MT 651 Sexual Ethics

Spring / Summer 2020

Lesson 9

2.5 Masturbation

2.5.1 Preliminary Considerations: Autosexual activity is a general category of actions

which includes a number of actions other than masturbation. One author notes that “there
are three major actions involving the physical sexual arousal of one person alone:
nocturnal emissions, sexual thoughts and fantasies, and masturbation.”1
The first is nocturnal emissions/orgasms. There is famous passage from
Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologica (I-II, 6) where moralists are inspired by the great
medieval theologian to argue that there may well be major moral problems with nocturnal
emissions. According to this rigorist viewpoint, such dreams, although seemingly
involuntary, can actually be the result of voluntary immodesty and obsession with sex
during waking hours. Hence, according to these Thomists, such dreams may well be sin-
ful. Few would be the moralists agreeing with this today, although there is some
discomfort about wet dreams in the general population".2
The second are sexual thoughts and fantasies. Psychologists hold that,
psychologically speaking, fantasy is a part of many people’s normal sexual life and,
statistically speaking, it is engaged in by a large portion of the population.3 In a one
survey, women are reported to favor soft, hazy, romantic fantasies far from explicit sex,
whereas men are reported to fantasize exclusively about body parts and explicit sexual
acts.4 Morally speaking, “in most cases, sexual thoughts and fantasies do not involve the
average person; they are not very significant as an area of moral concern ... There can, of
course, be cases in which an individual seeks to fill himself or herself with sexual
fantasies in a degree that is all out of proportion to the human meaning of life.”5
Of the three actions involved in autosexuality, masturbation is given the greatest
attention by most authors.

2.5.2 Traditional Teaching on Masturbation: “The traditional, present, and official

teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on masturbation is clearly and concisely stated
by the SCDF in the 1975 Declaration [ on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual
Ethics (Persona humana) ]: ‘...both the Magisterium of the Church --- in the course of a
constant tradition --- and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation
that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that,
whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside
normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks
the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which
realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true
love.” [ Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world, #51] All deliberate

93
exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship’ [=n. 9 of the
declaration] ”.6

2.5.3 Questions For the Traditional Teaching: These questions are asked mainly of the
foundations or presuppositions of the teaching.

2.5.3.1 Medical Presuppositions: Certain medical presuppositions seem to have

served as basis of past teaching on masturbation. These presuppositions are questioned
by contemporary medical research:

2.2.5.3.1.1 The Woman’s Role in Reproduction: The first presupposition

was that “it was thought that the woman contributed nothing active to the birth of the
child. Rather the woman was like a ‘watered garden’ in which the seed of the man
was planted. ( note: While the female ovaries were studied by scientists at least as far
as two thousand years ago, they were considered to be malformed testes.) The total
human product that would become the child was thought to be contained in the male
semen or seed. After the spermatozoa were described by Anton van Leeuwenhoek in
1677, some scientists published pictures of the homounculi or little men swimming
about in the male seed.”7 Even German philosopher Leibnitz believed that sperm were
fully formed human beings, complete with a soul and Original Sin. If sperm were
believed to be a complete human being, then male masturbation could be considered
the equivalent of murder or at least of contraception or abortion.
Today this particular presupposition regarding the passivity of the woman
can no longer be held since, as we are all well-aware, both the male and female play
an active role in the reproductive process.

2.5.3.1.2 Illnesses Caused by Masturbation: In the past, masturbation was

“was said to cause acne, odors of the skin, dilated pupils and dark rings around the
eyes, nosebleeds, asthma, heart murmurs, and insanity.”8 To this list we can add gout,
constipation, hunch-back, a red nose, epilepsy, crippling, moral bankruptcy, and bad
breath.9 Since masturbation was presumed to cause serious illness, it was considered
seriously wrong.
However, “underlying all these myths is a notion still fairly widespread
today, that masturbation and other forms of sexual arousal and orgasm are injurious to
health, particularly when practiced to an excessive degree. Medical opinion today
rejects this notion.”10

94
 2.5.3.1.3 Significance of the Dismissal of These Ideas: Some hold that
the above presuppositions served as the principal foundation for the teaching on
masturbation. In fact, it is said that they served as the principal foundation for the
belief of all people (Catholic or not) that masturbation was a serious evil. For
example, the French philosophers, Voltaire (1694-1778) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778) were hardly what one could consider “good Catholics”. Yet they strongly
rejected masturbation as a great evil: for example, see Rousseau’s Émile or Education
where he warns parents not to let children sleep by themselves.

2.5.3.2 Statistical Frequency: It may well have been believed that masturbation
is not very frequent or is a practice of a few depraved individuals. However, “(r)ecent
decades have seen the collection of statistics, which for the first time give us at least
something of a reading on the percentage of human persons who have at least some
incidence of masturbatory activity in their lives. The statistical surveys done on
masturbation have shown it to be a phenomenon that happens in a great many human
lives, i.e., in about ninety percent of men’s lives and in about sixty percent of women’s
lives ... Sound moral theology cannot be based solely on statistics. The fact that all sorts
of people do something does not automatically make it right. But at the same time, sound
moral theology should not dismiss statistics out of hand. Especially when something
such as masturbation happens in the lives of nine of ten men and six of ten women, there
ought to be some honest questioning by moralists.”11

2.5.3.3 Psychological Perspectives: “While the results of psychological efforts

on this subject are by no means uniform, two major insights from modern psychology can
be proposed here: first, a great deal of masturbation, especially among adolescents, can
be interpreted as part of the typical human growth pattern. In other words, masturbatory
activity is a phase to be grown through as the person moves toward a mature sexual life
that is directed toward other people and that most probably will include marriage ... The
second insight stemming from modern psychology ... is that there are times when
masturbation may be symptomatic of deeper questions concerning an individual’s overall
personal growth and adjustment ... Masturbation can be connected with more serious
problems of human adjustment. This is one reason why a sense of unease about
masturbation should not be dismissed in efforts to re-evaluate it”.12

2.5.3.4 Scripture: Several Scriptural passages were proposed in the past as

support for the traditional teaching on masturbation; but today “Scripture scholars
seemed to agree ... that there is no convincing proof that any of the passages cited pertain
to the morality of masturbation as such.”13 Let us glance at a few examples:

* Gen 38: 9-10 (=The Sin of Onan): “ Onan, however, knew that the descendants
would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow,
he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother.
What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life .”
Only relatively recently has this passage been interpreted as a
condemnation of masturbation (cf. S. A. Tissot’s 1760 book, On Onanism). Those

95
 who continue this interpretation encounter two problems: the passage seems to
deal not with masturbation but with coitus interruptus ; God may well have been
understood to have punished Onan not for his sexual act but for not honoring the
traditional levirite obligation (i.e. if your brother died without any children, you
had to marry his widow and produce children for him so that his name may live
on) or for disobeying a parent.

** Sirach 23: 17-21: “And the man who dishonors his marriage bed and says to
himself ‘Who can see me? Darkness surrounds me, all hides me; no one sees me;
why should I fear to sin?’ Of the Most High he is not mindful, fearing only the eyes of
men. He does not understand that the eyes of the Lord, ten thousand times brighter
than the sun, observe every step a man takes and peer into hidden corners ... Such a
man will be punished in the streets of the city; when he least expects it, he will be
apprehended”
Those who interpret this passage as justification for traditional teaching
about masturbation may be ignoring the poetic context of this passage and the
basic obscurity of its meaning.

*** 1 Cor 6: 9-10: “Can you not realize that the unholy will not fall heir to the
kingdom of God? Do not deceive yourselves: no fornicators, idolaters, or adulterers,
no sodomites, thieves, misers, or drunkards, no slanderers or robbers will inherit
God’s kingdom”
Those who interpret this passage as justification for traditional teaching
about masturbation may ignore the fact that it doesn’t explicitly mention
masturbation and the fact that Paul is referring to specific individuals involved in
the cultic practices of Corinth.

**** Similar questions can be brought against other passages used as justification for
traditional teaching: e.g. Ex 20: 14; Deut 5: 18; Eph 5:3; and Gal 5: 19-21.

2.5.3.5 History of Doctrine and Theology: In the ancient and early medieval
Church, attention is given to nocturnal emissions/wet dreams rather than to masturbation
(e.g. see the writings of monastic leader John Cassian, 360-435). Such emissions were
often condemned not for moral reasons but for ritualistic reasons: they were considered to
render a man unfit to receive communion.14 At times, they were even believed to be the
work of a male demons (incubi) and female demons (succubi) who were tempting to feed
on people’s spiritual powers.15 (Parenthetically, we might mention that the medievals
considered gluttony [not masturbation or adultery] as the major form of lust.16)
It has to be said that a bit of theological attention is given to masturbation in the
early medieval penitentials used by monks for the sacrament of penance. These books
mention masturbation but vary widely in the penances they recommend for it. For
example, the penitential of St. Columbanus says that a masturbator should be given two
years of penance (and three years if a priest or nun). The penitential of Bigotianum gives
100 days of penance for one act of masturbation and six years for habitual masturbation.
Interestingly enough, the German penitential Reginón de Prum gives 40 days of penance

96
to the young person who masturbates and 100 days to the older person but only 20 days
for a cleric. Since these penances are rather light compared to other penances, it may be
that the authors of these penitentials did not consider masturbation to be a grave sin.
It would appear that masturbation as a moral problem was not given considerable
attention until after the first millenium. It would appear that masturbation as a moral
issue was not mentioned in any documents of the magisterium until 1054 A.D. when
Pope Leo IX discussed it in a letter responding to the rigorous work, Liber
Gomorrhianus.17 Leo stated that in some cases masturbation could be an impediment to
orders or be a reason for dismissal from orders. In theological writings masturbation
does not appear as an important theme before the time of French theologian and pastor,
Jean Gerson (1363-1429).
In summary, masturbation was apparently not a matter of broad concern for the
greater part of the history of doctrine and theology.

2.5.4 Contemporary Perspectives: “Among Roman Catholic theologians there are

varied opinions regarding the moral status of masturbation.”18 What ethical methods does
each quote follow?

• “Throughout her history the Church has consistently held that masturbation, when it is
a freely chosen act, is seriously wrong, for it always involves a failure to respect the
human goods which all sexual activity should take into account.”19 What human goods
are these? “The person-uniting and procreative aspects of sexual activity are ignored and
undercut in solitary masturbation”.20

• The “context” of the person (i.e. their psychology) requires us to consider masturbation
not automatically as a grave moral sin but as a symptom of other things transpiring in the
person’s life. On the one hand, there are those forms of masturbation which involve
reduced freedom: e.g. adolescent masturbation; compensatory masturbation;
masturbation of necessity; pathological masturbation; medically indicated
masturbation.21 Because these forms of masturbation involved diminished personal
freedom, they are not sinful. On the other hand, there is a form of masturbation which is
a symptom of self-centeredness, isolation, and evasion of relational responsibility.
Because this form of masturbation “creates a serious obstacle to personal growth and
integration”22, and thereby indicates harm to the fundamental option and requires “a far
more radical conversion”,23 it is sinful.

• One argument holds that masturbation is morally good. This is so because it can help
one to get in touch with one’s personal sexuality and express love for one’s own person.
The instructor wished to quote an author who follows this argument, but the author’s
book continues to be missing from the Maida Alumni Library.

• “Viewed from the perspective of human life and human goodness, masturbation should
always be understood as an ontic evil, that is as a practice that clearly does not actualize
all the potential open to humanity through sexual expression. Masturbation contains
ontic evil because it closes both the personal union aspect and the procreative aspect of

97
physical sexual expression ... At the same time, and based on the best contemporary
literature on moral norms and moral evil, it cannot be said that the ontic evil present in
masturbation becomes an objectively grave moral evil in every case ... it seems
particularly opportune to hold that with all the concrete factors related to masturbation
(e.g. its statistical frequency, its relation to human growth and development, its usually
minor anthropological status vis-à-vis our relationship to God, and its enshroudment in
myths and medical misconceptions), there are many cases in which acts of masturbation
in their total concreteness are not objectively gravely morally wrong ... it seems best to
understand the gravity of the ontic evil involved in masturbation on some sort of sliding
scale. Infantile and prepubertal masturbation should be seen as a very minor ontic evil ...
Adolescent masturbation should be seen as a somewhat morally significant (but still not
all that weighty) ontic evil ... In adulthood, the ontic evil involved in masturbation should
in general be seen to be quite morally significant, though by no means comparable to the
evil involved in sexual activities such as rape and incest.”24

98
 End Notes

1Philip Keane, Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective (New York: Paulist

Press, 1977), 57.
2
June M. Reinisch, The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex: What You Must
Know to be Sexually Literate (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 90-91.
3
For example, see ibid., 91-94; and Samuel S. Janus and Cynthia L. Janus, The
Janus Report on Sexual Behavior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1993), 250.
4
Robert T. Michael, et al, Sex in America: A Definitive Survey (Boston: Little,
Brown, and Company, 1994), 150.
5
Ibid., 59.
6
Vincent J. Genovesi. In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human
Sexuality, 2nd ed. (Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier / Liturgical Press, 1996), 320.
7
Keane, Sexual Morality: A Catholic Perspective, 60.
8
Ibid, 61.
9
Reay Tannahill, Sex in History (New York: Stein and Day Publishers, 1980),
344.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid., 62.
12
Ibid., 63.
13
Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love, 319.

One can gain a sense of this from Cassian’s “Conference Fourteen: On Spiritual
14

Knowledge,” in John Cassian, Conferences, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York and
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1985), esp. 164-166.
15
See Tannahill, Sex in History, 177-178, 272-273.
16
Cf. Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious
Significance of Food to Medieval Women Los Angeles, London, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1987.

99
 17
Cf. Leo IX, “Ad splendidum nitenti,” in DH 687-688.
18
Genovesi, In Pursuit of Love, 213
19
Lawler, Boyle, and May, “Masturbation”, 361.
20
Ibid., 364-365.
21
Anthony Kosnik, William Carroll, Agnes Cunningham, Ronald Modras, and
James Schulte, “Masturbation,” in Curran and McCormick, eds., Readings in Moral
Theology No. 8: Dialogue About Catholic Sexual Teaching, 356-358.
22
Ibid., 358.
23
Ibid., 358.
24
Keane, Sexual Morality, 66-68.

100