anal sex between married couples

[Bobby_Jim]

Having sex with the light on, having sex from behind, using a mirror, oral sex etc have all been regarded as “deviant” by repressed people who are ashamed and guilty about simply being sexual. Do we really want to go back to the “bad old days” when most men were unaware of the existence of the clitoris, jokes about sex were “dirty jokes” and Christians were notorious for being repressed? Anal play is normal and enjoyable for millions of people. If you don’t want to do it, that’s fine, but don’t put decent people (like me and my husband) down for something that some people are too guilt-ridden to enjoy. These are not the things we should be worrying about. Try worrying about those thousands of “chaste”, “celibate”,“modestly dressed” clergy who have shamefully abused young children. Whatever the causes of that disgraceful episode (and the cover-ups by Bishops, Cardinals and, apparently, the Pope himself) one of the reasons may well be the guilt-ridden way most Catholic children were brought up. Some of them with their twisted values ended up becoming Priests. Maybe if they had been taught to enjoy their bodies in a normal natural way they would not have raped young children.

of course it comes to this, if I suggest that modern widespread interest in male-to-female anal intercourse and certain other sexual practices is related, directly or indirectly, to the mainstreaming of the multi-billion dollar pornography industry then I must be promoting GUILT and sexual REPRESSION and that married couples should be IGNORANT about sex, and that because sex with the lights on was once considered taboo there is thus an equivalency of all formerly taboo practices. good grief.

Furthermore I doubt very much that the horrible sexual abuse of children by priests has much to do with repressed or misdirected sexual desire. But that’s off the topic here.

 

[Debora123]

So none of the moral and faith issues in these documents are infallible? Interesting…

I don’t think that’s what she meant. I think she’s just asking if there are any infallible statements regarding sexual matters specifically:

If you believe that there are infallible statements about sexual matters, please answer my question and tell me what they are (with references please ).

 

[Debora123]

of course it comes to this, if I suggest that modern widespread interest in male-to-female anal intercourse and certain other sexual practices is related, directly or indirectly, to the mainstreaming of the multi-billion dollar pornography industry then I must be promoting GUILT and sexual REPRESSION and that married couples should be IGNORANT about sex, and that because sex with the lights on was once considered taboo there is thus an equivalency of all formerly taboo practices. good grief.

Sorry to break it to you, but that is what it looks like.

What about all the other sexual acts? Do you think they all came from porn too, and are therefore intrinsically evil?

Let’s see, there’s oral sex, doggy style, mutual masturbation, girl on top, sexy lingerie, etc etc…

Did THOSE all come from porn too? Are they all intrinsically evil as a result??

 

[secondeve]

Well, since the Catechism, Human Vitae, etc. aren’t infallible in your opinion, I guess there aren’t any.

I’ll take it that you can’t produce any such statements, then.

 

[minkymurph]

So I was talking on a thread when the subject of sodomy came up. Someone said that anal sex is always a mortal sin… intrinsically evil.

But I distinctly remember discussing the issue back in collage when I was in the Catholic Student Association, and one of my peers (a knowledgeable and devout Catholic) mentioned that anal sex is ok as long as it is used as marital foreplay and as long as the husband finishes inside his wife… same concept as oral sex.

Don’t get me wrong, I think anal sex is totally gross and uncalled for (no offense to anyone), but I just got confused when I heard 2 opposing views, both coming from practicing Catholics. And so I got curious.

I don’t want anyone’s opinion. I want to know the Church’s position on this, and an official source that proves it.

Is or is not the Church against anal sex in a scenario where a couple is married and using it as foreplay only?

Does the Church have to have a position on everything? In relation to this discussion, that sounds like a pun.

Seriously though, do we really want the Church to micro-manage how sex is carried out between married couples? The Church’s position is that the natural outcome of sexual intercourse is a child, and married couples should be open to this. How much detail do people expect the Church to go into? Do you know, there were people in my part of the world that used to turn the picture of Our Lady to the wall when they were having sex so she didn’t see what they were doing and be offended? How individual married couples go about the mechanics of it, and what they engage in a foreplay is their own business.

 

[Debora123]

Does the Church have to have a position on everything? In relation to this discussion, that sounds like a pun.

Seriously though, do we really want the Church to micro-manage how sex is carried out between married couples? The Church’s position is that the natural outcome of sexual intercourse is a child, and married couples should be open to this. How much detail do people expect the Church to go into? Do you know, there were people in my part of the world that used to turn the picture of Our Lady to the wall when they were having sex so she didn’t see what they were doing and be offended? How individual married couples go about the mechanics of it, and what they engage in a foreplay is their own business.

Right, I know and understand all you said above, and I agree. What you said above would lead one to conclude that yes, anal foreplay is ok.

My only confusion was when a CAF member was saying it was a sin. That’s when I got curious and started this thread, asking for a Catholic source that condemns it, if any. As there is none, I got my answer.

 

[secondeve]

of course it comes to this, if I suggest that modern widespread interest in male-to-female anal intercourse and certain other sexual practices is related, directly or indirectly, to the mainstreaming of the multi-billion dollar pornography industry then I must be promoting GUILT and sexual REPRESSION and that married couples should be IGNORANT about sex, and that because sex with the lights on was once considered taboo there is thus an equivalency of all formerly taboo practices. good grief.

Furthermore I doubt very much that the horrible sexual abuse of children by priests has much to do with repressed or misdirected sexual desire. But that’s off the topic here.

Debora has made the same points I would have made, so I have nothing to add except to say that, off-topic or not, it is hard to believe that the twisted repressive upbringing most Catholics had until recently has not contributed in some way to the dreadful and widespread child abuse by Priests. Every one of my older Catholic friends and acquaintances were made to feel morbidly guilty about sexual feelings. In those days Catholics were made to feel that sexual desire of any sort, in any degree, was mortally sinful unless it was for the purpose of making babies within marriage. Even within marriage many Priests in Confession told people outrageous lies as can be read in the book “Sex and the Confessional”.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Sorry to break it to you, but that is what it looks like.

What about all the other sexual acts? Do you think they all came from porn too, and are therefore intrinsically evil?

Let’s see, there’s oral sex, doggy style, mutual masturbation, girl on top, sexy lingerie, etc etc…

Did THOSE all come from porn too? Are they all intrinsically evil as a result??

no.

let me elaborate. none of these things “come from” porn. there are certain practices that have always existed for as long as people have been having sex. Many things never enter the imagination of a lot of people. There are however certain sexual practices that a much wider audience of people have been made aware of by pornography. I happen to believe anal sex is one of them. I also happen to believe oral sex is one of them. At the other end of the spectrum, asphixiation is one of them.

I also didn’t point out anything specific as intrinsically evil. Within the three examples I just listed, I think you see a range from “probably intrinsically evil” to “probably not intrinsically evil”. I will let you guess which I think is which.

 

[secondeve]

Does the Church have to have a position on everything? In relation to this discussion, that sounds like a pun.

Seriously though, do we really want the Church to micro-manage how sex is carried out between married couples? The Church’s position is that the natural outcome of sexual intercourse is a child, and married couples should be open to this. How much detail do people expect the Church to go into? Do you know, there were people in my part of the world that used to turn the picture of Our Lady to the wall when they were having sex so she didn’t see what they were doing and be offended? How individual married couples go about the mechanics of it, and what they engage in a foreplay is their own business.

Yes but that is just the point. In the past, and to some extent at the present day, Priests (having apparently no infallible guide to refer to), are telling the laity all sorts of outrageous stuff. Eg that oral sex is forbidden, that anal sex is forbidden, that a woman must not climax through masturbation by her partner and so on. If only things were as you say, that sex is regarded as our “own business”; but it isn’t. You can’t have it both ways. Either people should be left to get on with it, or there should be an infallible rule-book. At present, it is a “Confessional lottery”, with great damge being done. One only has to read some of the posts on here to see how deeply repressed some Catholics still are.

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Debora has made the same points I would have made, so I have nothing to add except to say that, off-topic or not, it is hard to believe that the twisted repressive upbringing most Catholics had until recently has not contributed in some way to the dreadful and widespread child abuse by Priests. Every one of my older Catholic friends and acquaintances were made to feel morbidly guilty about sexual feelings. In those days Catholics were made to feel that sexual desire of any sort, in any degree, was mortally sinful unless it was for the purpose of making babies within marriage. Even within marriage many Priests in Confession told people outrageous lies as can be read in the book “Sex and the Confessional”.

long story short I think priest sex abuse, and most sex abuse in general is much more akin to a misdirected desire for control, power, and domination. more akin to the systematic rape of women in war. it comes from a different place than sexual desire.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nature of Adultery

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17).** It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446)**.

newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

 

[secondeve]

Walking_Home:
"Nature of Adultery

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446)."

This is an opinion: not infallible, not definitive.

 

[secondeve]

Bobby_Jim:

long story short I think priest sex abuse, and most sex abuse in general is much more akin to a misdirected desire for control, power, and domination. more akin to the systematic rape of women in war. it comes from a different place than sexual desire.

You have obviously not seen the various interviews wherein Catholic Priest abusers have described their delight in fondling the genitals of small children, some as young as three. That there is a power aspect is undeniable, but that does not disprove what I wrote; on the contrary it reinforces it, making the sin even more twisted.

 

[Walking_Home]

"Nature of Adultery

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446)."

This is an opinion: not infallible, not definitive.

---

I’d say it holds more weight than Fr. Jone. But if sodomy/adultery floats your boat–well whatever.

 

[Debora123]

no.

let me elaborate. none of these things “come from” porn. there are certain practices that have always existed for as long as people have been having sex. Many things never enter the imagination of a lot of people. There are however certain sexual practices that a much wider audience of people have been made aware of by pornography. I happen to believe anal sex is one of them. I also happen to believe oral sex is one of them. At the other end of the spectrum, asphixiation is one of them.

I think it’s pretty safe to say that all sexual practices have been more widely made aware of by pornography. Including intercourse itself.

 

[secondeve]

---

I’d say it holds more weight than Fr. Jone. But if sodomy/adultery floats your boat–well whatever.

“Well, whatever”???

 

[secondeve]

I think it’s pretty safe to say that all sexual practices have been more widely made aware of by pornography. Including intercourse itself.

A good point well made.

 

[Debora123]

Nature of Adultery

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446).

newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

I can see the confusion with the quote. It says “even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy.”

“Intercourse taking the form of sodomy” I think means having anal sex instead of intercourse. Not as mere foreplay to intercourse.

 

[Walking_Home]

"Nature of Adultery

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. Alphonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446)."

This is an opinion: not infallible, not definitive.

---

Pope Benedict XVI --general audience

Saint Alphonsus Liguori

Esteemed for his goodness and for his pastoral zeal, in 1762 Alphonsus was appointed Bishop of Sant’Agata dei Goti, a ministry which he left, following the illness which debilitated him, in 1775, through a concession of Pope Pius VI. On learning of his death in 1787, which occurred after great suffering, the Pontiff exclaimed: “he was a saint!”. And he was not mistaken: Alphonsus was canonized in 1839 and in 1871 he was declared a Doctor of the Church. This title suited him for many reason.** First of all, because he offered a rich teaching of moral theology, which expressed adequately the Catholic doctrine, to the point that Pope Pius XII proclaimed him “Patron of all confessors and moral theologians”.**

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20110330_en.html

 

[Walking_Home]

I can see the confusion with the quote. It says “even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy.”

“Intercourse taking the form of sodomy” I think means having anal sex instead of intercourse. Not as mere foreplay to intercourse.

---

It is still anal intercourse—trying to white wash it by calling it “foreplay” --does not change that it is still anal intercourse/sodomy.