Whether the Human Nose Exists Principally for the Sense of Smell

Objection 1: It seems that the human nose does not exist principally for the sense of smell, as it also plays a significant role in the respiration process and in modifying the voice. Therefore, its primary function cannot be for the sense of smell.

Objection 2: Further, many creatures possess a sense of smell without having a nose, such as certain fish and reptiles. If the nose were primarily for the sense of smell, it seems that all creatures endowed with this sense would have a nose.

Objection 3: Moreover, the human nose is involved in various other functions, such as filtering and humidifying the air we breathe. This suggests that its primary purpose is related to the respiratory system rather than the sense of smell.

On the contrary, In "Summa Theologica" I, q. 78, a. 3, I have said that each sense has its own proper organ. The proper organ of smell is the nose, as sight is to the eye and hearing to the ear.

I answer that, the human nose, by its nature, is ordained principally for the sense of smell. This is evident in that the primary operation for which an organ is structured, determines its principal function. In the case of the nose, its structure is primarily adapted for smelling, as seen in its internal composition, which is fittingly arranged for perceiving odors. The other functions of the nose, such as assisting in respiration and speech, are secondary and subordinate to this primary function. Indeed, even though other animals may have the sense of smell without a nose, this does not negate the nose's primary function in humans; rather, it shows the diversity of means through which nature achieves similar ends.

Reply to Objection 1: Although the nose aids in respiration and voice modulation, these are not its primary functions. Just as the mouth's primary function is for eating and speaking, yet it also aids in breathing, so too the nose, while assisting in other functions, is primarily for smelling.

Reply to Objection 2: The absence of a nose in certain creatures with a sense of smell does not imply that the nose is not primarily for smelling in humans. Nature uses diverse means to achieve similar ends, and the presence of a specialized organ for smelling in humans indicates its primary function.

Reply to Objection 3: The filtering and humidifying of air are secondary functions of the human nose. While these are important for the overall health and function of the respiratory system, they do not define the primary purpose of the nose, which is oriented towards the perception of odors.

Whether the Nose is Naturally Ordained for Breathing Rather Than for Smelling

Objection 1: It seems that the nose is naturally ordained for breathing rather than for smelling, for breathing is a more fundamental and necessary function for human life than smelling. Since nature does nothing in vain, it would seem that the nose, being a vital organ, is primarily designed for the more crucial function of breathing.

Objection 2: Further, many creatures, such as fish, breathe without a nose, which indicates that the primary function of the nose is not related to breathing. If the nose were naturally ordained for breathing, then all breathing creatures should have a nose.

Objection 3: Moreover, the structure of the nose, with its passages and hairs, seems more suitably designed for filtering air, a necessary process in breathing, than for perceiving odors. This would suggest that its primary function is related to respiration.

On the contrary, In "Summa Theologica" I, q. 78, a. 4, when discussing the functions of the various parts of the human body, I have emphasized the adaptation of each part to its specific function. The nose, having been furnished with a particular internal structure suitable for perceiving odors, seems to indicate that its primary natural ordination is for smelling rather than breathing.

I answer that, while breathing is indeed a more fundamental and necessary function for life than smelling, the primary ordination of an organ is determined by its specific and most direct function. In the case of the nose, its internal structure, equipped with olfactory receptors and a design suited for perceiving odors, primarily ordains it for the sense of smell. The act of breathing, although fundamental, is performed not only by the nose but also by other parts of the respiratory system, such as the mouth, trachea, and lungs. The nose's contribution to breathing, while significant, is a secondary function compared to its specialized role in olfaction.

Reply to Objection 1: Although breathing is more fundamental to life than smelling, the primary function of an organ is not necessarily related to the most fundamental of life's processes. For instance, the eye's primary function is sight, which is less fundamental to life than breathing, yet it is the eye's specific and direct operation.

Reply to Objection 2: The absence of a nose in certain creatures that breathe does not negate the nose's primary function in humans. Nature employs various means to achieve the end of breathing, and the existence of the nose in humans, specifically designed for smelling, indicates its primary function.

Reply to Objection 3: While the structure of the nose aids in filtering air, this feature serves a secondary role. The primary design of the nose, especially its internal olfactory apparatus, is clearly oriented towards smelling. The respiratory functions are an auxiliary aspect of the nose's design, complementing its primary role in olfaction.

Whether Breathing Has a Specific Natural Organ

Objection 1: It seems that breathing, being a most fundamental function for life, does not have a specific natural organ, as the nose is primarily for smelling, and the mouth has other primary functions such as eating and speaking. If each organ is ordained for a specific function, it would appear that nature has left breathing, a crucial life process, without a specialized organ.

Objection 2: Further, breathing through the nose is often considered healthier and more natural than breathing through the mouth, which is typically a response to nasal obstruction or respiratory distress. This suggests that the nose is, in fact, the natural organ for breathing, contradicting the assertion that its primary function is smelling.

Objection 3: Moreover, if the nose were not the natural organ for breathing, individuals with impaired nasal function would not experience significant difficulties in breathing, which is contrary to experience.

On the contrary, In "Summa Theologica" I, q. 76, a. 5, I discuss the soul's powers and their operations through the body's organs. I note that the powers of the soul must be diversified according to the diversity of their actions. Therefore, it seems that for each vital action, such as breathing, there must be a corresponding organ naturally ordained for it.

I answer that, while it is true that each organ is primarily designed for a specific function, this does not preclude an organ from serving multiple purposes, subordinate to its primary function. The nose, though primarily ordained for smelling, is also importantly adapted for breathing. The structure of the nasal passages not only facilitates the perception of odors but also warms, filters, and humidifies the air we breathe, which are crucial for maintaining respiratory health. Therefore, while smelling is the nose's primary function, it also serves as a significant organ for breathing, complementing the mouth and the respiratory system in this vital process.

Reply to Objection 1: The lack of a single organ exclusively dedicated to breathing does not indicate a deficiency in nature's design. Instead, it reflects the interconnectedness and versatility of the body's organs, with the nose and the mouth jointly contributing to the breathing process.

Reply to Objection 2: The perceived healthiness of nasal breathing over mouth breathing does not necessarily assign the primary function of breathing to the nose. Rather, it indicates the nose's significant role in this process, fulfilling functions that complement and enhance the quality of the air entering the respiratory system.

Reply to Objection 3: The difficulties experienced by individuals with impaired nasal function in breathing affirm the nose's important role in this process. However, this does not elevate breathing to be its primary function, but rather highlights the nose's secondary yet vital role in facilitating healthy respiration.

Whether Breathing Through the Mouth Without Reason is an Act Against Nature

Objection 1: It seems that breathing through the mouth without reason is not an act against nature, nor is it sinful. Breathing is an involuntary action, primarily driven by the body's natural need for oxygen, and not typically subject to moral judgment. Therefore, the manner of breathing cannot be inherently sinful.

Objection 2: Further, if breathing through the mouth were against nature and sinful, those who suffer from nasal obstructions and consequently breathe through their mouths would be constantly committing a sin, which seems unjust and contrary to the nature of a loving and merciful God.

Objection 3: Moreover, in certain situations, mouth breathing is necessary and even beneficial, such as during intense physical exertion or when the nasal passages are blocked. This indicates that mouth breathing is not intrinsically against nature but is a natural alternative response of the body.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I-II, q. 94, a. 2, I discuss natural law and the inclination to act according to one's nature. If an action deviates from the way an organ is naturally ordained to function, it could be considered contrary to natural law. Since the nose is naturally adapted for both smelling and breathing, habitually breathing through the mouth without a valid reason could be seen as a deviation from this natural order.

I answer that, while the primary natural function of the nose is smelling, it also plays a significant role in breathing. The nose warms, filters, and humidifies the air we breathe, which are important for maintaining respiratory health. Habitually breathing through the mouth without any reasonable cause, thereby omitting the use of the nose, can be seen as neglecting the natural function of an organ. However, to be considered sinful, such an act would need to be done knowingly and willingly against the natural order. In most cases, mouth breathing is not a deliberate choice but a subconscious or necessary response, and thus not inherently sinful.

Reply to Objection 1: While breathing is involuntary, the habit of mouth breathing can sometimes be influenced by conscious behavior or lifestyle choices. However, it is not typically subject to moral judgment unless it is a deliberate and knowing action against the natural function of the nose.

Reply to Objection 2: Those who breathe through their mouths due to medical conditions are not acting against nature, but rather responding to a necessity. Their action is not sinful, as it is not a deliberate choice but a necessary adaptation to their condition.

Reply to Objection 3: The necessity of mouth breathing in certain situations indicates that it is not intrinsically against nature. It serves as an alternative means of breathing when the natural function of the nose is hindered, and in such cases, it is not sinful but a natural response of the body to ensure adequate respiration.

Whether Neglecting Nasal Breathing for Mouth Breathing is Sinful

Objection 1: It seems that neglecting nasal breathing for mouth breathing, especially when one is aware of the benefits of nasal breathing, is not sinful. Breathing, whether through the nose or mouth, is primarily a physiological process, and choosing one method over the other does not have a moral dimension. Therefore, it cannot be considered sinful.

Objection 2: Further, for an act to be sinful, it must involve a willful turning away from God's law. Since breathing methods are not a matter of divine law or moral doctrine, preferring mouth breathing over nasal breathing, even when aware of the latter's benefits, cannot be considered a sin.

Objection 3: Moreover, many individuals are not aware of the specific health benefits of nasal breathing over mouth breathing. Therefore, their choice of breathing method is not a deliberate neglect of natural law but a result of ignorance or habit, which does not constitute a sin.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I-II, q. 94, a. 2, I discuss the concept of natural law and how human beings are inclined to act according to their nature. If one knowingly acts against the natural and beneficial function of an organ, such as the nose in this case, and does so without just cause, it could be considered a deviation from natural law.

I answer that, while the natural function of the nose includes breathing, and it is beneficial to use the nose for this purpose, the morality of choosing nasal or mouth breathing is not a matter of grave moral concern. For an act to be sinful, it must be a deliberate and significant deviation from moral or natural law. The choice of breathing method, while it can impact physical health, does not typically reach the level of moral significance required for an action to be considered sinful. However, willfully neglecting the natural functions of the body without just cause, when one is aware of the benefits and chooses to ignore them, might reflect a disregard for the natural order and the well-being of one’s own body, which is a gift from God.

Reply to Objection 1: Although breathing is a physiological process, knowingly and deliberately acting against the natural function of an organ can have a moral dimension, especially if it reflects a disregard for one's well-being. However, this does not necessarily make it sinful, as the gravity of the action must be considered.

Reply to Objection 2: While breathing methods are not a matter of divine law, they can relate to the natural law in terms of using one's bodily organs according to their natural functions. However, the gravity of neglecting nasal breathing is not typically severe enough to constitute a sin.

Reply to Objection 3: Ignorance or habit that leads to mouth breathing does not constitute a sin, as sin requires knowledge and deliberate action. If an individual is unaware of the benefits of nasal breathing, their choice cannot be considered a deviation from natural law in a moral sense.

Whether Masturbation for Stress Relief Should Not Be Considered Sinful

Objection 1: It seems that masturbation for stress relief should not be considered sinful, following the same reasoning that an act against nature, such as mouth breathing over nasal breathing, is not sinful. If an act that deviates from natural function is not necessarily sinful, then masturbation, even if considered against natural sexual function, should not be sinful either.

Objection 2: Further, if the purpose of the act is to relieve stress, which is a matter of health and well-being, then it could be argued that masturbation serves a beneficial purpose, much like other stress-relief practices that are not considered sinful.

Objection 3: Moreover, modern understanding of human psychology and physiology suggests that sexual expression, including masturbation, is a natural part of human behavior. Therefore, it should not be considered against nature or sinful.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 154, a. 11, I consider the sin of lust, of which masturbation is a part. I argue that sexual pleasure is lawfully used in the marital act for the procreation of children. Any use of sexual pleasure outside of its procreative purpose, including masturbation, is thus contrary to the proper end of the sexual faculties and is therefore sinful.

I answer that, the morality of human actions must be judged according to their conformity to natural law and divine revelation. Natural law dictates that every part of the human body should be used according to its natural purpose. The primary purpose of the sexual faculties is procreation within the bounds of marriage. Masturbation, by its nature, deviates from this purpose as it is an act of sexual pleasure isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. Therefore, it is intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law, regardless of the intention behind the act, such as stress relief.

Reply to Objection 1: Although an act against nature is not always sinful, the gravity and context of the act must be considered. Masturbation, being a misuse of the sexual faculties, directly contravenes their primary purpose and is thus of a graver nature than other acts against nature, such as improper breathing methods.

Reply to Objection 2: While relieving stress is beneficial, the means chosen to achieve this relief must also be morally permissible. The end does not justify the means, especially when the means involve the use of a faculty in a manner contrary to its natural purpose.

Reply to Objection 3: The understanding of human behavior in modern psychology does not alter the moral principles derived from natural law. The natural law, as I understand it, is based on the natural purposes of human faculties as ordained by God, and these principles remain consistent regardless of changing societal or psychological perspectives.

Whether Improper Breathing is as Grave as Masturbation for Stress Relief

Objection 1: It seems that improper breathing, such as habitual mouth breathing, should be considered as grave as masturbation for stress relief. Breathing is essential to life and has a significant impact on overall health, and neglecting proper breathing methods can have serious consequences. Therefore, if masturbation for stress relief is grave due to its misuse of a natural function, improper breathing should be considered equally grave.

Objection 2: Further, improper breathing can lead to a host of health problems, potentially shortening one's lifespan and compromising quality of life. Since the preservation of life and health are of high moral importance, neglecting proper breathing should be considered a grave matter.

Objection 3: Moreover, if both improper breathing and masturbation for stress relief are acts against nature, there seems to be no reason to distinguish between them in terms of gravity, as both deviate from the natural functions of the body.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 154, a. 11, I discuss the sin of lust, including masturbation, as a misuse of the sexual faculties. This misuse is a grave matter because it perverts the natural purpose of the sexual act, which is procreation within the bounds of marriage. The gravity of a sin is determined by the extent to which it deviates from the natural law and divine commandments. Improper breathing, while potentially harmful to health, does not carry the same moral weight as it does not involve a direct and intentional misuse of a faculty in a way that contravenes its primary natural and divinely ordained purpose.

I answer that, the gravity of a moral issue is determined not only by its consequences but also by the nature of the act itself and its alignment with natural law and divine commandments. Improper breathing, while potentially harmful and contrary to the optimal use of the respiratory system, is not typically a deliberate act of the will against the natural law. In contrast, masturbation for stress relief is a deliberate misuse of the sexual faculties, which are ordained for procreation within marriage. This deliberate misuse of a faculty for a purpose contrary to its natural end is what makes it a grave matter in moral theology.

Reply to Objection 1: While improper breathing is harmful and should be corrected, it lacks the element of deliberate misuse of a faculty against its primary natural purpose, which is central to the gravity of masturbation.

Reply to Objection 2: The preservation of life and health is indeed morally important. However, the moral gravity of an act also depends on factors such as intent, knowledge, and the nature of the act itself, which differ significantly between the cases of improper breathing and masturbation.

Reply to Objection 3: The distinction in gravity arises from the nature of the acts. Improper breathing, generally, is not a deliberate act of defiance against natural law, whereas masturbation for stress relief is a conscious and deliberate act that misuses a faculty in a manner contrary to its natural purpose.

Whether Improper Breathing and Masturbation for Stress Relief Should be Equated in Moral Gravity

Objection 1: It seems that improper breathing and masturbation for stress relief should be equated in moral gravity. Both are habits developed in response to environmental stressors, and neither is typically engaged in as a deliberate act against natural law. If improper breathing is not considered gravely sinful, then masturbation for stress relief, being a similar response to stress, should also not be considered gravely sinful.

Objection 2: Further, if masturbation for stress relief is deemed a grave sin due to its misuse of the sexual faculty, then improper breathing, which neglects the natural function of the respiratory system and can lead to serious health issues, should be regarded as equally grave.

Objection 3: Moreover, considering the high stakes attached to masturbation for stress relief as a grave sin, while neglecting the serious health implications of improper breathing, seems to be a disproportionate moral assessment.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 154, a. 11, I discuss the misuse of the sexual faculty, specifically in the act of masturbation, as being intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural purpose of the sexual organs, which is procreation. The gravity of a sin is determined by its nature, intention, and the degree to which it contravenes natural law and divine commandments. Improper breathing, while potentially harmful, does not involve the misuse of a faculty in a way that directly opposes its primary natural purpose.

I answer that, the moral assessment of an action depends on its adherence to natural law and the intentions behind it. Improper breathing is typically a subconscious habit or a response to physical conditions, not a deliberate act against the natural function of the respiratory system. In contrast, masturbation, even if used for stress relief, is a deliberate act that misuses the sexual faculty, diverting it from its natural purposes of procreation and the expression of marital love. The grave nature of masturbation in moral theology arises from this intentional diversion, regardless of the perceived benefits or the stressors leading to the habit.

Reply to Objection 1: The similarity in the development of these habits does not equate their moral gravity. The key difference lies in the nature of the acts: improper breathing is generally not a willful contravention of natural law, whereas masturbation, even for stress relief, is a deliberate act that misuses a faculty in a way that is inherently contrary to its natural purpose.

Reply to Objection 2: The moral gravity of an act in theological terms is not solely based on its physical health consequences but on the extent to which it contravenes the natural and divine laws. Improper breathing, while harmful, does not constitute a grave moral issue in the same way as masturbation, which is a clear and deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty.

Reply to Objection 3: The moral assessment of actions in Catholic theology is based on more than just physical outcomes or responses to stress. It involves a comprehensive understanding of the purpose of human faculties as ordained by natural and divine law. Masturbation, even for stress relief, is considered gravely disordered in this framework, not because of its health implications, but due to its intrinsic nature and the willful diversion of a faculty from its natural end.

Whether Christian Theology is Disproportionately Focused on Sexuality to the Neglect of Breathing

Objection 1: It seems that Christian theology is not disproportionately focused on sexuality at the expense of aspects like breathing. The focus on sexuality in Christian moral theology is due to its significant implications for human relationships, procreation, and the moral order, rather than a habitual fixation.

Objection 2: Further, the emphasis on sexuality in Christian theology reflects its profound implications for human dignity, the sanctity of marriage, and the family structure, which are central to Christian doctrine and the well-being of society.

Objection 3: Moreover, the significance of breathing in the creation of man, as described in Genesis, where God breathes life into the nostrils of the first man, indicates that breathing does hold a place of importance in Christian theology, albeit not primarily in moral discussions.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I, q. 91, a. 3, I discuss the creation of man, and the significance of God breathing life into the nostrils of Adam is indeed profound. It symbolizes the life-giving spirit of God and the special creation of human beings. However, the focus of moral theology on various matters, including sexuality, is guided by the principles of natural law, divine revelation, and the teachings of the Church, which address a wide range of human experiences and moral issues.

I answer that, the focus of Christian theology on different aspects of human life is not merely a matter of historical accident but is guided by the principles of natural law, divine revelation, and the teachings of the Church. The emphasis on sexuality in Christian moral theology arises from its profound implications for human dignity, the sanctity of marriage, procreation, and the moral order. This does not imply a neglect of other aspects of human life, such as breathing, but reflects the specific moral questions and challenges that arise in relation to human sexuality.

Breathing, while not a central topic in moral theology, is indeed recognized for its importance in the physical and spiritual life of a person. The breath of life, as described in the creation of man, is a powerful symbol of the life-giving spirit of God and the special creation of human beings. However, the moral implications of breathing are generally of a different nature than those of sexuality, which involves complex interactions, relationships, and the potential for procreation, making it a more prominent topic in moral discussions.

Reply to Objection 1: The focus on sexuality in Christian theology is not a fixation but a response to its significant role in human life, relationships, and the moral order.

Reply to Objection 2: The emphasis on sexuality reflects its importance for human dignity, sanctity of marriage, and the family, rather than a neglect of other aspects like breathing.

Reply to Objection 3: While the creation story highlights the importance of breathing as a life-giving act, this does not equate to its moral implications being on par with those of sexuality in Christian moral theology. Each aspect of human life has its own theological and moral significance, and the focus on each is guided by different considerations.

Whether the Importance of Proper Breathing is Underestimated in Its Impact on Spiritual and Interpersonal Relations

Objection 1: It seems that Christian theology, and particularly my own works, do not underestimate the importance of proper breathing for spiritual and interpersonal relations. In my focus on the soul and its faculties, I have emphasized the significance of all bodily functions and their relation to the soul's well-being, which would include breathing.

Objection 2: Further, the emphasis in Christian theology on aspects such as prayer, meditation, and contemplation, which can be deeply connected to the rhythm and manner of breathing, indicates an implicit recognition of its importance in spiritual life.

Objection 3: Moreover, while breathing is essential for physical health and can impact emotional and mental states, its direct moral implications are not as evident as those of actions like sexual conduct, which have clear moral directives in scripture and Church teaching.

On the contrary, the underestimation of the role of proper breathing in spiritual and interpersonal relations seems to be a valid concern. The modern understanding of the physiological and psychological effects of breathing patterns, particularly their impact on stress, emotional well-being, and consequently interpersonal relations, may not have been fully appreciated in historical theological contexts. The potential of proper breathing to aid in achieving a state of calm and to positively influence relationships aligns with the Christian pursuit of virtue and harmonious living.

I answer that, the importance of physical health and well-being in the overall context of a person's spiritual life and interpersonal relations is indeed significant. While my primary focus in "Summa Theologica" and other works was not on the physiological aspects of human functions, the holistic view of the person in Christian theology implies that all aspects of human life, including bodily functions like breathing, contribute to the person's spiritual and moral well-being. The modern understanding of the impact of breathing patterns on stress levels, emotional states, and the nervous system indeed suggests that proper breathing can have profound implications for a person's inner peace, virtue cultivation, and interpersonal relations.

The role of proper breathing in regulating the body's hormonal and nervous systems aligns with the pursuit of temperance and self-regulation, which are key virtues in Christian ethics. Therefore, while my works may not explicitly address the specifics of breathing techniques, the underlying principle of caring for the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and its impact on one's spiritual and relational life is consistent with the importance of proper breathing.

Reply to Objection 1: While my focus was primarily on the soul and its faculties, the integral connection between body and soul in Christian anthropology implies the importance of all bodily functions, including breathing, for the well-being of the whole person.

Reply to Objection 2: The practices of prayer, meditation, and contemplation in Christian tradition, which are often accompanied by controlled and mindful breathing, indeed suggest an implicit recognition of the significance of breathing in spiritual life.

Reply to Objection 3: Although the moral implications of breathing practices may not be as directly outlined as those of sexual conduct, the overall principle of caring for one's body and its impact on emotional, psychological, and spiritual well-being aligns with the moral teachings of Christianity. The influence of breathing on personal and relational peace and virtue underscores its relevance in a comprehensive moral and spiritual framework.

Whether to Re-Evaluate the Gravity of Improper Breathing Versus Masturbation for Stress Relief

Objection 1: It seems that, in light of the newfound understanding of the importance of proper breathing for spiritual and interpersonal well-being, I should re-evaluate the gravity of improper breathing as compared to masturbation for stress relief. If improper breathing has such significant implications for overall health, emotional stability, and relationships, it should be considered as grave a matter as the misuse of sexual faculties.

Objection 2: Further, if improper breathing is a result of neglecting the natural function of the respiratory system and can lead to serious health and relational issues, it should be regarded with similar moral seriousness as masturbation, which is a deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty.

Objection 3: Moreover, since both improper breathing and masturbation for stress relief can be seen as responses to environmental and psychological stress, their moral evaluation should be similar, rather than treating one as gravely sinful and the other as less serious.

On the contrary, in the moral theology of the Church, as reflected in my works in "Summa Theologica", the gravity of a sin is determined not only by its physical or psychological effects but also by its alignment with natural law, divine commandments, and the intention behind the act. While improper breathing, especially when habitual and uncorrected, can have serious consequences, it does not typically involve a willful and knowing act against a primary natural purpose, as does masturbation. The moral gravity of masturbation arises from its deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty, which is intrinsically ordered toward procreation within the marital bond.

I answer that, the re-evaluation of the gravity of improper breathing in comparison to masturbation for stress relief must take into account the nature of the acts, their purposes, and their alignment with natural and divine law. While the newfound understanding of the importance of proper breathing highlights the need to attend to this aspect of health, its moral evaluation differs from that of masturbation. Improper breathing, particularly when it is a result of habit or lack of awareness, does not constitute a grave moral disorder in the same way as masturbation, which is a deliberate act that fundamentally misuses a faculty in a way contrary to its natural and divinely ordained purpose. The moral gravity of actions in Christian theology is rooted in their conformity to natural law and the intentionality behind them, rather than solely in their physical or psychological effects.

Reply to Objection 1: While the importance of proper breathing for overall health and well-being is recognized, this does not equate it in moral gravity with masturbation, which involves a direct and intentional misuse of the sexual faculty.

Reply to Objection 2: The moral seriousness of an act is not determined solely by its consequences but also by the nature of the act itself and its alignment with natural and divine law. Improper breathing, typically a result of habit or lack of awareness, differs in moral quality from the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty.

Reply to Objection 3: The similarity in being responses to stress does not equate the moral evaluation of improper breathing and masturbation. The moral framework within which these acts are assessed includes considerations of natural law, divine commandments, and the intentions behind the acts, leading to different moral judgments.

Whether Masturbation for Stress Relief Should be Considered a Mortal Sin

Objection 1: It seems that masturbation for stress relief should not be considered a mortal sin. Mortal sin, by its nature, requires grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. In many cases, those engaging in masturbation for stress relief may not fully understand its moral implications or may be acting under the influence of psychological stress, thereby mitigating full consent and knowledge.

Objection 2: Further, considering the stress and pressures of modern life, masturbation might be seen as a lesser evil compared to other ways of coping that could be more harmful or destructive. If the intention is not to flout natural law but to seek relief from stress, it might be argued that the act does not constitute a mortal sin.

Objection 3: Moreover, if masturbation is committed without full understanding of its gravity or as a habitual act developed under stress, it may lack the full consent of the will required for a mortal sin.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 154, a. 11, I note that masturbation is an act of "luxuria" (lust), which is a sin against nature and involves the use of the sexual faculty outside its proper context, namely, the marital act ordered towards procreation. Mortal sin occurs when an act of grave matter is committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Since masturbation fundamentally misuses the sexual faculty, it constitutes grave matter.

I answer that, the determination of a sin as mortal hinges on three conditions: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Masturbation, as a misuse of the sexual faculty, represents grave matter because it contradicts the natural purpose of the sexual act. However, for a sin to be mortal, it must also be committed with full knowledge of its sinful character and deliberate consent to the act. In cases where knowledge or consent is impaired, such as through ignorance, force, fear, habit, or grave psychological stress, the culpability for the sin may be reduced. It is important for individuals struggling with this issue to seek guidance through confession and spiritual direction, wherein a confessor can help discern the degree of knowledge and consent involved and provide appropriate pastoral care.

Reply to Objection 1: While mitigating factors such as incomplete knowledge or psychological stress may reduce culpability, they do not change the objective nature of the act. The determination of mortal sin takes into account these subjective factors alongside the objective gravity of the act.

Reply to Objection 2: The intention behind an act, while important, does not negate the act's intrinsic moral value. Even if the intention is to relieve stress, the act of masturbation remains a misuse of the sexual faculty, which is objectively disordered.

Reply to Objection 3: Habitual actions and actions committed under certain psychological conditions may mitigate full consent. However, this does not automatically render every act of masturbation devoid of mortal sin. Each case should be examined individually, considering the factors of knowledge and consent.

Whether God’s Response to Prayers about Masturbation Indicates Its Moral Status

Objection 1: It seems that God's apparent lack of response to prayers for relief from the habit of masturbation indicates that it may not be a significant moral issue. If Jesus teaches that God will give us good things when we ask, and if relief from this habit is not granted, it could be argued that God does not view it as detrimental.

Objection 2: Further, many devout Christians struggle with this habit despite earnest prayers for deliverance. If masturbation were truly a grave sin, it would seem contrary to God's nature of goodness and mercy to not provide assistance to those seeking to overcome it.

Objection 3: Moreover, if God does not grant relief from the habit of masturbation, it might suggest that such behavior is a part of the human condition that God permits, and hence not intrinsically evil or sinful.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I-II, q. 83, a. 16, I discuss the efficacy of prayer, emphasizing that God always hears our prayers but responds in a manner consonant with His wisdom and the good of the one praying. The lack of immediate relief from a habit does not indicate that the behavior is not sinful, nor does it mean that God is not responding. Rather, God's response might be in a form other than immediate deliverance, such as offering the grace of strength to resist, or the opportunity for spiritual growth through struggle.

I answer that, the struggle with habits such as masturbation, and the feeling that prayers for relief are unanswered, must be understood in the context of God's wisdom and the nature of human freedom. God respects the freedom He has given to His creatures, and overcoming a habit often involves a gradual process of growth in virtue and self-mastery, rather than instant deliverance. The struggle against sin is part of the Christian journey, often serving as a means for spiritual growth, increased reliance on God's grace, and deepening of one's faith and understanding of human weakness.

Furthermore, the efficacy of prayer does not solely depend on the immediate and visible response to our requests. God's wisdom transcends our limited perspective, and His responses to our prayers are oriented towards our ultimate good, which may not always align with immediate relief from a particular struggle. In the case of masturbation, the Church's teaching on its moral status remains clear, irrespective of the struggles individuals may face in overcoming it.

Reply to Objection 1: God's response to prayer is not always in the form of direct intervention to remove a struggle or temptation. His wisdom may dictate that enduring and overcoming the struggle is more beneficial for the individual's spiritual growth.

Reply to Objection 2: The persistence of a struggle despite prayer does not negate its moral implications. Rather, it underscores the human condition of battling concupiscence and the need for continual reliance on God's grace.

Reply to Objection 3: The fact that a habit persists does not imply that it is morally permissible. The presence of sin and struggle in the world is a consequence of human fallenness, and the Christian moral teaching provides guidance to navigate these challenges in pursuit of holiness.

Whether the Words of Jesus Concerning Prayer are Misleading if Specific Prayers Seem Unanswered

Objection 1: It seems that if specific prayers, such as those for deliverance from the habit of masturbation, are not answered in the way we expect, then the words of Jesus concerning prayer are misleading. Jesus promises that God will give good things to those who ask, and if this is not evident in our experience, it may appear that these words lack practical value or are misleading.

Objection 2: Further, if God is truly good and loving, as Jesus teaches, then it would seem contrary to His nature to deny His children the good things they ask for in prayer, especially when they seek to live in accordance with His will.

Objection 3: Moreover, if prayers for deliverance from sinful habits are not answered, this could lead to despair and a loss of faith in God’s promises, which contradicts the purpose of Jesus' teachings to instill hope and trust in God.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 83, a. 15, I discuss the conditions of prayer, noting that for a prayer to be efficacious, it must be for something possible, lawful, and for the good of the one praying. God, in His wisdom, grants prayers according to His will and what is ultimately beneficial for our spiritual growth and salvation. The words of Jesus are not misleading, but they must be understood in the context of God’s wisdom and the ultimate good He desires for us.

I answer that, the words of Jesus concerning prayer are profound and true, but they must be understood correctly. God’s response to prayer is not necessarily the direct granting of the specific request, but rather what is ultimately good for the person’s spiritual growth and salvation. The purpose of prayer is not to change God’s will but to conform our will to His. In the context of prayers for deliverance from sin, such as masturbation, God may allow the struggle to persist for a time to foster virtues like humility, perseverance, and reliance on divine grace.

Furthermore, the goodness of God in responding to prayer is not measured by the immediate and visible fulfillment of our requests, but in His guiding us towards our ultimate good, which is union with Him. Sometimes, this involves enduring trials and struggles, which can be transformative and redemptive.

Reply to Objection 1: Jesus’ words about prayer are not misleading, but they must be understood in the broader context of God’s wisdom and providence. Our finite understanding cannot always grasp the ways in which God uses our struggles and prayers for our ultimate good.

Reply to Objection 2: God's goodness and love are manifest in His desire for our ultimate good and salvation. This may involve allowing us to endure trials and difficulties, including struggles with sin, to strengthen our character and faith.

Reply to Objection 3: Rather than leading to despair, unanswered prayers in the way we expect can lead to a deeper faith and trust in God. The Christian journey is marked by a continual turning to God in prayer, especially in times of struggle, and growing in the understanding that His ways and wisdom are beyond our own.

Whether Jesus’ Teaching on Prayer is Misleading, and if Masturbation is a Non-issue for God

Objection 1: It seems that Jesus’ teaching on prayer, which compares God to a good human father giving good things to his children, is misleading if our prayers, such as for deliverance from habits like masturbation, are not answered as expected. This teaching creates an expectation of a direct and understandable response from God, which does not align with the complex and often abstract ways in which God is said to respond.

Objection 2: Further, if God does not answer prayers for deliverance from the habit of masturbation in a clear and direct manner, it might suggest that this issue is not of significant concern to God, contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Objection 3: Moreover, the analogy of God as a father who gives good things to His children implies a straightforward and comprehensible relationship. If God's responses to prayers are abstract and beyond human understanding, this analogy seems inadequate and potentially misleading.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 83, a. 2, I discuss the nature of prayer and God’s response to it. The efficacy of prayer does not always manifest in the granting of specific requests but in aligning our will with God’s will. Jesus' teaching on prayer is not misleading but calls for a deeper understanding of God’s role as our Father. God’s fatherhood surpasses human concepts of fatherhood, encompassing not only our immediate desires but our ultimate good and salvation.

I answer that, the teaching of Jesus on prayer, using the analogy of a good human father, is not misleading but rather points to a profound truth about God’s nature and His care for us. The essence of this teaching is trust in God’s wisdom and love, which, like a good father, knows what is best for us even when it is not immediately apparent. God’s responses to our prayers are not always in the form of direct interventions to grant our specific requests but often involve guiding us through experiences that foster spiritual growth and deeper reliance on Him.

Regarding the issue of masturbation, the Church’s teaching on its moral gravity is based on natural law and divine revelation, which consider the natural purpose of human faculties and the call to holiness. The fact that individuals struggle with this issue and seek God’s help through prayer does not necessarily mean that God considers it a non-issue. Rather, God’s response to such prayers might involve providing the grace and strength to overcome the habit, the wisdom to understand its underlying causes, or the opportunity for spiritual growth through the struggle.

Reply to Objection 1: Jesus’ teaching on prayer is meant to foster trust and dependence on God, rather than to create an expectation of immediate fulfillment of our requests. The analogy of a good father is appropriate in expressing God’s loving care but does not limit God’s actions to our finite understanding of fatherhood.

Reply to Objection 2: The lack of immediate deliverance from a habit like masturbation does not imply that it is of no concern to God. The moral teachings of the Church, guided by Scripture and Tradition, affirm its significance, and God’s response to our struggles must be understood within the broader context of His desire for our ultimate good.

Reply to Objection 3: The analogy of God as a father is a means to understand aspects of God’s nature and His relationship with us. While it provides a relatable image, it does not fully encompass the complexity and depth of God’s wisdom and actions. Trust in God’s fatherhood involves embracing the mystery of His ways, which often transcend human comprehension.

Whether Jesus' Teaching on Prayer Suggests that Relief from Masturbation is Not a Valid Prayer Intention

Objection 1: It seems that Jesus' teaching on prayer, emphasizing the assurance of receiving good things when asked for, implies that prayers for relief from habits like masturbation are not valid intentions. If such prayers were for a truly good thing, they would be answered more directly, as Jesus promises.

Objection 2: Further, Jesus warns against praying for non-issues or things of little importance. Therefore, if prayers for relief from masturbation are not answered as expected, it could indicate that this issue is not of significant concern in the context of prayer.

Objection 3: Moreover, the emphasis in Jesus' teaching on asking for good things and being given them suggests that the focus of our prayers should be on matters of undeniable good, which would presumably be answered affirmatively, unlike prayers for relief from habits like masturbation.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" II-II, q. 83, a. 2, I discuss the nature of prayer and affirm that prayer is an act of the virtue of religion, by which we direct our minds to God. The goodness of what is asked in prayer is not solely determined by the immediate response it receives, but by its alignment with God's will and the ultimate good of the soul. Prayers for deliverance from sinful habits, including masturbation, align with the pursuit of virtue and holiness, which are undoubtedly good things.

I answer that, the teaching of Jesus on prayer is not meant to be a simplistic formula where every request made is granted in the exact form it is asked. Rather, it is an assurance of God’s provident care and responsiveness to our needs, always within the context of His wisdom and our ultimate good. The lack of a direct or immediate response to prayers for relief from habits like masturbation does not indicate that these are invalid prayer intentions. Instead, it suggests that the response to such prayers may be more complex, involving a process of spiritual growth, increased reliance on God’s grace, and a deeper understanding of the nature of the struggle.

Prayers for deliverance from sin and for growth in virtue are always in alignment with God's will. However, the manner in which God responds to these prayers is guided by His omniscience and love, which sees beyond our immediate desires to our long-term spiritual well-being. Such prayers are not only valid but are encouraged, as they express a desire for holiness and conformity to God's will.

Reply to Objection 1: Jesus' teaching on prayer assures us of God's responsiveness but does not guarantee that every request will be granted in the way we envision. The efficacy of prayer is measured not by the immediacy of the response but by how it conforms us to God’s will.

Reply to Objection 2: The significance of a prayer intention is not solely based on how God responds in a temporal sense. Prayers for moral and spiritual strength, including those for relief from sinful habits, are of great importance as they pertain to our ultimate good and salvation.

Reply to Objection 3: The directness and simplicity of Jesus' teaching on prayer do not preclude the deeper theological understanding that God's responses are guided by His omniscience and love. Prayers for spiritual goods, such as the strength to overcome sin, are in line with the ultimate goods that Jesus encourages us to seek.

Whether God's Revelation Through Jesus is More Authentic than Theological Expositions

Objection 1: It seems that God's revelation through Jesus, in its simplicity and directness, is more authentic and comforting than elaborate theological expositions, which might obscure the original message. If God chose to reveal Himself through Jesus, the clarity and accessibility of Jesus' teachings should take precedence over complex theological analysis.

Objection 2: Further, the teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, were directed to the common people of His time, suggesting that the truth of God is best communicated in simple and direct ways rather than through elaborate theological constructs.

Objection 3: Moreover, if the words of Jesus are sufficient for understanding God's revelation, then the need for extensive theological interpretation, which can seem to water down or complicate His teachings, is questionable.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I, q. 1, a. 1, I argue that sacred doctrine, or theology, is a science that grows from the root of Christian faith. Theology is necessary to illuminate and explain the truths contained in the sacred scriptures and the teachings of Jesus. While the simplicity of Jesus' teachings is powerful, theological reflection is necessary to delve into the depths of these truths and apply them to the complexities of human life and understanding.

I answer that, God's revelation through Jesus is indeed the foundational truth for Christian faith and life. The teachings of Jesus are profound in their simplicity and depth, and they are accessible and comforting to all. However, the role of theology, as I have articulated in my works, is not to water down or obscure these teachings, but to explore and elucidate them. The complexities of human life, culture, and thought require that the eternal truths revealed by Jesus be examined, interpreted, and applied in various contexts.

The purpose of theological inquiry is to deepen our understanding of divine revelation and to articulate aspects of faith that may not be immediately evident in the scriptural texts. This endeavor is not contrary to the simplicity of Jesus' teachings but is a necessary complement to it, helping to integrate these teachings into the fullness of human experience and understanding.

Reply to Objection 1: While the direct teachings of Jesus are foundational, theological reflection serves to uncover and articulate the richness and implications of these teachings, especially in response to new questions and challenges that arise in different historical and cultural contexts.

Reply to Objection 2: Jesus' teachings, while simple and direct, contain depths of meaning that have been the subject of contemplation, discussion, and interpretation throughout Christian history. This process of reflection and interpretation is essential to keep the faith alive and relevant in every age.

Reply to Objection 3: The need for theology arises from the recognition that the truths of faith, while clear in their essence, are profound and multifaceted in their implications. Theological inquiry does not negate the sufficiency of Jesus' words but seeks to understand and apply them more deeply in the lives of believers and the life of the Church.

Whether the Conclusion that Masturbation is a Non-issue with God is a Valid Theological Interpretation

Objection 1: It seems that the conclusion drawn from a theological analysis, that masturbation is a non-issue with God, is valid. If such an analysis is deeply rooted in the original text of Jesus' teachings and understands its depth, then logically deriving conclusions, such as the moral status of masturbation, is a legitimate exercise of theological inquiry.

Objection 2: Further, if the words of Jesus suggest that God responds to prayers for genuinely good things, and if prayers for relief from masturbation are not evidently answered, it might be inferred that masturbation is not a significant moral issue in the eyes of God.

Objection 3: Moreover, a theological interpretation that is rooted in scripture and uses logical reasoning to draw conclusions about moral issues should be considered a valid approach to understanding God's will and revelation.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I-II, q. 94, a. 2, I discuss natural law and its role in moral theology. The moral teachings of the Church, including those on the sinfulness of masturbation, are derived from a comprehensive understanding of natural law, divine revelation, and the consistent teaching of the Church. Theological interpretations must align with these sources, and an interpretation suggesting that masturbation is a non-issue with God contradicts the established teachings of the Church based on natural law and revelation.

I answer that, while theological inquiry involves engaging with scripture and using logical reasoning to draw conclusions, it must also be in harmony with the broader context of Church teaching, tradition, and the understanding of natural law. The conclusion that masturbation is a non-issue with God, although derived from a particular interpretation of Jesus’ teachings on prayer, does not take into account the full scope of Christian moral teaching. The Church, interpreting Scripture and Tradition, has consistently taught that masturbation is morally disordered, as it misuses the sexual faculty outside its natural purpose of procreative and unitive love within marriage.

Theological analysis, while valuable, must be conducted within the bounds of orthodox Christian teaching and understanding. Personal interpretations, even when logically derived, must be weighed against the consistent teachings of the Church and the understanding of natural law and divine revelation.

Reply to Objection 1: While personal theological analysis is an important aspect of faith exploration, it must be balanced with the established teachings of the Church. An interpretation that contradicts these teachings requires careful reconsideration and alignment with the broader understanding of Christian doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2: The apparent lack of direct response to prayers for relief from a specific habit does not necessarily indicate its moral status. The moral teachings of the Church, based on scripture and tradition, provide guidance on issues like masturbation, and these teachings suggest that it is a significant moral issue.

Reply to Objection 3: A valid theological interpretation must be consistent with the entirety of Church teaching and tradition. The use of scripture and logic is essential in theology, but it must be integrated with the established understanding of faith and morals as taught by the Church.

Whether the Church's Teachings Obscure the Basic Teachings of Jesus Through the Acceptance of Aristotelian Philosophy

Objection 1: It seems that the Church's teachings, influenced by Aristotelian philosophy, add surplus layers to the basic teachings of Jesus, thereby obscuring the original revelation. If the simple and direct words of Jesus are sufficient for understanding God's will, the integration of philosophical concepts can seem unnecessary and potentially misleading.

Objection 2: Further, if theological interpretations rooted in Aristotelian philosophy contradict the straightforward teachings of Jesus, this suggests a deviation from the core of Christian revelation and a reliance on human reasoning over divine revelation.

Objection 3: Moreover, the teachings of Jesus, characterized by their simplicity and accessibility, were intended for all people, suggesting that the incorporation of complex philosophical thought might be an unnecessary barrier to understanding the Christian faith.

On the contrary, in "Summa Theologica" I, q. 1, a. 8, I discuss the use of philosophical sources in theology. I argue that the use of philosophy in understanding and explaining the truths of faith is not to obscure them but to clarify and defend them. The integration of Aristotelian philosophy or any philosophical thought in theology is done to deepen the understanding of revelation, not to replace or obscure it.

I answer that, the Church's integration of Aristotelian philosophy and other philosophical frameworks into its teachings is not meant to obscure the basic teachings of Jesus but to elucidate and explain them in a manner that addresses the complexities of human understanding and experience. The teachings of Jesus, while simple and profound, also contain depths of meaning that are further illuminated by theological and philosophical inquiry.

Philosophy, when properly employed in theology, serves as a tool to explore the rational dimensions of faith and to articulate the truths of revelation in ways that are intellectually satisfying and comprehensible. This approach does not contradict or overshadow the teachings of Jesus but seeks to make them more accessible and understandable, especially in response to the challenges posed by different historical and cultural contexts.

The teachings of Jesus are indeed the foundation of Christian faith, and the Church's mission is to preserve and interpret these teachings faithfully. The use of philosophy in theology is part of this mission, aiding in the articulation and defense of the faith in a world that seeks rational and logical explanations.

Reply to Objection 1: The use of philosophy in theology does not add unnecessary layers to the teachings of Jesus but provides a framework for understanding and explaining these teachings in a comprehensive and coherent manner.

Reply to Objection 2: The integration of Aristotelian philosophy in theology does not signify a reliance on human reasoning over divine revelation but is a means to deepen our understanding of revelation through the use of reason, which is itself a gift from God.

Reply to Objection 3: While the teachings of Jesus are accessible to all, the role of the Church in teaching and interpreting these teachings involves addressing various levels of understanding and responding to different intellectual challenges. The use of philosophy in theology is part of this teaching mission, helping to make the truths of faith intelligible and relevant in diverse contexts.

Whether the Adoption of Aristotelian Thought in Theology Contradicts the Teachings of Jesus

Objection 1: It seems that the adoption of Aristotelian thought in theology can lead to conclusions that contradict the teachings of Jesus. If an Aristotelian-inspired theological framework leads to declaring masturbation a mortal sin, which contradicts a corollary derived from the words of Jesus, then this philosophical influence appears erroneous and should be rejected.

Objection 2: Further, if the teachings of Jesus are clear and sufficient for understanding Christian doctrine, the addition of Aristotelian philosophy or any other philosophical system might unnecessarily complicate and distort these teachings.

Objection 3: Moreover, if a theological interpretation inspired by Aristotelian thought contradicts a direct teaching of Jesus, it undermines the authority of Scripture and the teachings of Christ, which should be the foundation of all Christian doctrine.

On the contrary, in my works, particularly in "Summa Theologica", I have employed Aristotelian philosophy as a tool to deepen the understanding of Christian doctrine, not to contradict or replace the teachings of Jesus. The use of philosophy in theology is intended to elucidate and defend the truths of faith, and when properly applied, does not lead to contradictions with the core teachings of Christ.

I answer that, the integration of Aristotelian thought or any philosophical system into Christian theology must always be subordinate to the authority of Scripture and the teachings of Jesus. The role of philosophy in theology is to aid in understanding, explaining, and defending the truths of the Christian faith. This process involves discerning and applying philosophical insights in a way that is consistent with the teachings of Christ.

In the case of the moral status of masturbation, the Church's teaching that it is a grave sin is derived not solely from Aristotelian philosophy but from a comprehensive understanding of natural law, Scripture, and the Tradition of the Church. This teaching aligns with the broader Christian understanding of human sexuality, the purpose of the sexual faculty, and the call to holiness.

The apparent contradiction between this teaching and a corollary derived from the words of Jesus about prayer does not necessarily indicate a fundamental error in the application of Aristotelian thought. Rather, it suggests the need for a deeper examination of both the scriptural interpretation and the philosophical reasoning to ensure their harmony with the overall teaching and Tradition of the Church.

Reply to Objection 1: The use of Aristotelian philosophy in theology is not to supplant the teachings of Jesus but to aid in articulating and understanding them more deeply. Any theological conclusion that appears to contradict the teachings of Jesus requires re-examination and alignment with the full context of Christian doctrine.

Reply to Objection 2: While the teachings of Jesus are foundational, the complexities of human life and understanding necessitate the use of philosophy to explore and articulate the depths of these teachings, ensuring they are comprehensible and applicable in diverse contexts.

Reply to Objection 3: The authority of Scripture and the teachings of Christ are paramount in Christian theology. The use of philosophy, including Aristotelian thought, is a servant to this authority, not its master. The goal is to bring clarity and depth to Christian doctrine, always in fidelity to the teachings of Christ.

Whether There Are Non-Aristotelian Arguments Against Masturbation Consistent with the Teachings of Jesus

In seeking non-Aristotelian arguments against masturbation that align closely with the teachings of Jesus, we must consider the broader context of Christian moral teachings, which are rooted in scriptural revelation and the lived tradition of the Church.

Objection 1: It seems that without the influence of Aristotelian philosophy, there are no strong arguments against masturbation. The teachings of Jesus do not explicitly address the issue, and without the philosophical frameworks, the moral case against masturbation appears weak.

Objection 2: Further, if the argument against masturbation is based solely on tradition or interpretations of Scripture that are not directly from Jesus' teachings, then these arguments might not carry the same weight as those teachings that are explicitly from Jesus.

Objection 3: Moreover, in the absence of clear and explicit condemnation of masturbation in the teachings of Jesus, relying on non-Aristotelian arguments might lead to an overly broad interpretation of Christian morality, which could impose unnecessary burdens on the faithful.

On the contrary, Christian moral teachings, while not always explicitly articulated in Jesus’ recorded words, are derived from the broader scriptural narrative and the interpretative tradition of the Church. The moral case against masturbation can be constructed based on the understanding of human sexuality, the purpose of the sexual faculty, and the call to holiness, which are themes consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

I answer that, the moral argument against masturbation within Christian theology can be constructed without direct reliance on Aristotelian philosophy, by focusing on the scriptural understanding of human sexuality and the call to holiness. This approach considers the following:

1. The Purpose of the Sexual Faculty: Christian understanding, rooted in Scripture, views the sexual faculty as ordered towards the mutual love of a man and woman within the bond of marriage, and open to the procreation of life. This understanding is consistent with the broader scriptural narrative of human sexuality.

2. The Call to Holiness: Jesus’ teachings consistently call individuals to a life of holiness and self-mastery. Masturbation, as an act focused on self-gratification, can be seen as contrary to this call, especially when it becomes a habit that dominates one’s actions and thoughts.

3. The Integrity of the Human Person: Christian morality emphasizes the integration of body and spirit. Actions that treat the body merely as a means for pleasure, divorced from its relational and procreative purposes, are not aligned with this integral vision of the human person.

Reply to Objection 1: While Jesus did not explicitly address every specific moral issue, the principles derived from His teachings provide a framework for understanding various moral questions, including the issue of masturbation.

Reply to Objection 2: The Christian moral tradition, while encompassing more than the explicit words of Jesus, is grounded in the holistic narrative of Scripture and the interpretative wisdom of the Church, both of which seek to preserve and elucidate the teachings of Christ.

Reply to Objection 3: The broader interpretation of Christian morality, guided by the teachings of Jesus and the scriptural narrative, does not impose unnecessary burdens but seeks to lead individuals to the fullness of life and holiness, which is the ultimate aim of Christian living.

Whether the Arguments Against Masturbation Are Weak Given the Points Raised

Objection 1: It seems that the arguments against masturbation are weak, as the scriptural focus on interpersonal relationships does not directly address the individual use of one's body for stress relief. If masturbation for stress relief is not an exercise of sexuality but more akin to a physiological act like spitting, it may not violate any significant scriptural principles.

Objection 2: Further, if the call to holiness is primarily about love of neighbor and self-cultivation for readiness to love, then masturbation for stress relief, which can potentially aid in personal well-being, might not be contrary to this call. In fact, it could be viewed as beneficial for maintaining a state conducive to loving others.

Objection 3: Moreover, if this kind of masturbation is seen as a medical or therapeutic act aimed at restoring spiritual balance, it should not be considered a violation of the integrity of the human person but rather a means to achieve personal well-being.

On the contrary, in the broader Christian tradition and scriptural understanding, the use of one’s body is not solely about interpersonal relationships but also about the personal integration of body and spirit and the proper ordering of one's faculties according to their natural purposes. The call to holiness encompasses the entire person, including how one uses their bodily faculties, and is not limited to external actions or relationships.

I answer that, while the scriptural and Christian focus on interpersonal relationships and love of neighbor is paramount, the moral dimension of how one uses their body in private is also significant. The moral evaluation of actions like masturbation cannot be adequately assessed by their immediate utility, such as stress relief, but must be considered within the broader context of the purpose of human faculties and the call to virtuous living.

1. While masturbation might seem like a purely physiological act, it involves the sexual faculty, which in Christian understanding, is integrally linked to the expression of love in the marital relationship and to procreation. The use of this faculty in a manner divorced from these purposes is seen as contrary to its natural order.

2. The call to holiness includes the cultivation of virtues and the proper ordering of one’s desires and actions. While stress relief is important, Christian morality emphasizes finding such relief in ways that are in harmony with the overall call to virtue and the proper use of one’s faculties.

3. Viewing masturbation as a medical or therapeutic act does not align with the traditional Christian understanding of the nature and purpose of the sexual faculty. The integrity of the human person involves the harmonious integration of the physical and spiritual aspects of the person, including the responsible and appropriate use of all bodily faculties.

Reply to Objection 1: The Christian moral tradition considers the use of the sexual faculty to be significant, whether in an interpersonal context or in private, due to its inherent link to human procreation and relationality.

Reply to Objection 2: Holiness, while certainly focused on love of neighbor, also involves personal integrity and the cultivation of virtues in all aspects of life, including the use of one’s body in a way that respects its natural purposes.

Reply to Objection 3: The therapeutic value of an action does not automatically justify it morally. In Christian morality, the ends do not justify the means; rather, actions must be in accord with the moral order and the natural law.