling the urges of the flesh moves one to practice sex outside marriage.
“The argument against premarital sex ran as follows; the procreative characteristic of sex requires that the couple be in a permanent set of relationships in order to be able to assume the obligations owed to the potential progeny. This entails stability of their union and exclusive fidelity of one to another.” (cf. Allen., 150.)Such union pertains to marriage. Hence, full intimacy should be reserved for married state that is designed for a lifetime commitment to an exclusive sexual and physical relation.
The Second Vatican Council speaks of human’s sexuality and faculty of reproduction by noting that it wondrously surpassed the endowment of lower forms of life. Vatican II then “dealt one by one with the principles and rules which relate to human sexuality in marriage and which are based on specific purpose of sexuality.” (cf. CDF, Personae Humanae # 5)
“Marriage both encourages and symbolically expresses the growth in unity that the lovers experience in every area of their lives. Sexual intercourse before marriage is no preparation for marriage; it ‘tests’ very little. In a word, a so called ‘marital intercourse’ withdrawn from the real context of marriage is hardly calculated to keep love honest, let alone growing.” (cf. Bertocci, 124.) “In marriage, the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2360) Hence, couple should recall the values laid by the Catholic Church and the Sacred Scripture - trust, honesty, fidelity, unity, and integrity - for married life. Then, looking into their hearts, they should ask themselves whether or not these values are being practiced and lived.
CHAPTER IV
4.0 THE THEOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF THE CHURCH: TOWARDS THE “THEOLOGY OF THE BODY”
“God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him,
male and female he created them.”
-Genesis 1: 27
4.1 NECESSARY AFFIRMATION OF MAN’S CORPOREALITY
A Moralist, Andre Guindon writes: “By denying corporeality, human tenderness necessary fights sensuality which will try to ascertain its rights to existence” (cf. The Sexual Language: An Essay in Moral Theology, 90.) Thus, human spirituality cannot be attained when human corporeality is denied. After all, Christianity teaches that human being is composed of both body and spirit. On this point, CCC writes: “the human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal (body) and spiritual (soul).” (CCC # 362, italics mine) For a spirit to be holy, one must also make one’s body holy. Hence, holiness must be found inside and out.
At a hand, Christian morality maintains that performing masturbation and premarital sex is immoral and therefore sinful. It is slavery from flesh and a direct destruction of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, people should understand that feeling is a significant part of corporeality. The denial of this fact “would go against the explicit article of the Christian Creed” (cf. Guindon, 90.) which affirms both body and spirit as fundament components of human being. Both body and spirit complements each other and nothing goes higher than the other. Therefore, even the “urge” for bodily pleasure is a part of man’s corporeality. It is normal but not to be spoiled. And so, sexual desire must be properly dealt with. Misconception of this fact is dangerous.
Furthermore, in the imbalance prospect on man’s corporeality and spirituality, taking the latter as higher than the former, Paul Ricoeur insightfully claimed that every sexual action would fall short to: 1) meaninglessness of sex; 2) meaningless sex as an answer to existential failure; and 3) quest for sexual fabulousness. (cf. Ricoeur. Wonder, Erotism, and Enigma,133.)
4.2 THE “DIGNITY” OF THE HUMAN BODY
Being created in God’s own image, man receives a dignity higher than other creatures. The Church affirms this, saying: “Being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of the person, who is not just something, but someone.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 357) More so, the use of the term “image” can be cheaply assumed as the “physical appearance” as though pertaining to body or corpus.
The Catholic Church maintains the Dogma of the Incarnation of Jesus which gives a higher dignity to the human body which Jesus himself possessed upon His incarnation. “In reality, it is only I the mystery of the Word made flesh (incarnation) that the mystery of man becomes clear.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 359, italics mine) Through Jesus’ incarnation, which summit is His crucifixion, man was redeemed from all calumnies and impurities. This point is affirmed by the new CCC, it says: “Christian, recognize your dignity and now that you share in God’s own nature do not return to your former base condition by sinning… Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1691)
Regarding the practice sexual acts, Second Vatican Council declares: “When assessing the propriety of conjugal acts, determining if they accord with true human dignity, it is not enough to take only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into account. Objective criteria must be used: (1) criteria based on the nature of human person and his action; (2) criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving; (3) and the criteria on human procreation in the context of true love.” (cf. CDF, Personae Humanae # 5)
4.3 HUMAN BODY: TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
“The human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God’: it is a human body because it is animated by a spiritual soul and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 364) When one becomes a believer, the Holy Spirit becomes a part of himself. The body becomes a container, or a "house," or so to say, a "temple." St. Paul clearly affirms the actual physical body of man as the “Temple of the Holy Spirit”, he says:
“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters’, says the Lord Almighty.” (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, NAB)
With Paul's logic exhorts people to touch not the “unclean things” (this applies to physical uncleanness, such as joining your body with a prostitute, or eating things God has declared unclean, and it also applies to the spiritual standing, don't partake of the doctrines of demons). More so, Paul expressed here that God care about humans’ weak and fragile body as the scripture tells.
There are people who opt to offer their whole body to God alone by preserving purity and chastity. “Chastity… is not sensitively defined in terms of whether a person has or has not had sexual intercourse. Chastity basically consists in the motivation and practice that keep sex from being self-centered and self-indulgent and that constantly dedicates it to the growth of the value. Chastity must be protected within the marriage bond as well as outside it.” (Bertocci. Sex, Love, and the Person, 130.) Conversely, St. Paul warns those who do otherwise by performing any malicious acts that obliterates the human body, he says:
“Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy.”
(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, NAB)
God purposefully and purposely created people instituted His eternal laws to ensure that His creations would not fail. God was angered when man; being fallible creations, tripped over God’s will (cf. Genesis 3). Then, Jesus, the "Son of God" came along and fixed everything. He cleaned up the mess that man did against His Father’s will, at the cost of his own life. This is the way Jesus’ redeemed man from the power of sin, even from slavery from sexual misconducts.
The scriptures, being God's Word, tells man how to please God by obeying His will and doing what is appropriate for one’s body and soul. False teachings that say that it is fine to be a "carnal" alone approve a defiler, reprobate, delinquent or lascivious view of life. For God, it matters what man does with his body.
CHAPTER V
5. 0 CONCLUSION
5.1 THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION
Being true to the objective of doing this study - that is to understand “sex” and “sexuality” in the light of priestly life along with it is his desire to understand sex outside marriage and masturbation in the context of “celibacy” and “chastity” which are the fundamental demands of the Catholic Priesthood (cf. Introduction), the researcher desires then to close this with his theological reflection on the matter.
Ω Ω Ω
“My Call: Live a Pure Life”
God calls us in different state: in married life, single blessedness, or in celibate life. Celibacy is not for all. It is a particular vocation for those who deemed to follow Christ in the consecrated life. Thus, it is a charism – a gift from God. Furthermore, celibacy is an abstention from sexual relations, or so to say; the state of being unmarried. Particularly, the consecrated persons: priests, nuns, and religious have to be healthy celibates for they are called to be engaged with God and His people alone. Most of the time, people connects celibacy with the issue of “sex”. This is the very reason why celibacy appears not so pleasing in the modern times. In fact, a very few number of young people are choosing this as their way to sanctity. It is as though many cases of sexual misconduct of the consecrated people can be blamed upon the rising of their idea about sex and the lack of right knowledge of it.
On the other hand, some of the young people are engaged in sexual activities at their early age. They are comfortable in speaking of things regarding their sexual experiences only to their colleagues at their age. Usually, the youth are hesitant to talk about such topics with the authoritative figure who can give them right information about sex and sexuality. It is because they are afraid of reprimands, disciplinary actions, and judgments from authorities like parents and formators. This fear is rooted from the belief that “sex” is bad. It is also true as in the cases of many young candidates to priesthood and even to a few numbers of ordained pastors. This case challenges the Church and its promotion of vocations among the youth. Moreover, it must be clear to the young people that the openness of their mind about sex is not to be faced through trial. They need to be guided to a proper way of understanding their sexuality.
“The consecrated celibacy of the sacred ministers actually manifests the virginal and supernatural fecundity of marriage, by which the children of god are born, not by flesh and blood.” For somebody living out celibacy, it simply means: (1)...that the development of full humanity is more important than genital expression; (2)...that there are more important thing than sexual potency; (3)...that self-transcendence is more fully human than self-fulfillment.
This is the only way to make the ministers of the church healthy celibates. Good thing, the church has opened its doors in addressing this issue. In fact, many formation houses and seminaries are now open to the issues concerning their candidates’ tensions and conflicts in the area of sex and sexuality. In this regard, the formators are duty-bound to pay special attention to this issue by giving their candidates proper information and knowledge.
To be celibate also means to be empty for God, to be free and open for His presence in many people and to be available for His service. Hence, the choice of celibacy is an act of radical rejection of a number of myths that our society holds as facts: (1)…that genital sex is absolutely necessary for a person to be fully human; (2)…that sexual relation is the only way to insure one against loneliness; (3)…that sexual orgasm and experience of sexual intercourse is the only proof of one’s masculinity or femininity; (4)…and that sexual fulfillment is the ultimate purpose of life.
With celibacy, therefore, one guards himself against all irresponsible use of sexual power whether inside of outside marriage, ordained and lay alike. For after all, even married people can also be chaste.
5.2 SUMMARY
Sexuality is part of man’s nature being a corporeal being (composed of body). This fact is undeniable, as much as soul is to be affirmed as human’s fundamental component. Sensualities, like urges for bodily pleasure, are natural to human body. This urges, however, have to be channeled without deviating from God’s design. Sex for this matter, being a sexual channel, must be done in the context of marriage. Perhaps any sexual act derived from lust, like masturbation, is not morally acceptable.
By definition, masturbation is the self-stimulation of genitals by use of one’s hands or by other gadgets. Meanwhile, premarital sex is a sexual act between a male and a female outside marriage. Both masturbation and premarital sex are seen as “abnormal” psychological behaviors. This is true, no matter how pleasurable they appear for those who are engaged in it.
More so, masturbation and premarital sex are sinful in the sight of the Catholic Church’s teachings. .The Church asserts that performing such acts is a mistreatment of the human body which has the dignity given upon his creation by God Himself. Masturbation and premarital sex both ravage the human body – the “Temple of the Holy Spirit”. God deserve but a pure and clean body as His “temple”. These prove that masturbation and premarital sex are both immoral – better still, they are sins against God’s design.
Oppositions on the practice of such sexual misconducts had been unanimously supported by the pillars of the Catholic Church namely: Sacred Scripture (although not explicit), Tradition, and Magisterium.
LIST OF REFERENCES
BOOKS (BIBLIOGRAPHY):
Allen, William F. Sexuality Summary. Ohio: Alba Communications, 1977.
Avvento, Gennaro P. Sexuality: A Christian View. Connecticut: Twenty-third, 1984.
Bertocci, Peter A. Sex, Love, and the Person. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967.
Guindon, Andrei. The Sexual Language: An Essay in Moral Theology. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1976.
Kinsey, Alfred. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948.
____________. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953.
Masters, Wiliam and Johnstons, Virginia. Human Sexual Response. (Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co., 1969), 95.
Paul Ricoeur. Wonder, Erotism, and Enigma. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Schoonenberg, Piet. Man and Sin: A Theological View. Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1965.
Turner, Philip. Sex, Money and Power. Cambridge: Cowley, 1985.
CHURCH DOCUMENTS:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
ENCYCLICAL LETTER:
Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.
Sacred Congregation on the Doctrines of Faith. Personae Humanae.
SACRED SCRIPTURES:
New American Bible
New Revised Standard Version
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Preface
Chapter 2: A Situationer: The Elation in Masturbation and Premarital Sex
2.1 Masturbation
2.2 Pre-marital Sex
Chapter 3: The Moral Problem in Masturbation and Premarital Sex
3.1 Masturbation Condemned
3.2 Sex: Proper to Married People Alone
Chapter 4:The Theological Response of the Church: Towards a “Theology of the Body”
4.1 Necessary Affirmation of Man’s corporeality
4.2 The Dignity of the Human Body
4.3 The Body: Temple of the Holy Spirit
Chapter5:Conclusion
5.1 Theological Reflection
5.2 Summary
Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω Ω
CHAPTER I
1.0 PREFACE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
“Sex” is always an interesting matter yet, as a topic, it is always perceived by many as taboo. Remember: “To the pure, everything is pure but to the impure, nothing is pure.” (cf. Titus 1:15)
In a world wrapped in tensions brought about by poverty of all kinds, natural calamities, and social oppressions, people cannot help but look for way out of their miseries. For some who have no possible way to escape from the trouble, they just look for some temporary remedies that can make them feel better off at least for a dumpy moment. Some people resort to vices like smoking, alcoholism, gambling, etc. Some others, however, resort to sexual acts as quick relief for tension.
The Catholic Church in her teachings, at one hand, resolves to oppose the practice of all kinds of “sexual misconducts”. Moreover, many people, even baptized Catholics, still engage into practice of sex outside marriage and masturbation (apart from other forms of sexual acts), believing that these are just natural for human maturity and growth. Where then does the problem lie, such that the Catholic Church lingers in opposition to premarital sex and masturbation, no matter how pleasurable it shows?
The option of the researcher to write on this topic is rooted on his longing to understand “sex” and “sexuality” in the light of priestly life. Along with it is his desire to understand sex outside marriage and masturbation in the context of celibacy and chastity which are demanded by Catholic Priesthood. The complexity of the thoughts of Moral Theology, however, particularly in the realm of Sexual Ethics cannot all be contained in this brief study. If the student-researcher will try to do so, he may not be able to express the depth of such theological thought, which had been developed and continuously developing in Catholic Church’s whole existence.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In his research, the student-researcher will try to spot the problems on the phenomenon of masturbation and pre-marital sex, as specified by the Catholic Church through Moral Theology.
Hence, the student-researcher will answer the following questions in his research:
1.2.1 What makes Masturbation and Premarital Sex Moral Problem?
1.2.2 What is the response of the Catholic Church to these moral problems?
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The student-researcher will try to analyze the theological points of Moral Theology that qualifies masturbation and pre-marital sex as moral problem. This study will not focus solely on the psychological development of man that affects his sexual behavior. Rather, it will analyze Church’s consciousness of realities on the lives of the people engaged in the problem at hand. Hence, the student-researcher will focus his study mainly on the analysis of the problem along with the response of the Church on the matter.
1.4 RATIONALE
The research seeks to expose some realities that are being experienced by the common people – as they grow as “sexual beings”. In the light of Moral Theology, this research seeks to evaluate the problem of masturbation and pre-marital sex along with the response of the Church on the matter.
Furthermore, this research also serves as a reminder that the theology students’ intellectual interventions in realities are not just confined to the classroom setting, but that these interventions actually make them aware of the common problem faced by many if not all of human beings. Thus, the researcher will know to balance his response when these problems arise both to him and to others too.
CHAPTER II
2.0 A SITUATIONER: THE ELATION IN MASTURBATION AND PRE-MARITAL SEX
“The language of sex is easy to speak but hard to make meaningful!”
- Lester Kierhendall
In order to put the mindset of the audience into context, the author desires to begin with the definition of terms at issue.
2.1 MASTURBATION is a self stimulation of genital organs by means other than intercourse aiming at orgasm (cf. Merriam Webster Dictionary). Those means, for males, are usually by one’s own hands. More so, other parts of the body may be involved especially among females and the use of other objects too. Almost the same as the aforementioned definition, the “cyberspace” commonly known as the internet refers to masturbation as “a sexual stimulation, especially of one's own genitals stimulation performed manually or by other types of bodily contact, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods” (cf. Wikipedia: “Masturbation”)
The studies of Alfred Kinsey, a sociologist, show that 90% of male and 60% of female have tried masturbation sometime in their lifetime. (cf. Kinsey. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 499 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, 520.) Frequency of masturbation is determined by many factors, e.g., one's resistance to sexual tension, hormone levels influencing sexual arousal, sexual habits, peer influences, health and one's attitude to masturbation formed by culture. More so, medical causes have also been associated with masturbation.
Need not to say, masturbation is very much popular to many (if not to all) of young people and old ones alike. It is a quick source of pleasure for a weary body tired in toils and thirsty in flesh. For males, many engage into it thinking that it is a safe way to orgasm without the harm of impregnating a woman. Thus, it is asserted that after experiencing the pleasure of orgasm, the one who did masturbation has no responsibility towards another person, so that it is called “safe”. Masturbation, moreover, can be part of a full repertoire of sexual intercourse. It may be used as an interlude, foreplay, or as an alternative to penetration. For some people, non-penetrative sex or “frottage” is the primary sexual activity of choice above all others. Participants who do not want full sexual intercourse thus still enjoy mutual masturbation.
Mutual masturbation is practiced by people of all sexual orientations. When used as an alternative to penile-vaginal penetration, the goal may be to preserve virginity or to prevent pregnancy. Some people choose it as an alternative to casual sex because it results in sexual satisfaction without actual sex. For some people, masturbating with friends helps lift the stigma they feel surrounding the act. This helps them develop their orgasm, increase its pleasure, and inspires them to masturbate on a more frequent basis.
2.2 PRE-MARITAL SEX (or fornication) is identified as an act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman occurring before marriage. (cf. Kinsey) More so, premarital sex is generally used in reference to individuals who are presumed not yet of marriageable age, or between adults who will presumably marry eventually, but who are engaging in sexual activity prior to marriage.
Many lovers around the terrain commonly assert that sex is desirable and necessary to prove a relationship to be real and authentic. Premarital sex, as a topic, is always timely. Much as a topic, others would say that it is also a pleasurable act to be performed. Usually, people do not formally learn about it in a classroom setting but on peer conversations. For those who do such act, they share their experience while and after performing such act. As a result, the topic tickles the young minds of their peers who deign to experience the same pleasure which their colleagues enjoyed. The process continues and the topic persistently spread throughout the terrain. Often, this phenomenon is called machismo.
CHAPTER III
3.0 THE MORAL PROBLEM OF MASTURBATION AND PREMARITAL SEX
“The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord.”
- 1 Corinthians 6:13b (NRSV)
This verse proves that exploitation of the body is very much morally unacceptable even in scriptural sense.
The exploitation of the body is an immoral act, a way of going against God’s will and, therefore, a sin. “When sin is defined as a transgression of God’s law, we add that it is a voluntary transgression.” (cf. Piet Schoonenberg. Man and Sin: A Theological View, 16.) Thus, sin is one’s personal and free decision to deviate from the ordination of God and to choose idols. By “idols”, it may refer to man’s choice which opposes God’s design. “As love goes out to God and creation, so sin, which is a denial of love, is also directed against the whole reality of God and his creation, of the world and its God.” (cf. Schoonenberg)
More so, to contextualize the aforementioned claims in this study about the moral problems of masturbation and premarital sex, it is quite important to consider and note the following:
3.1 MASTURBATION CONDEMNED
Many look at masturbation as an alternative to sex. Sexologists regard continual masturbation as a normal outlet for adults in certain circumstances –e.g.: in prison, in the armed forces, on trips away from home and spouse, etc. Thus, masturbation has been a diverting force for suppressed sexual drive. Meanwhile, the same sexologists asserted that “when adults prefer masturbation to normal intercourse, we are dealing with an abnormal situation.” (Wiliam Masters and Virginia Johnstons. Human Sexual Response, 95.) This problem is much seen in a psychological sense.
The Catholic Church condemns the practice of masturbation by saying: “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”. (Cathechism of the Catholic Church # 2352)
In the Sacred Scripture, there is no clear and explicit moral prohibition of masturbation in either the Old Testament or the New Testament. However, some moralists see the following Pauline references as the “ultimate scriptural word against masturbation” (Gennaro P. Avvento. Sexuality: A Christian View, 100.):
(1) “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor boy prostitutes… will inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6: 9b-10, NAB)
(2) “Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lust of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies.” (Romans 1: 24, NAB)
(3) “Now the works of the flesh are obvious… adultery, impurity… I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19-21, NRSV)
Furthermore, it is quite significant to look at the point of the Second Vatican Council on the matter, it says, “Although it cannot be established that the sacred scripture condemned masturbation by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly taken it to have been condemned by the New Testament when it speaks of ‘uncleanness’ and ‘unchastity’ and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.” (Sacred Congregation on the Doctrines of Faith. Personae Humanae # 8.)
Gennaro P. Avvento, a Catholic moralist, enumerated some of the statements of the Church’s magisterium that condemn masturbation:
(1) Pope Leo IX’s De Malitia Masturbationis: Masturbators should not be admitted to Sacred Orders.
(2) Decree of Sacred Penitentiary, 1904: Masturbatory acts of women during the absence of their husbands are gravely illicit.
(3) Pope Pius XII’s The Christian Education of Youth: Adolescent lapses such as masturbation should be seen as grave faults.
(4) Sacred Congregation for Religious, 1952: Habitual masturbation is an impediment to religious life.
(5) Guide to Formation in Priestly Celibacy, 1974: Masturbation is a sign of sexual imbalance.
(6)Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, Persona Humana, 1975: Masturbation is immoral for all followers of Christ.
Much had been said against the immorality of masturbation. However, it must be clear that immorality of masturbation is viewed in the context of psycho-spiritual realm. As a person grows up and develops physically, masturbation becomes his way of coping to bodily changes and to the challenges of the environment. Masturbation “becomes morally wrong when it becomes psychologically harmful” (cf. Avvetto, 104) and threatening to one’s spirituality due to an abuse of the body.
3.2 SEX: PROPER TO MARRIED PEOPLE ALONE
“It is the human capacity for responsibility and fidelity that makes marriage possible; it is the human inclination to infidelity that makes marriage necessary.”
- Gennaro P. Avvento
Fr. William F. Allen, a sexual ethicist wrote: “Premarital sex exposes [people] to a sort of sexual obsession and deprives [them] of all the superior values outlined in Christian tradition on marriage.” (cf. William F. Allen. Sexuality Summary, 152.) Sexual action done outside marriage is morally unacceptable to the Catholic Church. It is a way of using one another for sexual gratification. Therefore, premarital sex is immoral. The fundamental casual factors of premarital sex are often identified with the following: (1) lack of available courses on sex and family life (or Sex Education); (2) depiction of sex by the media and environment; (3) problems caused by breakdown of family ties which leads to the loss of support structure for a meaningful future.
Another term for premarital sex is fornication that is a practice of “sexual intercourse with mutual consent between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman”. (cf. Avvetto., 118.) “It has viewed that all forms of premarital intercourse as fornication, as violation of personal dignity, as manipulation and hence gravely sinful.” (cf. Avvetto) The Catholic Church condemns such practice, saying: “Fornication is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of the spouses and the generation and education of children.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2353)
The sacred scripture also forbids the practice of premarital sex as indicated by the following:
(1) “If a man has carnal relations with a female slave who has already been living with another man but has not yet been redeemed or given her freedom, they shall be punished...” (Leviticus 19:20, NRSV)
(3) “Be sure of this, that no immoral or impure or greedy person, that is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and of God.” (Ephesians 5:5, NRSV)
It is quite important to recognize that sexual intercourse is an expression of one’s whole being and the deepest core of his or her personality to someone whom he or she has chosen to remain with for the rest of one’s existence. Sex is beautifully willed by God as an expression of union between hearts-in-love yet “sex is prostituted when it becomes a source of self-enslavement and not a growing phase in the total development of mutual concern between two people.” (cf. Bertocci, 131.) Often, spoiling the urges of the flesh moves one to practice sex outside marriage.
“The argument against premarital sex ran as follows; the procreative characteristic of sex requires that the couple be in a permanent set of relationships in order to be able to assume the obligations owed to the potential progeny. This entails stability of their union and exclusive fidelity of one to another.” (cf. Allen., 150.)Such union pertains to marriage. Hence, full intimacy should be reserved for married state that is designed for a lifetime commitment to an exclusive sexual and physical relation.
The Second Vatican Council speaks of human’s sexuality and faculty of reproduction by noting that it wondrously surpassed the endowment of lower forms of life. Vatican II then “dealt one by one with the principles and rules which relate to human sexuality in marriage and which are based on specific purpose of sexuality.” (cf. CDF, Personae Humanae # 5)
“Marriage both encourages and symbolically expresses the growth in unity that the lovers experience in every area of their lives. Sexual intercourse before marriage is no preparation for marriage; it ‘tests’ very little. In a word, a so called ‘marital intercourse’ withdrawn from the real context of marriage is hardly calculated to keep love honest, let alone growing.” (cf. Bertocci, 124.) “In marriage, the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2360) Hence, couple should recall the values laid by the Catholic Church and the Sacred Scripture - trust, honesty, fidelity, unity, and integrity - for married life. Then, looking into their hearts, they should ask themselves whether or not these values are being practiced and lived.
CHAPTER IV
4.0 THE THEOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF THE CHURCH: TOWARDS THE “THEOLOGY OF THE BODY”
“God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him,
male and female he created them.”
-Genesis 1: 27
4.1 NECESSARY AFFIRMATION OF MAN’S CORPOREALITY
A Moralist, Andre Guindon writes: “By denying corporeality, human tenderness necessary fights sensuality which will try to ascertain its rights to existence” (cf. The Sexual Language: An Essay in Moral Theology, 90.) Thus, human spirituality cannot be attained when human corporeality is denied. After all, Christianity teaches that human being is composed of both body and spirit. On this point, CCC writes: “the human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal (body) and spiritual (soul).” (CCC # 362, italics mine) For a spirit to be holy, one must also make one’s body holy. Hence, holiness must be found inside and out.
At a hand, Christian morality maintains that performing masturbation and premarital sex is immoral and therefore sinful. It is slavery from flesh and a direct destruction of the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, people should understand that feeling is a significant part of corporeality. The denial of this fact “would go against the explicit article of the Christian Creed” (cf. Guindon, 90.) which affirms both body and spirit as fundament components of human being. Both body and spirit complements each other and nothing goes higher than the other. Therefore, even the “urge” for bodily pleasure is a part of man’s corporeality. It is normal but not to be spoiled. And so, sexual desire must be properly dealt with. Misconception of this fact is dangerous.
Furthermore, in the imbalance prospect on man’s corporeality and spirituality, taking the latter as higher than the former, Paul Ricoeur insightfully claimed that every sexual action would fall short to: 1) meaninglessness of sex; 2) meaningless sex as an answer to existential failure; and 3) quest for sexual fabulousness. (cf. Ricoeur. Wonder, Erotism, and Enigma,133.)
4.2 THE “DIGNITY” OF THE HUMAN BODY
Being created in God’s own image, man receives a dignity higher than other creatures. The Church affirms this, saying: “Being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of the person, who is not just something, but someone.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 357) More so, the use of the term “image” can be cheaply assumed as the “physical appearance” as though pertaining to body or corpus.
The Catholic Church maintains the Dogma of the Incarnation of Jesus which gives a higher dignity to the human body which Jesus himself possessed upon His incarnation. “In reality, it is only I the mystery of the Word made flesh (incarnation) that the mystery of man becomes clear.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 359, italics mine) Through Jesus’ incarnation, which summit is His crucifixion, man was redeemed from all calumnies and impurities. This point is affirmed by the new CCC, it says: “Christian, recognize your dignity and now that you share in God’s own nature do not return to your former base condition by sinning… Never forget that you have been rescued from the power of darkness and brought into the light of the Kingdom of God.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1691)
Regarding the practice sexual acts, Second Vatican Council declares: “When assessing the propriety of conjugal acts, determining if they accord with true human dignity, it is not enough to take only the good intention and the evaluation of motives into account. Objective criteria must be used: (1) criteria based on the nature of human person and his action; (2) criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving; (3) and the criteria on human procreation in the context of true love.” (cf. CDF, Personae Humanae # 5)
4.3 HUMAN BODY: TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
“The human body shares in the dignity of ‘the image of God’: it is a human body because it is animated by a spiritual soul and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 364) When one becomes a believer, the Holy Spirit becomes a part of himself. The body becomes a container, or a "house," or so to say, a "temple." St. Paul clearly affirms the actual physical body of man as the “Temple of the Holy Spirit”, he says:
“What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, and I will be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters’, says the Lord Almighty.” (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:16-18, NAB)
With Paul's logic exhorts people to touch not the “unclean things” (this applies to physical uncleanness, such as joining your body with a prostitute, or eating things God has declared unclean, and it also applies to the spiritual standing, don't partake of the doctrines of demons). More so, Paul expressed here that God care about humans’ weak and fragile body as the scripture tells.
There are people who opt to offer their whole body to God alone by preserving purity and chastity. “Chastity… is not sensitively defined in terms of whether a person has or has not had sexual intercourse. Chastity basically consists in the motivation and practice that keep sex from being self-centered and self-indulgent and that constantly dedicates it to the growth of the value. Chastity must be protected within the marriage bond as well as outside it.” (Bertocci. Sex, Love, and the Person, 130.) Conversely, St. Paul warns those who do otherwise by performing any malicious acts that obliterates the human body, he says:
“Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy.”
(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, NAB)
God purposefully and purposely created people instituted His eternal laws to ensure that His creations would not fail. God was angered when man; being fallible creations, tripped over God’s will (cf. Genesis 3). Then, Jesus, the "Son of God" came along and fixed everything. He cleaned up the mess that man did against His Father’s will, at the cost of his own life. This is the way Jesus’ redeemed man from the power of sin, even from slavery from sexual misconducts.
The scriptures, being God's Word, tells man how to please God by obeying His will and doing what is appropriate for one’s body and soul. False teachings that say that it is fine to be a "carnal" alone approve a defiler, reprobate, delinquent or lascivious view of life. For God, it matters what man does with his body.
CHAPTER V
5. 0 CONCLUSION
5.1 THEOLOGICAL REFLECTION
Being true to the objective of doing this study - that is to understand “sex” and “sexuality” in the light of priestly life along with it is his desire to understand sex outside marriage and masturbation in the context of “celibacy” and “chastity” which are the fundamental demands of the Catholic Priesthood (cf. Introduction), the researcher desires then to close this with his theological reflection on the matter.
Ω Ω Ω
“My Call: Live a Pure Life”
God calls us in different state: in married life, single blessedness, or in celibate life. Celibacy is not for all. It is a particular vocation for those who deemed to follow Christ in the consecrated life. Thus, it is a charism – a gift from God. Furthermore, celibacy is an abstention from sexual relations, or so to say; the state of being unmarried. Particularly, the consecrated persons: priests, nuns, and religious have to be healthy celibates for they are called to be engaged with God and His people alone. Most of the time, people connects celibacy with the issue of “sex”. This is the very reason why celibacy appears not so pleasing in the modern times. In fact, a very few number of young people are choosing this as their way to sanctity. It is as though many cases of sexual misconduct of the consecrated people can be blamed upon the rising of their idea about sex and the lack of right knowledge of it.
On the other hand, some of the young people are engaged in sexual activities at their early age. They are comfortable in speaking of things regarding their sexual experiences only to their colleagues at their age. Usually, the youth are hesitant to talk about such topics with the authoritative figure who can give them right information about sex and sexuality. It is because they are afraid of reprimands, disciplinary actions, and judgments from authorities like parents and formators. This fear is rooted from the belief that “sex” is bad. It is also true as in the cases of many young candidates to priesthood and even to a few numbers of ordained pastors. This case challenges the Church and its promotion of vocations among the youth. Moreover, it must be clear to the young people that the openness of their mind about sex is not to be faced through trial. They need to be guided to a proper way of understanding their sexuality.
“The consecrated celibacy of the sacred ministers actually manifests the virginal and supernatural fecundity of marriage, by which the children of god are born, not by flesh and blood.” For somebody living out celibacy, it simply means: (1)...that the development of full humanity is more important than genital expression; (2)...that there are more important thing than sexual potency; (3)...that self-transcendence is more fully human than self-fulfillment.
This is the only way to make the ministers of the church healthy celibates. Good thing, the church has opened its doors in addressing this issue. In fact, many formation houses and seminaries are now open to the issues concerning their candidates’ tensions and conflicts in the area of sex and sexuality. In this regard, the formators are duty-bound to pay special attention to this issue by giving their candidates proper information and knowledge.
To be celibate also means to be empty for God, to be free and open for His presence in many people and to be available for His service. Hence, the choice of celibacy is an act of radical rejection of a number of myths that our society holds as facts: (1)…that genital sex is absolutely necessary for a person to be fully human; (2)…that sexual relation is the only way to insure one against loneliness; (3)…that sexual orgasm and experience of sexual intercourse is the only proof of one’s masculinity or femininity; (4)…and that sexual fulfillment is the ultimate purpose of life.
With celibacy, therefore, one guards himself against all irresponsible use of sexual power whether inside of outside marriage, ordained and lay alike. For after all, even married people can also be chaste.
5.2 SUMMARY
Sexuality is part of man’s nature being a corporeal being (composed of body). This fact is undeniable, as much as soul is to be affirmed as human’s fundamental component. Sensualities, like urges for bodily pleasure, are natural to human body. This urges, however, have to be channeled without deviating from God’s design. Sex for this matter, being a sexual channel, must be done in the context of marriage. Perhaps any sexual act derived from lust, like masturbation, is not morally acceptable.
By definition, masturbation is the self-stimulation of genitals by use of one’s hands or by other gadgets. Meanwhile, premarital sex is a sexual act between a male and a female outside marriage. Both masturbation and premarital sex are seen as “abnormal” psychological behaviors. This is true, no matter how pleasurable they appear for those who are engaged in it.
More so, masturbation and premarital sex are sinful in the sight of the Catholic Church’s teachings. .The Church asserts that performing such acts is a mistreatment of the human body which has the dignity given upon his creation by God Himself. Masturbation and premarital sex both ravage the human body – the “Temple of the Holy Spirit”. God deserve but a pure and clean body as His “temple”. These prove that masturbation and premarital sex are both immoral – better still, they are sins against God’s design.
Oppositions on the practice of such sexual misconducts had been unanimously supported by the pillars of the Catholic Church namely: Sacred Scripture (although not explicit), Tradition, and Magisterium.
LIST OF REFERENCES
BOOKS (BIBLIOGRAPHY):
Allen, William F. Sexuality Summary. Ohio: Alba Communications, 1977.
Avvento, Gennaro P. Sexuality: A Christian View. Connecticut: Twenty-third, 1984.
Bertocci, Peter A. Sex, Love, and the Person. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967.
Guindon, Andrei. The Sexual Language: An Essay in Moral Theology. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, 1976.
Kinsey, Alfred. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1948.
____________. Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1953.
Masters, Wiliam and Johnstons, Virginia. Human Sexual Response. (Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co., 1969), 95.
Paul Ricoeur. Wonder, Erotism, and Enigma. New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Schoonenberg, Piet. Man and Sin: A Theological View. Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 1965.
Turner, Philip. Sex, Money and Power. Cambridge: Cowley, 1985.
CHURCH DOCUMENTS:
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
ENCYCLICAL LETTER:
Pope Paul VI, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus.
Sacred Congregation on the Doctrines of Faith. Personae Humanae.
SACRED SCRIPTURES:
New American Bible
New Revised Standard Version
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)