Introduction

In this discussion, I wish to attempt to show that masturbation, a much-maligned form of sexual behavior, should rather be regarded as a wholly legitimate form of expressing the sexual side of one's nature, while I am, of course, aware that what I am proposing is highly contentious and totally at variance with the teachings of the Catholic Church. However, I trust that a careful and objective reading of what I have to say will at least give grounds for thought.

I start with two dictionary definitions of masturbation. Chambers's 1959 edition of their Twentieth Century Dictionary defines masturbation as:

"self-defilement; onanism"

with "masturbate" being defined as:

"to commit self-abuse."

With regard to this definition it is worth noting that Onan's sin, as recorded in Genisis, was not, in fact, masturbation but "coitus interruptus", a refusal to impregnate the woman concerned. The general negative tone of the definition is also worth noting.

The Reader's Digest Oxford Complete Wordfinder, © 1993, defines masturbation as:

"onanism, self-gratification, auto-eroticism, archaic self-abuse"

With "masturbate" being defined as to:

"arouse oneself sexually or cause (another person) to be aroused by manual stimulation of the genitals"

Which is, at least, a neutral definition restricting itself to the facts of the matter.

Having defined masturbation, it is now necessary to consider it as one aspect of human life. While all humans are members of a single species, there can be no doubt that within the species there exists a wide range within the various attributes that make up a human being. For example, with regard to a human body the colour of the skin may vary from jet black to a very pale pink, almost white. Hair colour may vary similarly, while there is a vast range of the type of hair from the tight curls of a Negro to the flowing locks of a Swede. Height can vary so that one person is described as a pygmy and another as a giant. The shortest person for whom there is an authentic record was but 57 cm in height, whereas the tallest was a giant 2,72 metres.[i]

But this variation is not just limited to physical attributes, but is noteworthy also in regard to intelligence, temperament and so forth, so that one person may have a very low IQ while another is described as a genius; one will have a hair-trigger temper while another will almost be unable to be annoyed by anything.

This universal rule is also observable with regard to a person's sexual orientation. While it is true that the majority can be described as heterosexual, others have to be described as homosexual, bisexual, lesbians or solo-sexual. By "solo-sexual" is meant those persons who feel no sexual attraction to another party, but nevertheless enjoy sex with their own bodies.

Also, with regard to sex, it is worth noting that within humanity there is a tremendous range of sex drives. While some people are so sexually active that they can only be described as satyrs, there are others who seem to have almost no natural sex drive. The case was reported of a man who, in his whole lifetime had but two erections. It is quite clear, therefore, that the greatest possible diversity is to be found in the whole range of attributes that go to make up a human being.

Since all were created by God, it follows that God can only expect us to behave in accordance with our individual nature. When a bishop acknowledges, as Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Auxiliary Bishop of Manila, did recently[ii], that some people are born with homosexual tendencies and yet goes on to say that for them to perform homosexual acts is sinful, it simply highlights the lack of common sense in the Church's attitude to human sexual behaviour. God, surely, is not going to condemn anybody for acting on a natural impulse.

In this connection Fr. Al Blonigan, chaplain for Metro-Detroit Retrouvaille writes:

Science more and more concludes that there is such a thing as a gene that causes the homosexual situation. There seems to be some evidence that some families carry that gene... There is no such thing as becoming a homosexual or choosing to be one.

It is important to realize that all homosexually orientated people are born into an environment where heterosexual relationships are presumed.

They grow up in a culture that is heterosexist; promoting heterosexual behaviour, and vilifying homosexual behaviour.

The Church even calls homosexuals "ordered towards evil". Vatican documents even justified discrimination against homosexual people as regards certain occupations which many homosexual people are gifted for.

Society wants to deny all homosexuals the right to be who they are and to use their gifts for the good of society. Both society and the Church are emotional terrorists for homosexual people...

Some 50% of all teen suicides are committed by homosexuals because of the homophobia encouraged by society and even most churches.[iii]

I can only add that what applies to homosexuals also applies, at least in general terms, to people who masturbate and that if society and the Church have a heavy burden of guilt with regard to homosexuals, then equally they have one with regard to masturbators.

Attitudes towards Masturbation

Let us now consider various attitudes towards masturbation. I start with the Church's teaching. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Declaration on Sexual Ethics, "Persona Humana", on 29 December 1975. With regard to masturbation the Congregation states:

The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact 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 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 which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love." All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church rightly understood it to be condemned on the New Testament when the latter speaks of "impurity", "unchasteness" and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.[iv]

In an effort to explain this teaching in a meaningful manner to a teenager becoming sexually aware, Fr. J.H. McGoey writes

Your personal maturity, happiness and fulfilment depend on becoming a truly loving person ... Masturbation has little to offer the person so loving that his attention is predominantly outgoing to others. Everything that brings your attention back to self, takes your attention off those you love. Masturbation does exactly that.[v]

So deeply was St Thomas Aquinas opposed to masturbation that he taught that it was a greater sin than prostitution and severe punishments were prescribed for it. In fact he went even further and attacked it as being worse than intercourse with one's own mother.[vi]

However, today, in spite of the Declaration quoted above, Catholic leaders are much more understanding of masturbation. In a booklet produced in South Africa in which masturbation is discussed, the conclusion which is come to is as follows:

To be properly understood masturbation must be seen in the context of psycho-sexual development. During adolescence masturbation is often a way of coping with sexual drives and tensions, a form of experimentation, a symptom of a stage of adolescence. It becomes morally wrong when it becomes psychologically harmful. The adolescent needs encouragement to develop more mature ways of

coping with sexual drives, restrictions and tensions.[vii]

Masturbation was demonised for many years on totally spurious grounds, quite apart from religious teachings. In 1758 Samuel Tissot published a monograph on the side-effects of masturbation. His list included muddleheadedness, tuberculosis, rheumatism, headaches, pimples, blisters, itching, sterility, impotence, premature ejaculation, gonorrhea, priapism, bladder tumours, intestinal disorders, constipation, hemorrhoids, and more.[viii]

Unfortunately many doctors for many years taught that masturbation was detrimental to one's health. One of these was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, co-founder of the Kellogg Company. In discussing ways to prevent children from wanting to masturbate he wrote:

A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision ... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind ... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.[ix]

Catholic theologians were, of course, only too happy to accept such unproved medical opinions, which they put forward as proofs and additional legitimisation of their case and many pamphlets and treatises were written especially with young people in mind. Works of this sort have been available comparatively recently and readers of them could be persuaded that masturbation affects the spinal cord, softens the brain and is certain to make one sick. For example, it was not until 1940 that a respected textbook, Diseases of Infancy and Childhood, removed its discussion of masturbation from the chapter entitled "Functional and Nervous Disorders".[x] As late as 1967 Bernard Häring declared that masturbation damaged one's health.[xi]

Gradually people came to realise that the ideas propagated by people like Tissot and Kellogg had no basis in fact and that from a medical point of view masturbation was completely safe although these "old wives tales" retained a measure of credence for many years especially among the young who heard them from parents and others; it was only gradually that the facts became generally known.

Even so even today many people still consider masturbation to be a selfish, immature activity or a second-rate substitute for sex with a partner. In human society the expression of sexuality has often been legislated against and restricted and the use of masturbation simply as a way to obtain pleasure has often been condemned as selfish and childish. Many people who would claim to be free from sexual taboos have simply changed the statement from: "Sex is only good if it involves procreation," to "Sex is only good if it involves two loving people."[xii]

This attitude to masturbation is well illustrated by what was written by "Jeff" in describing some of his early masturbatory activities. He states:

I started to masturbate when I was about thirteen years old and just barely pubescent. This was a time when people did not talk much about this subject and when they said anything at all it was usually something negative. To the very young mind, it seemed that masturbation was the special perversion of prison inmates and the incurably insane. So for a long time, I thought that I was about the only "normal" kid in the world who invested so many hours of his life to the forbidden pleasure of self-love.[xiii]

A licensed sex therapist has written:

I have become aware that the word "masturbation" is so tinged with horror that, even those of us who accept it as a legitimate activity, still act in ways that reflect those old taboos about self-satisfaction. In the therapy field we have moved away from using the word "masturbation" and prefer to talk of "pleasuring." Bringing pleasure to the nerve endings is a recognition that the only thing we really own in this transient world is our own bodies. The body of a wife is not ours, nor is the body of a child. But our bodies are ours. Someone may bring up the scripture about our bodies being the temple of the Holy Spirit but that would not change the sense of freedom about self-pleasuring as an acceptable behavior.[xiv]

However, people are coming to realise that masturbation has a lot to commend it, especially in the context of the spread of HIV/AIDS in countries such as South Africa. In a publication designed to make teenagers in particular aware of the dangers of catching AIDS from unprotected sex and telling them how to behave in a promiscuous society, the authors write:

Me, myself and I

Masturbation is the perfect way to have a great sex life without getting heavy. Of course, you have to be a bit secretive to find some peace and quiet so that you can get down to exploring, and it can be embarrassing if you get caught. But it's good, honest, healthy fun for guys and girls. You can't get pregnant, infected with HIV/AIDS or pass around a sexually transmitted infection and you don't have to worry about a condom. Forget what they say—you will not get hair on your hands, go blind, waste sperm, or turn into a sex maniac. You may have some fun fantasies, learn all sorts of ways to make yourself feel good and know that you can wait confidently for the perfect moment when YOU feel ready to share this pleasure with someone else. Until then, go on and touch yourself.[xv]

Towards a new Christian/Religious view of Masturbation

The Christian view of life is largely based on Christ's declaration that the greatest commandment is to love God and the second is to love our neighbour as we love ourselves. Unfortunately these two great commandments have too often been summarized as love of God and neighbour, with the second part of the second great commandment being ignored almost as though we have no right to love ourselves. Did Jesus not know what He was saying? Obviously that is nonsense, so let us consider what the command to love ourselves implies.

If I truly love myself, this will express itself with regard to all the various aspects of my being: physical, mental, psychological and sexual. Loving myself physically will mean that I will do my best to follow a healthy lifestyle by taking regular and sufficient exercise, by eating sensibly, by avoiding over-indulgence in alcohol, by not smoking and by getting plenty of sleep.

Loving myself mentally will mean that I will try to be as well educated as I can be, that I will try to keep mentally alert, that I will try to read stimulating material, that I will take an intelligent interest in world affairs, that I will try to see both sides of debatable questions and so on.

If I love myself psychologically, this will surely mean that I have a good estimation of myself. In this connection Dr. Wendell W. Watters, a psychiatry professor writes:

Self-esteem refers to the value an individual assigns to himself or herself as a person. High self-esteem needs to be differentiated from narcissistic bliss, manic euphoria, and competitive triumph, which are all, in a sense, defensive reactions to low self-esteem. Nor should self-esteem be confused with self-indulgence or smugness. It simply refers to the degree to which one accepts and values oneself, warts and all. Although psychiatrists and psychologists are noted for disagreeing on just about everything, they do all agree that self-esteem, as understood here, is one cornerstone of sound mental health. People who are considered mentally sound generally have a high level of self-esteem, they feel reasonably competent and secure as people; they generally like themselves, and feel capable of being liked and loved by others. In addition, they are capable of manifesting genuine liking and loving for others. People with high self-esteem are able to be appropriately assertive in trying to have their needs met in a non-manipulative, non-destructive way. Conversely, the one feature common to all psychiatric patients and many chronically ill patients is low self-esteem.[xvi]

A priest-counsellor writes that a person needs a healthy self-love, which includes self-respect and goes on to say:

I need to love myself before I can love another. Our primary relationship is with ourselves[xvii]

Another priest in a message he posted on the Internet had this to say:

The sad preoccupation with masturbation came from Jansenism, a heresy which said the Human Body is inherently evil. ... As a Catholic Priest, I have sorrowed greatly at the unnecessary neurosis our Catholic Church has fostered regarding masturbation.[xviii]

Finally, if I love myself sexually, I will want to demonstrate this, at least to myself, by appropriate behaviour with a partner or alone. This will always be a loving behaviour and will in no circumstances include anything that could in the least be considered as sexual abuse of another, especially a minor. Let us now consider briefly possible suitable sexual behaviour with a partner.

When two people come together for the purpose of having sex they should want to make it as pleasurable for each other as possible. Since God made our bodies it follows that He is fully aware that sex can be a most pleasurable activity and so would surely want us to participate in this enjoyment even when the main purpose of the sexual activity concerned is to enable a woman to conceive. But does this mean that it is only legitimate for a man and a woman to have sex is when a husband and wife want to conceive a baby? Surely not! Can two people, not necessarily of different sexes, who love each other and who wish to give each other pleasure, not do so by enjoying each other sexually as well as in many other ways? There are a vast number of ways in which two people can enjoy each other's bodies sexually and I certainly do not propose to discuss any of them here but one can briefly refer to mutual masturbation and penetration with the fingers as well as the normal forms of intercourse.

In this connection it is perhaps worth mentioning that one reason for the Church condemning masturbation was that the early Church Fathers, for the sake of guaranteeing the survival of the Church, wanted Christian mothers to have as many Christian babies as possible. Since masturbation required no partner and therefore could not possibly lead to procreation, special condemnation was reserved for it.[xix]

While sex with a partner outside marriage is much less frowned upon nowadays than it used to be, it remains true that masturbation is still very often looked down upon. Bismarck Masangu writes:

The idea of masturbation is, to most people, unpalatable, revolting, if not sinful. Even the perverted louts with whom I hang out view masturbation as the hobby of wankers and silly old men. My friends would rather have their penises fall off than be caught in the act of unpartnered sex.

... When I was young and lazy I engaged in this hobby. And, had it not been for a friend's warning—that it would make me bald, blind and mad - I might now have an endowment every bit as impressive as my right-hand bicep!

... Thankfully the tide is turning against antiquated ideas. Not so long ago the politics of sex sought to restrict sex to a baby-making activity within the ambit of that lamentable institution, marriage. Patriarchal norms said only men should express sexual gratification whereas women were assigned the responsibilities of passengers on a bus. Today sex is more openly the vehicle for a range of emotions and drives—love, affection, anger and power. So, why can unpartnered sex not legitimately be an expression of self-love?[xx]

To this I would add the point that no one can be with a partner the whole time, but that we are always with ourselves.

The importance of a high level of self-esteem was explained above, but, according to Watters, Christian teachings are "uncompromisingly antithetical to the development of self-esteem According to Christian teachings, the self is to be abased, not esteemed."[xxi] While I would not wish to deny that the practice of mortification has its place in the life of a Christian, it should certainly not lead to a Christian regarding himself with self-loathing; he should rather consider that masturbation is a natural act by which one can express one's love for oneself and so build one's self-esteem. Self-loathing, calling our natural sexual instincts vile and taking mortification to excess is anything but constructive and can only lead to one having a low self-esteem which, as pointed out above, is the one feature common to all psychiatric and many chronically ill patients.

The Church, as we have seen, condemns masturbation because it cannot possibly result in conception, which the Church regards as the only legitimate reason for a couple to have sex. At the same time the Church also condemns abortion as the murder of the innocent. Perhaps it is time for the Church to realise that masturbation is a marvellous form of birth control and the consequent prevention of unwanted pregnancies, which so often lead to abortions. The Church should rather encourage masturbation as an easy and practical means of avoiding pregnancy and hence avoiding having babies who live only to be killed in the womb.

An anonymous author asked what kind of damage it does to a child to tell him that the blissful pleasure his own body provides him with is evil and then goes on to quote Kinsey:

Millions of boys have lived in continual mental conflict over this problem. For that matter, many a boy still does. Many boys pass through a periodic succession of attempts to stop the habit, inevitable failures in those attempts, consequent periods of remorse, the making of new resolutions—and a new start on the whole cycle. It is difficult to imagine anything better calculated to do permanent damage to the personality of an individual.[xxii]

There is no doubt that sex can be a way of expressing various emotions, for example, love, affection, anger and power, so it can certainly be a way of expressing self-love, an emotion commanded by Jesus Himself. An ex-Catholic, who signed herself only as Deb, had this to say:

I was raised Catholic and attended weekly religion classes where the topic of masturbation was brought up every class and we (a co-ed class of about 25 fourteen-year-olds) were told that it's wrong, we shouldn't do it, and that it would keep us from having a normal sex life in marriage. I'm only 31 so this crap is still being taught. The thing was I had already been masturbating regularly. Being told that it was wrong only made me more curious about it because they weren't really saying WHY it was wrong and it didn't FEEL wrong.

What I want to say to any girl or grown woman who feels guilty about giving herself pleasure or about the thoughts she's having while she's doing it is YOU HAVE NOTHING TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT! You are doing something very natural and you aren't hurting anyone—especially not yourself. I'm a psychology major and I've learned FACT-based evidence that proves sexual stimulation (specifically self-discovery) is essential to well-being. I encourage every guilty-feeling female to read what psychologists have to say on the subject. Thousands of doctors can't be wrong! Also, this website shows how many women love this and how healthy and fulfilling it can be.

To the girls disturbed by lesbian thoughts though not gay—you're FINE! There was a time when I could only achieve orgasm by thinking about women when I gave myself pleasure. Just because you think it, doesn't mean you want it to happen in real life. That's the great thing about fantasies! You can explore any possibility. The most important advice I can give to the guilt-ridden is this: Does it make you feel good? If the answer is yes, how can that be wrong? No one should dictate what you do in private by yourself, with yourself. Relax and enjoy![xxiii]

Even the authors of many sex manuals do not seem to have considered this matter carefully. While they rightly consider masturbation as a useful tool in the building of a better sex life with one's partner, they give short shrift to the fact that masturbation is a pleasurable end in itself and therefore do not also recommend it on that basis. As one author put it:

Masturbation is our first sexual activity, a natural source of pleasure that's available to us throughout our lives, and a unique form of creative self-expression. Each time you masturbate, you're celebrating your sexuality and your innate capacity for pleasure, so give yourself a hand![xxiv]

While it might not be considered overtly Christian the following statement is certainly Christian in spirit. The author was at one time the United States Surgeon General and lost her position because of speaking positively about masturbation. She wrote:

In this so-called "communications age," it remains a sexual taboo of monumental proportions to discuss the safe and universal sexual practice of self-pleasure...

Yet to study masturbation would be to admit its role in our lives—one that many of us are not comfortable with. Instead, we discourage the practice in our children, dispensing cautionary tales that read like Steven King novellas...

Masturbation, practiced consciously or unconsciously, cultivates in us a humble elegance—an awareness that we are part of a larger natural system, the passions and rhythms of which live on in us. Sexuality is part of creation, part of our common inheritance, and it reminds us that we are neither inherently better nor worse than our sisters and brothers. Far from evil, masturbation may just render heavenly contentment in those who dare.[xxv]

David McKay, an Australian Minister of Religion—he refers in his article to discussing the subject with a "fellow minister"—realized what masturbation was about when he wrote:

But one bastion of privacy and shame remains, and that is the subject of masturbation. ... Some men find it painful to admit to themselves that they indulge in wanking, much less acknowledge such a practice to their friends or even to their GP.

Paradoxically, masturbation is despised by religious prudes and liberated machos alike. Prudes see it as sinful, and machos see it as a sign of weakness. Yet both parties practise it.

[Masturbation] is the safety valve on the sexual pressure cooker. Masturbation stops us from exploding in unacceptable or inappropriate ways.

... Paedophilia, incest, rape, homosexuality, bestiality ... all these practices seem to be tolerated more by a church which refuses to speak the liberating truth about masturbation.

Masturbation is the universally legitimate way to satisfy your sexual appetite without indulging in something else which may not be legitimate. If there was more masturbation, there would be a lot less incest, fewer rapes, less infidelity in marriage, etc.

Instead of trying to stop people from masturbating, the church should be encouraging them to do so, thus leaving them free to choose (without the over-riding pressure of sperm build-up) not to do those things that God has forbidden. Much of this has relevance to females as well. Many marriages would be happier if wives weren't so riddled with feelings of guilt about their own need for sex.

... because the church has fostered the myth that people can, through sheer willpower, become asexual, it must take some responsibility for the sexual permissiveness, high incidence of divorce and remarriage, and the backlash against God that has resulted from this lie in today's world.

Anyone interested in a genuine revival of sexual morality and sincere faith within Australia should consider the possibility that the first step in that direction might be to enlighten the masses to their right (and perhaps even their responsibility) to masturbate.

At the same time, those who suffer from guilt because of the secular myth that real men don't wank need to stand up to that lie as well. The result will be a happier, healthier society.[xxvi]

What of the Religious?

I should now like to turn my attention specifically to thoughts about masturbation and membership of a Religious Order. It must, of course, be admitted that objectively a religious who masturbates is committing a sin. As we saw above (p.3), Thomas Aquinas was so opposed to it that he regarded it as a more serious sin than prostitution. But what of the Religious who cannot accept the Church's teaching on masturbation, but in all other respects remains a faithful member both of the Church and his/her Order or Congregation?

So many doubts have been raised about the reasonableness of the Church's teaching on masturbation, some of which I have tried to indicate above, that I feel it not unnatural for a thinking Christian to feel compelled to reject this teaching. In her book quoted above (p.4), Ranke-Heinemann discusses in depth the history of Christian teaching about sexuality.[xxvii]

A German, who was once a theologian, but who found the Church's teaching too much, had this to say:

The New Testament is the work of neurotic philistines, who regarded human sexuality not as a source of joy, but as a source of anxiety; not as a means of expressing love, but as a means of expressing sin. Often overtly, but sometimes in a more concealed manner, the New Testament writers outlawed everything to do with the body.[xxviii]

It seems to me that the only thing that a Religious can do is to follow his conscience. In other words, if he is fully convinced that masturbation is a normal and natural activity and that the Church's condemnation of it is unjustified, then he should feel free to go ahead and masturbate when he feels so inclined and the circumstances are favourable. He will, of course, always be careful not to give scandal. Obviously, he will also not consider it matter for confession.

One cannot see that there is anything more that can be done in the short to medium term by those Religious who are convinced that masturbation is both harmless and legitimate other than to put forward their views when a suitable opportunity offers. It is encouraging that, as masturbation becomes better understood in its clinical and psychological aspects, hostility to it on the part of many teachers of Christian Doctrine has become much less strident than it formerly was and there is a much greater understanding for people who practice masturbation. Even so, for masturbation to be no longer regarded as a sin, never mind to be an approved practice, would be such a major reversal of the Church's teaching that one cannot see such a thing happening for many years to come. See how long it took for the Church to reverse its condemnation of Galileo! One can only hope and pray that such a long-term revolution will eventually take place and that the Church will recognise that the commandment to love oneself can also be fulfilled sexually.

Conclusion

The conclusion I come to is that the Church's attitude towards masturbation takes no account of human nature. The very fact that the vast majority of people, both men and women, masturbate or have masturbated at one time or another in their lives, even though they think it is a practice highly disapproved of, should be enough to show that it is totally natural. Some married people may find their mutual sexual relationships sufficient but there are plenty of married people who either masturbate by themselves or indulge in mutual masturbation as a normal part of their sex lives. If this be the case with married people, how much more must it be the case with the unmarried who still need some way of giving expression to their sex drives.

When a man or woman becomes a Religious he or she does not suddenly lose his or her sex drive and continues to have the need to express him/herself sexually. Since masturbation has been frowned on even more by the Church than sexual relations with another and the person who masturbates is often regarded as somehow being selfish and immature, Religious who needed to express their sexuality often turned to those dependent on them such as children in boarding schools, altar boys and other such.

This, of course, has led to many sex scandals involving priests and Religious in recent years. The first "clergy malpractice" lawsuit was brought by attorney Gloria Allred in 1984, which led eventually to the establishment of a $20,000 trust fund. In 1985 Father Gilbert Gauthe of Louisiana was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child molestation and the Church has paid at least $14 million to his victims.[xxix] Jeffrey Anderson, a Minnesota attorney, was aware of more than 300 civil claims against Catholic priests in 43 states of the US up to 1991 of which he had handled 80 himself, while Father Thomas Doyle, a canon lawyer, has estimated that in America about 3,000 Catholic priests are pedophiliac abusers of children, an average of 16 per diocese.[xxx] More priests and Religious have ended up in jail and the Church, particularly in America, has paid out large sums of money in compensation. Newsweek, in an article entitled "Sins of the Fathers", reported that America's paedophile priests' child-sexual-abuse-settlements cost $1 billion between 1986 and 1996,[xxxi] while the Los Angeles Times reported a settlement by which the Jesuits agreed to pay $7,6 million to two mentally retarded men who claimed to have been sexually abused for 30 years in a Northern California retreat. Some 300 priests have been defrocked or had resigned by the end of August since the sex abuse scandal erupted in Boston towards the beginning of 2002.[xxxii] It was reported that the Boston archdiocese paid $10 million to 86 victims of ex-priest John Geohegan, who had been accused of abusing more than 130 children, and that the archdiocese had separately settled with some 50 other victims.[xxxiii] Nor was it only in the United States that the Church has paid out large sums of money in compensation to victims of clerical sexual abuse. In 2002 the Church in Ireland paid out about $1 million to some 3 000 victims who had been abused in 18 Church-run institutions.[xxxiv]

While some Religious and clerics who have been paedophiles would no doubt have acted the way they did no matter what attitudes to masturbation were, it is, I think fair to ask whether many would not have been content to express their sexuality by masturbation if masturbation had not been so negatively regarded, never mind if it had actually been approved. One would like to think that such men were basically decent men who normally would not think of harming children, but who allowed their sexual drives to get out of control and, because masturbation had such a bad name, did not think that it would be better to masturbate rather than to abuse a minor. If this is the case, then the Church's condemnation of masturbation can be held responsible for much suffering, particularly on the part of children, for much scandal, for priests and Religious being in prison, and for much monetary loss by the Church.

If what I have said, dear Reader, has made you think, then I shall feel well rewarded, even if nothing further comes of my labours.