Part 1 on page 92 of my unpublished book discusses things about gradual modification and that I said there that it is not appropriate in all respect.
Here we are to discuss it anew against the science of behavioral modification namely in comparison with a non sinful behavior of coffee drinking. (With the moral principle that some acts are inherently evil like masturbation compared to coffee drinking which isn't evil, the latter on the other hand becomes evil by circumstances like drinking to excess or drinking at night when you already need to sleep. While moral principles states that through, for example, habit, moral culpability can be lessened, masturbation cannot become a good act unless by, for example, a special case of pressure that every hostage will be killed every hour if one will not masturbate live online to one's ill repute.)
It was effective to lessen one's caffeine from 400mg gradually to 300mg, and then 150mg, and then 100mg, to none if one feels not drinking caffeine, and do it without any withdrawal symptoms like migraine headache. There is nothing morally questionable in this. There are proofs rather that mild coffee drinking are a migraine remedy and helps combat liver cancer. It shows then that coffee drinking is a morally good act too.
However there is something questionable in the following. It may be effective to lessen one's masturbation from a natural base of 2.6x/week to 2x/week gradually up to none finally. Can the ultimate target of zero relapse validate the means? (Remember the moral principle that an end cannot justify the means.) If it is effective perhaps, even the Church will prescribe such behavioral modification.
But it isn't effective as I have already discussed on Part 1 link above. (This also motivate you to read my unpublished book as I have said that there are some pointers there not elaborated elsewhere here on my blog. I've included there on page 36 readings discussing the idea that by the grace of God you can simply stop sexual addiction. "To assert that someone who repeatedly commits mortal sins cannot respond to God’s grace and simply stop committing them, given willingness to stop, is to deny a defined truth of faith." WCC CMP 17 Ques F #6.) Even though sexual addiction is likened to cocaine addiction on brain scan, the difference between the two are worth investigating when it comes to gradual modification being effective for drug addiction in general. First and foremost is that cocaine is still a foreign object and drug addiction is inherently evil, while sexual orgasm is natural and when done inside the sacrament of marriage, is a morally good act.
So even at this second evaluation, I still uphold that gradual modification for sexual addiction is not appropriate in all respect.
What then is the difference between gradual behavioral modification vs. limiting one's relapse if waves of sexual addiction comes? The factor that differentiates the two is one's intention. Gradual behavioral modification tempts one to long for the said behavior, while the intention to never commit the said sinful behavior again for good asks on God's goodness to empower one to live up to it. Can one simply stop while I am on gradual modification? Even the question itself is out of logic. The living up of one's faith in purity is far more meritorious even I have only achieved a two day masturbation free life, compared to the other, achieving a free masturbation life in theory if I just gradually modify my sinful behavior. Can one then intend to not sin anymore while you can do it on a limit like only twice a week? You tell me. Besides, the defined truth of faith above is binding on all. Clinical trials focusing on doing easy good acts rather than just avoiding what is evil gradually is a recommended study. In short intending to not sin anymore even it just lasted for 24 hours is morally pure compared to intending to not sin anymore but with a cache of 2 times per week relapse only target that becomes morally impure even just in the intentional level.
If I may say, after all has been said above, I open up the topic that a real compulsive can use gradual modification, not as a moral consensus but as the only way a real compulsive can heal oneself completely. Since real compulsion is very difficult to establish upon oneself, it is of utmost importance to establish when did the sexual addiction started. Since my case started as a child of 3 to 5 years of age without remorse up till the said intercession of the Santo Niño when I was 11 years old but without any idea how to heal such compulsion, I give myself the benefit of the doubt that I contracted a real compulsion for the sake of example. However gradual modification is prone to abuse. How do I reevaluate if my compulsion is already healed? And let tomorrow take care of itself. Let go of the 3 or 2 times per week limit to your relapses, and live the present moment only. Let it go in the hands of our merciful Father. Let our original stand against gradual modification become final.
Here we are to discuss it anew against the science of behavioral modification namely in comparison with a non sinful behavior of coffee drinking. (With the moral principle that some acts are inherently evil like masturbation compared to coffee drinking which isn't evil, the latter on the other hand becomes evil by circumstances like drinking to excess or drinking at night when you already need to sleep. While moral principles states that through, for example, habit, moral culpability can be lessened, masturbation cannot become a good act unless by, for example, a special case of pressure that every hostage will be killed every hour if one will not masturbate live online to one's ill repute.)
It was effective to lessen one's caffeine from 400mg gradually to 300mg, and then 150mg, and then 100mg, to none if one feels not drinking caffeine, and do it without any withdrawal symptoms like migraine headache. There is nothing morally questionable in this. There are proofs rather that mild coffee drinking are a migraine remedy and helps combat liver cancer. It shows then that coffee drinking is a morally good act too.
However there is something questionable in the following. It may be effective to lessen one's masturbation from a natural base of 2.6x/week to 2x/week gradually up to none finally. Can the ultimate target of zero relapse validate the means? (Remember the moral principle that an end cannot justify the means.) If it is effective perhaps, even the Church will prescribe such behavioral modification.
But it isn't effective as I have already discussed on Part 1 link above. (This also motivate you to read my unpublished book as I have said that there are some pointers there not elaborated elsewhere here on my blog. I've included there on page 36 readings discussing the idea that by the grace of God you can simply stop sexual addiction. "To assert that someone who repeatedly commits mortal sins cannot respond to God’s grace and simply stop committing them, given willingness to stop, is to deny a defined truth of faith." WCC CMP 17 Ques F #6.) Even though sexual addiction is likened to cocaine addiction on brain scan, the difference between the two are worth investigating when it comes to gradual modification being effective for drug addiction in general. First and foremost is that cocaine is still a foreign object and drug addiction is inherently evil, while sexual orgasm is natural and when done inside the sacrament of marriage, is a morally good act.
So even at this second evaluation, I still uphold that gradual modification for sexual addiction is not appropriate in all respect.
What then is the difference between gradual behavioral modification vs. limiting one's relapse if waves of sexual addiction comes? The factor that differentiates the two is one's intention. Gradual behavioral modification tempts one to long for the said behavior, while the intention to never commit the said sinful behavior again for good asks on God's goodness to empower one to live up to it. Can one simply stop while I am on gradual modification? Even the question itself is out of logic. The living up of one's faith in purity is far more meritorious even I have only achieved a two day masturbation free life, compared to the other, achieving a free masturbation life in theory if I just gradually modify my sinful behavior. Can one then intend to not sin anymore while you can do it on a limit like only twice a week? You tell me. Besides, the defined truth of faith above is binding on all. Clinical trials focusing on doing easy good acts rather than just avoiding what is evil gradually is a recommended study. In short intending to not sin anymore even it just lasted for 24 hours is morally pure compared to intending to not sin anymore but with a cache of 2 times per week relapse only target that becomes morally impure even just in the intentional level.
If I may say, after all has been said above, I open up the topic that a real compulsive can use gradual modification, not as a moral consensus but as the only way a real compulsive can heal oneself completely. Since real compulsion is very difficult to establish upon oneself, it is of utmost importance to establish when did the sexual addiction started. Since my case started as a child of 3 to 5 years of age without remorse up till the said intercession of the Santo Niño when I was 11 years old but without any idea how to heal such compulsion, I give myself the benefit of the doubt that I contracted a real compulsion for the sake of example. However gradual modification is prone to abuse. How do I reevaluate if my compulsion is already healed? And let tomorrow take care of itself. Let go of the 3 or 2 times per week limit to your relapses, and live the present moment only. Let it go in the hands of our merciful Father. Let our original stand against gradual modification become final.
A religious who lived very close to St John Bosco was asked whether the Saint was ever worried in the midst of his countless works, in his sometimes tumultuous life. The religious replied in this manner: "Don Bosco never, not even a minute before, thought about what he was about to do a minute later." Don Bosco, who understood the action of grace, always sought to do the will of God in the present moment. And following this path he fulfilled his vocation. -https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/de-mattei-the-only-way-to-be-happy-is-to-live-a-holy-life
Continuation of this article can be read: Alternative vs Gradual Modification
No comments:
Post a Comment