This channel is a troll. It exists to make these people in the videos look bad without explaining context. Take a look at the channel and you will see there is nothing of value here. And yes, the answer wasn't wrong at all. There are other ways you can be intimate with your spouse that doesn't involve sex if you are disabled.
@@dynaspinner64 show me the biblical proof where it states what you are claiming. it does not exist. Jesus never taught this teaching and neither did any of the apostles.
@@macdan22 There we go, the scripture alone guys. My guy, some answers can be reached by using our reasoning skills God gave us and providing good reasons for it.
@@dynaspinner64 You are assuming sola scriptura. I am not. However 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. My reasoning and logic skills are the very reason why what they are saying fails to prove their stance. I'm taking what they are saying and I'm using the scriptures to reproof and for correction. The bible goes into great detail for sexual immorality for prostitution, sex outside of marriage, bum sex etc. yet doesn't say a thing about what they are trying to claim. They have given absolutely no evidence or scripture to back up their claims.
Poor guy really didn’t like the answer. Lack of understanding of what the marital act is. Oral, anal, masturbation isnt sex. It is sexual but it’s not sex
You are demonstrating a lack of understanding. its called oral SEX, anal SEX. Does the vatican have an approved list of sexual positions/acts that we can refer too? Oh no?
@@macdan22It is simply wrong. Only when the man comes in the woman is it real sex. Like there are different definitions in the world about marriage does not make gay 'marriage' marriage.
@@karlheven8328 I'd love to know what your responding to, however it seems either you tube or this this channel has deleted whatever I said. All I see is the OG poster Paul comment and yours.
Imagine thinking they said anything wrong by upholding what the Church teaches. You should remove the word "Catholic" from your username, because you're anything but that. Just cuz something's difficult to swallow, doesn't mean it's wrong. Jesus taught many things that the Apostles struggled with as well.
Except Jesus never taught what they are saying. It's nowhere in the bible, in fact, 1 Cor 7 1-7 teaches the opposite of what they are saying. It clearly says NOT to deprive the other EXCEPT for a set time, pray, and then come back together again. No where does it say to deprive the other because of natural/accidental limitations.
@@macdan22 we don't go by the Bible alone. The Church teachers that a man can only climax inside a woman's vagina during the marital act. If you're not married and/or the man climaxes outside of the vagina, that is a mortal sin.
@@macdan22 also you just used scripture that you don't fully understand. Paul doesn't encompass all sexual acts in that statement. That's merely about the marital act, which is PIV. If it's not a procreative act, it is not immoral to reject it. So while a woman and a man should not deny eachother legitimate sex that can lead to a child, one can absolutely reject a sex act that doesnt lead to a child, for example oral.
@@SuperSaiyanScandinavian what am I not understanding about that scripture? St. Paul does encompass the WHOLE body not body parts, There is ZERO scripture to back up what is being said here. Nothing in the bible prevents oral, manual or masturbation. The Holy Scriptures go to great lengths to say how fornication outside marriage, prostitution and sodomy are sins but what God forgot to talk about this? There is more to sex than just making a child. The bible says it, science says it. Science proves that it reduces chances for heart disease, stress/anxiety levels, lower blood pressure, better sleep, better immune system and on and on. When its involving two people who love each other the results are even higher. If its not a procreative act, its not always immoral not to reject it. So married people who can't procreate should stop kissing and hugging each other since it can't lead to a child?
Perhaps some of us don't understand what the Church teaches? Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
You can hear the humanist's response already. It will sound much like the justification for any other illicit sexual desire. Consider the loving feelings you had when first knowing/considering your spouse as a potential spouse. No sexual acts of any definition was necessary. That is the goal for those living in such a condition as the fellow was presenting. Is our life (and desire) for an ego-drama or for a theo-drama? If one is oriented to their physical desire, it will be near impossible to choose, at the last moment, a desire for a God, which we can not know fully until we experience him in Heaven. Faith.
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
@@TheThreatenedSwan Why does it have to have a "moral point"? Is there a moral point to not eating the same bowl of oatmeal 3x a day, everyday of your life? We are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of life as long as in honor and thanks to God. When people talk as these guys do I am instantly reminded of those that judged Jesus when he was eating and drinking with unwashed hands. In the same way unwashed hands do not defile the body with eating, preforming sexual acts with your spouse does not defile the marriage bed. Whitewashed tombs.
@@TheThreatenedSwan 1 Cor 7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Notice it says "body" and not body parts? We give ALL of ourselves to the other in the sacrament of marriage. The ONLY reason of denying is with a designated agreement of time for prayer. Not just because a sexual organ doesn't work anymore.
Joe (the guy in the costume) did an episode on his channel called Shameless Popery that went into the roots of Halloween, so I think he's making the most of the costume because most people only wear it once, and he's getting his money's worth.
LOL, "It's break time!". Old man showed up with ammo and all the CA crew did was LARP as Neo. In defense of CA this question was inappropriate for the situation. That is a question one asks of their pastor and then to discern for themselves what to do with the consequences, if any. Confession follows, etc., etc. In defense of the man, CA went impotent.
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
@@authorityfigure1630 His position on the Old Covenant still being in effect (thus meaning it still saves) is not Catholic, and very weird. Really strange stuff, I have no idea why he'd copy a strange protestant idea
@@crabmaster8174 that’s not his position. I watched his video on Israel and he states that the old covenant never saved in and of itself, the people in the old that were faithful to God were saved when Jesus descended to hell and preached to them.
Videos like these make me embarrassed to be a Christian. Shut up, you Pharisees, and let the man enjoy his relationship with his wife. Absolutely ridiculous.
Wives do not exist for the sake of being sentient fleshlights, you stupid retard. Sex exists for a particular teleological end and that end is procreation. To use it for the sole purpose of self-gratification and self-pleasure is the pinnacle of satanism and the subordination of God’s Will to your own Will. Repent
Actually you are the one being a pharisees here. *They* are the ones who teach the ideas you are pedaling. And Christ very clearly says "your righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees" Never once in all the gospel does Christ ever say "don't worry so much about being holy" he _always_ calls us to _more_ never less.
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352. Understanding Permanent Impotency Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection. The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances. Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin. Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin. Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union. As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would! Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy. Joe was wrong!
@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370 not only are you wrong, you'll end up in the same place as this hypothetical 14 year old boy if you don't repent. Nothing beyond the first few sentences you posted is worth reading. You believe you know better than the saints, and God himself what is sinful and what is righteous. There's nothing in this comment but sinful pride
The answer wasn't wrong.
This channel is a troll. It exists to make these people in the videos look bad without explaining context. Take a look at the channel and you will see there is nothing of value here. And yes, the answer wasn't wrong at all. There are other ways you can be intimate with your spouse that doesn't involve sex if you are disabled.
@@dynaspinner64 show me the biblical proof where it states what you are claiming. it does not exist. Jesus never taught this teaching and neither did any of the apostles.
@@macdan22 There we go, the scripture alone guys. My guy, some answers can be reached by using our reasoning skills God gave us and providing good reasons for it.
@@dynaspinner64 You are assuming sola scriptura. I am not. However 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
My reasoning and logic skills are the very reason why what they are saying fails to prove their stance. I'm taking what they are saying and I'm using the scriptures to reproof and for correction. The bible goes into great detail for sexual immorality for prostitution, sex outside of marriage, bum sex etc. yet doesn't say a thing about what they are trying to claim. They have given absolutely no evidence or scripture to back up their claims.
@@macdan22 You missed my point and it clearly shows. Move on.
Poor guy really didn’t like the answer. Lack of understanding of what the marital act is. Oral, anal, masturbation isnt sex. It is sexual but it’s not sex
You are demonstrating a lack of understanding. its called oral SEX, anal SEX. Does the vatican have an approved list of sexual positions/acts that we can refer too? Oh no?
@@macdan22It is simply wrong. Only when the man comes in the woman is it real sex. Like there are different definitions in the world about marriage does not make gay 'marriage' marriage.
@@karlheven8328 I'd love to know what your responding to, however it seems either you tube or this this channel has deleted whatever I said. All I see is the OG poster Paul comment and yours.
Anal is the sin of sodomy of course.
The poor poor girl holding the mic…
😂😂😂😂
1:19-1:20 The PERFECT awkward deadpan. She couldn't have reacted better if she tried. Oh my gosh that was so funny
Nothing shameful or taboo about the honest logical and philosophical exchange regarding adult topics.
Imagine thinking they said anything wrong by upholding what the Church teaches. You should remove the word "Catholic" from your username, because you're anything but that. Just cuz something's difficult to swallow, doesn't mean it's wrong. Jesus taught many things that the Apostles struggled with as well.
Except Jesus never taught what they are saying. It's nowhere in the bible, in fact, 1 Cor 7 1-7 teaches the opposite of what they are saying. It clearly says NOT to deprive the other EXCEPT for a set time, pray, and then come back together again. No where does it say to deprive the other because of natural/accidental limitations.
@@macdan22 we don't go by the Bible alone. The Church teachers that a man can only climax inside a woman's vagina during the marital act. If you're not married and/or the man climaxes outside of the vagina, that is a mortal sin.
@@macdan22 also you just used scripture that you don't fully understand. Paul doesn't encompass all sexual acts in that statement. That's merely about the marital act, which is PIV. If it's not a procreative act, it is not immoral to reject it. So while a woman and a man should not deny eachother legitimate sex that can lead to a child, one can absolutely reject a sex act that doesnt lead to a child, for example oral.
@@SuperSaiyanScandinavian what am I not understanding about that scripture? St. Paul does encompass the WHOLE body not body parts, There is ZERO scripture to back up what is being said here. Nothing in the bible prevents oral, manual or masturbation. The Holy Scriptures go to great lengths to say how fornication outside marriage, prostitution and sodomy are sins but what God forgot to talk about this? There is more to sex than just making a child. The bible says it, science says it. Science proves that it reduces chances for heart disease, stress/anxiety levels, lower blood pressure, better sleep, better immune system and on and on. When its involving two people who love each other the results are even higher. If its not a procreative act, its not always immoral not to reject it. So married people who can't procreate should stop kissing and hugging each other since it can't lead to a child?
Perhaps some of us don't understand what the Church teaches? Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
0:31 That was so mean to laugh like that.
You can hear the humanist's response already. It will sound much like the justification for any other illicit sexual desire.
Consider the loving feelings you had when first knowing/considering your spouse as a potential spouse. No sexual acts of any definition was necessary. That is the goal for those living in such a condition as the fellow was presenting. Is our life (and desire) for an ego-drama or for a theo-drama? If one is oriented to their physical desire, it will be near impossible to choose, at the last moment, a desire for a God, which we can not know fully until we experience him in Heaven. Faith.
He is right
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
literally everything about this is hilarious like not a single milisecond goes by without something making me laugh like there's so much going on
The Lady 💀
Based.
So based
What is he wearing though?
I think it’s a Halloween costume
This channel is highly regarded
The answer isn’t wrong but I think this is edited
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
What in the heck is this? Why would they put this on RUclips? I don't think they explained the reasoning behind their position very clearly.
Because it's true.
@@marvalice3455 No where is this biblical, and the church explanation is reaching at best. These guys response was beyond poor at best.
What is the moral point of sex and sexual desires?
@@TheThreatenedSwan Why does it have to have a "moral point"? Is there a moral point to not eating the same bowl of oatmeal 3x a day, everyday of your life? We are allowed to enjoy the pleasures of life as long as in honor and thanks to God. When people talk as these guys do I am instantly reminded of those that judged Jesus when he was eating and drinking with unwashed hands. In the same way unwashed hands do not defile the body with eating, preforming sexual acts with your spouse does not defile the marriage bed. Whitewashed tombs.
@@TheThreatenedSwan 1 Cor 7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
Notice it says "body" and not body parts? We give ALL of ourselves to the other in the sacrament of marriage. The ONLY reason of denying is with a designated agreement of time for prayer. Not just because a sexual organ doesn't work anymore.
Liberace laying down the law!
Is this real? The clip? 😂
this might be the funniest clip yet
This is just wack....unsubscribed.
Dog what is he wearing
Joe (the guy in the costume) did an episode on his channel called Shameless Popery that went into the roots of Halloween, so I think he's making the most of the costume because most people only wear it once, and he's getting his money's worth.
LOL, "It's break time!".
Old man showed up with ammo and all the CA crew did was LARP as Neo.
In defense of CA this question was inappropriate for the situation. That is a question one asks of their pastor and then to discern for themselves what to do with the consequences, if any. Confession follows, etc., etc.
In defense of the man, CA went impotent.
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
The answer is mind your own business and the Church needs to do just that!!!
That's a whole lot of talking to cope about your liking of masturbation.
Good answer actually, normally hesmire is pretty bad
Joe Heschmeyer is the best Catholic answers apologist. By a wide margin imo
@@authorityfigure1630 His position on the Old Covenant still being in effect (thus meaning it still saves) is not Catholic, and very weird. Really strange stuff, I have no idea why he'd copy a strange protestant idea
@@crabmaster8174 that’s not his position. I watched his video on Israel and he states that the old covenant never saved in and of itself, the people in the old that were faithful to God were saved when Jesus descended to hell and preached to them.
@@authorityfigure1630 He says it's still working, its not fulfilled
@@crabmaster8174 cite the article
Videos like these make me embarrassed to be a Christian. Shut up, you Pharisees, and let the man enjoy his relationship with his wife. Absolutely ridiculous.
Wives do not exist for the sake of being sentient fleshlights, you stupid retard. Sex exists for a particular teleological end and that end is procreation. To use it for the sole purpose of self-gratification and self-pleasure is the pinnacle of satanism and the subordination of God’s Will to your own Will. Repent
You do realise the dude asked for the truth when he didn't have to.
Actually you are the one being a pharisees here.
*They* are the ones who teach the ideas you are pedaling. And Christ very clearly says "your righteousness must exceed that of the pharisees"
Never once in all the gospel does Christ ever say "don't worry so much about being holy" he _always_ calls us to _more_ never less.
Joe really missed the mark on this one. A more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the faith and the Catechism of the Catholic Church should have been undertaken. The gentleman who posed the question was on the right track and was more correct on his interpretation of the faith than Joe Heschmeyer was. If you follow Joe’s strict interpretation of Church doctrine, Joe would have a 14-year old boy going straight to Hell for having masturbated, which is clearly not Church teaching. Let me explain.
The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality emphasize the sanctity of marital intimacy and the procreative aspect of sexual acts. However, when considering couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, for example, it is essential to explore the nuances of their situation in light of the Church's moral guidelines. Specifically, we can examine whether mutual masturbation among such couples constitutes a serious, grievous mortal sin, especially when viewed through the lens of the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), particularly clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352.
Understanding Permanent Impotency
Permanent impotency, defined as an irreversible inability to engage in sexual intercourse, presents unique challenges for couples seeking to express their love and intimacy. The Church recognizes the importance of the marital bond and the emotional and psychological dimensions of a couple's relationship. In this context, the inability to fulfill the procreative aspect of sex due to impotency does not diminish the couple’s desire for intimacy and connection.
The Catechism’s Guidelines on Moral Responsibility
Clause 1735: The Role of Conscience
Clause 1735 of the CCC emphasizes the significance of conscience, noting that individuals must follow their own informed conscience. For couples facing permanent impotency, the context of their relationship and the intention behind their actions play crucial roles. If both partners engage in mutual masturbation as an expression of love and intimacy, rather than a purely selfish act, their intention can be viewed as morally grounded within their unique circumstances.
Clause 1754: Circumstances and Moral Acts
Clause 1754 acknowledges that the morality of an act depends not only on the act itself but also on the circumstances surrounding it. The couple's situation-being unable to engage in traditional sexual intercourse-creates a context that may mitigate the moral weight of their actions. If mutual masturbation serves as a means of fostering emotional closeness and fulfilling a natural desire for intimacy, the circumstances surrounding their actions could be seen as extenuating, suggesting that they do not rise to the level of mortal sin.
Clause 1860: The Nature of Mortal Sin
According to Clause 1860, three conditions must be met for a sin to be considered mortal: the act must be grave matter, committed with full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In the case of mutual masturbation among a couple with permanent impotency, the act itself may not be classified as grave matter when viewed through the lens of their circumstances. Their mutual engagement in this form of intimacy, rather than being a rejection of Church teachings, can be seen as an adaptation to a challenging situation, potentially lacking the intent to commit a serious sin.
Clause 2352: The Church’s View on Sexual Acts
Clause 2352 addresses the Church’s teachings on sexual acts, emphasizing the importance of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. However, the context of a couple's inability to engage in procreative acts due to permanent impotency suggests that their focus may shift toward the unitive aspect. Mutual masturbation, in this light, can be interpreted as an expression of love and intimacy that does not violate the fundamental purpose of their marital union.
As clause 2352 states in part, “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” If this doesn’t apply to the case in question, I can’t think of any that would!
Conclusion: A Compassionate Understanding
In conclusion, when evaluating the moral implications of mutual masturbation among couples diagnosed with permanent impotency, it is crucial to consider the extenuating circumstances outlined in the Catechism. Clauses 1735, 1754, 1860, and 2352 collectively suggest that such acts, performed with mutual consent and love, do not inherently constitute a serious, grievous mortal sin. The Church’s teachings encourage a compassionate understanding of the complexities of human relationships, particularly when couples navigate the challenges of intimacy in the face of physical limitations. Thus, rather than viewing their actions through a lens of condemnation, one might recognize the profound love and commitment that underpin their mutual expressions of intimacy.
Joe was wrong!
@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370 not only are you wrong, you'll end up in the same place as this hypothetical 14 year old boy if you don't repent.
Nothing beyond the first few sentences you posted is worth reading. You believe you know better than the saints, and God himself what is sinful and what is righteous. There's nothing in this comment but sinful pride
Based.