anal sex between married couples

[Warrior1979]

I don’t know how somebody can make this any clearer.

Clear as mud.

What you cite makes no mention of marriage, which is of utmost important to this discussion. It is also referring to acts of sex that are clearly outside of marriage (homosexuality).

 

[centurionguard]

Clear as mud.

What you cite makes no mention of marriage, which is of utmost important to this discussion. It is also referring to acts of sex that are clearly outside of marriage (homosexuality).

Respectfully your mistaken. What I cited from Romans Chapter One applies implicitly (“not only”) to Homosexuals exclusively, but also equally in every respect applies to all Heterosexuals Married or Single.
Not unlike many Homosexuals, many Heterosexuals also engage in acts of Sodomy.
Not unless someone wants to technically split hairs and call Heterosexual sodomites Bi-Sexual then that term too is appropriate.

As you stated it is clear as mud. All fall under the letter of Moral Law.

 

[underacloud]

What specifically the act of sodomy is, as described in various parts for the bible, is not a black and white case. Some biblical scholars will say it refers to anal sex, homo or hetro, but many conservative scholars identify it with homoerotic acts, not necessarily with anal sex.

The church has discussed sodomy in different manners too. It has been defined at times as any sex act different to regular intercourse. In that regard, anal sex is no different that oral sex, yet oral sex is typically considered acceptable as a means of foreplay.

Likewise, many interpretations of Romans chapter one differ from that given above, and take it to directly refer to women engaging in sexual acts with other women, as oposed to it refering to anal sex, homo or hetro.

Clear as mud…and still open to healthy debate.

 

[Hail_Linus]

I take safety precautions when I cook in the oven, play soccer, clear the guttering, go rock climbing, put chlorine in the pool, drive the car, etc… I don’t think the fact that one needs to use safety precautions is in itself a sign that the activity is sinful.

This is exactly the fact I was pointing at. Acts that are not related to human bodily functions often require safety precautions. Bodily functions should not require safety precautions. For example, if one needs to take safety precautions to eat like adding food thickener something is wrong, in this case medically wrong.

Putting your wife at risk for harm is sinful. If you don’t believe it is harmful go talk to a gynecologist or a colo-rectal surgeon about all the surgeries he’s performed for rectal fissures.

BTW, did you know that homosexual men have to get yearly pap-smears to prevent anal cancer.

 

[mwncheesehead]

People have brought up some very good points about anal sex. The same rules apply to this as to oral stimulation: it can be used as foreplay but the husband’s orgasm must occur in the vagina. My question is why do married couples want to do this? It’s akin to sodomy, oftentime causes pain for the wife, and is gross. God made a slot V that is perfect for lovemaking…the vagina!

 

[Newbie2]

There is a risk of infection just by kissing, shaking hands, even sharing a towel. Those are just the risks of being alive. Oral sex with your own spouse (within Catholically acceptable limitations) is not any riskier unless there is an actual infection to transmit. Putting fecal matter into your wife’s vagina is completely different. Fecal matter has things like e-coli; fecal matter is infectious. Baby girls have to have there bottoms wiped away from their vagina for this very reason. Adult women do not have any special immunity to fecal matter entering their vagina.

And oral herpesvirus infection is easily transmittable to the genitals, even if one is not aware one is actively shedding the virus. Presumably, the couple would be using a condom for anal sex, but even if not, your “infection risk” argument falls flat. Herpes is not curable. Vaginal infections are. If infectious-ness and disease are our criteria, clearly oral sex should not be permissible either as foreplay.

Vaginal intercourse has the possibility of being violent but is not by nature violent. Anal intercourse is always violent. The act itself places dangerous stress on the sphincter muscle.

Not necessarily. So as not to be overly graphic, “size matters”. And violent? Define “violent”.

A husband should not use or abuse his wife merely for pleasure. A husband is supposed to love his wife as Christ loves his Church. Anal sex is intrinsically harmful and therefore it is intrinsically evil.

You keep saying anal sex (let’s assume we’re both talking anal foreplay) is intrinsically harmful but provide no evidence. Sure, it has the possibility of being so. But potentially harmful does not mean evil.

AMEN!! Not to mention anal sex is unnatural. The anus was not meant to be a substitute vagina. It’s a sick, sinful act and that’s all there is to it, IMO!!

And neither was the mouth or the hand, so we must disqualify these as well as acceptable for foreplay?

I take safety precautions when I cook in the oven, play soccer, clear the guttering, go rock climbing, put chlorine in the pool, drive the car, etc… I don’t think the fact that one needs to use safety precautions is in itself a sign that the activity is sinful.

Exactomuindo.

I have read from cover to cover Pope John Paul II masterpiece book Theology Of The Body I still frequently use it for reference.
Nowhere does Pope John Paul II describe in any implied detail that Anal Sex is morally supported or to be freely practiced in sexual fore-play as a precursor to sexual intercourse in a Catholic Marriage sanctified by God who overlooks the entire life of married life between husband and wife.

Lets not mince words and call Anal Sex for what it truly is…quite plainly without secular rationalization and political correctness it is undoubtedly an act of Sodomy period.

One can read throughout several books in the Old Testament that Sodomy was a severe grievous Sin punishable by death.

In the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Romans
Douay Rheims version Chapter One verses 17 through 32 we read:

If Sodomy is morally wrong I’m at a loss to understand how Catholic married couples can comfortably and euphemistically diminish the demoralizing act of Sodomy and make it justified within sexual foreplay in Catholic Marriage. Something seriously does not jive here.

I keep hearing Catholics say over and over again that the Magisterium has never made an official ruling on Anal Sex/Sodomy as it being permissible in Marriage sexual foreplay.

The Church shouldn’t have to spell it out and engrave it on our noses.
From a purely Scriptural standpoint; it is a gravely disordered SIN.
Catholic Married couples don’t get dispensation to carry out the Act of Sodomy even if it is consensual.

I don’t know how somebody can make this any clearer.

Yet it does not specify if such sodomy is for “completion” as sodomy or used as foreplay.

One cannot make a good argument for accepting oral foreplay and reject anal foreplay at the same time.

People have brought up some very good points about anal sex. The same rules apply to this as to oral stimulation: it can be used as foreplay but the husband’s orgasm must occur in the vagina. My question is why do married couples want to do this? It’s akin to sodomy, oftentime causes pain for the wife, and is gross. God made a slot V that is perfect for lovemaking…the vagina!

lol Slot V.

Yeah, I agree, but we’re talking about foreplay, not lovemaking here. Fine line, perhaps, but a line nonetheless.

Theologically, there is no evidence that anal foreplay is any more forbidden than oral foreplay or manual foreplay; one cannot accept one or two and reject the other, this given the condition that one partner is not injuring or hurting the other, that such acts are mutual and that they are done as foreplay.

While it may not be a good idea i.e. potentially injurious or distasteful, such are not valid theological criteria for rejecting anal foreplay as inherently sinful. Otherwise, oral and manual stimulation would be forbidden as well.

Be clear, I’m not in favor of the practice, I think it a very bad idea. I have degrees in Medical Technology and have spent years looking under the microscope at the billions of bacteria in the colon just waiting patiently to cause an infection. It’s definitely taking a risk.

 

[centurionguard]

What specifically the act of sodomy is, as described in various parts for the bible, is not a black and white case. Some biblical scholars will say it refers to anal sex, homo or hetro, but many conservative scholars identify it with homoerotic acts, not necessarily with anal sex.

The church has discussed sodomy in different manners too. It has been defined at times as any sex act different to regular intercourse. In that regard, anal sex is no different that oral sex, yet oral sex is typically considered acceptable as a means of foreplay.

Likewise, many interpretations of Romans chapter one differ from that given above, and take it to directly refer to women engaging in sexual acts with other women, as oposed to it refering to anal sex, homo or hetro.

Clear as mud…and still open to healthy debate.

Personally; I would ignore any self-righteous conservative so-called Catholic scholar that places Anal Sex/Sodomy on an equal footing with Oral Sex.

 

[Newbie2]

Personally; I would ignore any self-righteous conservative so-called Catholic scholar that places Anal Sex/Sodomy on an equal footing with Oral Sex.

Theologically, what is the difference between the oral cavity and the rectum? (Concerning foreplay)

 

[centurionguard]

And neither was the mouth or the hand, so we must disqualify these as well as acceptable for foreplay?

Exactomuindo.

Yet it does not specify if such sodomy is for “completion” as sodomy or used as foreplay.

One cannot make a good argument for accepting oral foreplay and reject anal foreplay at the same time.

lol Slot V.

Yeah, I agree, but we’re talking about foreplay, not lovemaking here. Fine line, perhaps, but a line nonetheless.

Theologically, there is no evidence that anal foreplay is any more forbidden than oral foreplay or manual foreplay; one cannot accept one or two and reject the other, this given the condition that one partner is not injuring or hurting the other, that such acts are mutual and that they are done as foreplay.

While it may not be a good idea i.e. potentially injurious or distasteful, such are not valid theological criteria for rejecting anal foreplay as inherently sinful. Otherwise, oral and manual stimulation would be forbidden as well.

Be clear, I’m not in favor of the practice, I think it a very bad idea. I have degrees in Medical Technology and have spent years looking under the microscope at the billions of bacteria in the colon just waiting patiently to cause an infection. It’s definitely taking a risk.

Theologically, there is no evidence that anal foreplay is any more forbidden than oral foreplay or manual foreplay; one cannot accept one or two and reject the other, this given the condition that one partner is not injuring or hurting the other, that such acts are mutual and that they are done as foreplay.

Then how about on Biblical grounds alone.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it as if you seem to keep saying there’s no real definable difference between Oral or Anal Sex.

On what basis do you support this premise?

Peace
Chris

 

[centurionguard]

I get the strong impression that Heterosexual Married Couples want a free ticket ride that dissolves them from any Moral responsibility to engage in Homosexual acts of Sodomy.

 

[Newbie2]

Then how about on Biblical grounds alone.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it as if you seem to keep saying there’s no real definable difference between Oral or Anal Sex.

On what basis do you support this premise?

Peace
Chris

…as foreplay, and manual stimulation is included as well. We need to make that distinction. All are extra-genital stimulation of the genitals, and as such if intended as an “end” of the sexual act, would be sinful.

The premise is supported in the context of them all being extra-genital stimulation done as foreplay.

I get the strong impression that Heterosexual Married Couples want a free ticket ride that dissolves them from any Moral responsibility to engage in Homosexual acts of Sodomy.

Well, it would be very difficult for them to engage in any homosexual act with each other, wouldn’t it?

We have to keep in mind, also, that most definitions of sodomy include oral-genital stimulation.

 

[centurionguard]

…as foreplay, and manual stimulation is included as well. We need to make that distinction. All are extra-genital stimulation of the genitals, and as such if intended as an “end” of the sexual act, would be sinful.

The premise is supported in the context of them all being extra-genital stimulation done as foreplay.

Well, it would be very difficult for them to engage in any homosexual act with each other, wouldn’t it?

We have to keep in mind, also, that most definitions of sodomy include oral-genital stimulation.

Well, it would be very difficult for them to engage in any homosexual act with each other, wouldn’t it?

Actually if a Catholic Married couple is exercising the act of Anal Sex between them their technically not heterosexual anymore but both Bi-Sexual

We have to keep in mind, also, that most definitions of sodomy include oral-genital stimulation

No disagreement here…both Oral and Anal Sex are comprised in the full expression of Sodomy.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

**There is a common misconception that anal sex is practised almost exclusively by gay men. This is certainly not the case. An estimated one third of gay couples do not include anal intercourse in their lovemaking. About one third of heterosexual couples try it from time to time.

It is thought that about 10 per cent of heterosexual couples have anal intercourse as a more regular feature of their lovemaking. In absolute numbers, more heterosexual couples have anal sex than homosexual couples, because more people are heterosexual.**

 

[Debora123]

I get the strong impression that Heterosexual Married Couples want a free ticket ride that dissolves them from any Moral responsibility to engage in Homosexual acts of Sodomy.

This is an unfair accusation and false assumption.

Everyone here made it quite clear that we all think anal play is gross and would never do it, and don’t WANT to do it.

I started this thread, NOT because I wanted OPINIONS, but bc I was curious as to whether or not there was a Catholic BAN on anal play between married couples. I got my answer - there is NOT.

Thanks everyone.

 

[Warrior1979]

Respectfully your mistaken. What I cited from Romans Chapter One applies implicitly (“not only”) to Homosexuals exclusively, but also equally in every respect applies to all Heterosexuals Married or Single.
Not unlike many Homosexuals, many Heterosexuals also engage in acts of Sodomy.
Not unless someone wants to technically split hairs and call Heterosexual sodomites Bi-Sexual then that term too is appropriate.

As you stated it is clear as mud. All fall under the letter of Moral Law.

To clarify, your citation speaks of “women with women” and “men with men,” not “men with women.” Reading is to mean “men and woman having sodomy” is a great leap, but I see how one could be interpret it that way because it doesn’t specifically exclude that possibility.

BTW, I’m not making an opinion on the subject matter either way, but I believe the passages are discussing homosexuality, not various relations between men and woman.

 

[centurionguard]

This is an unfair accusation and false assumption.

Everyone here made it quite clear that we all think anal play is gross and would never do it, and don’t WANT to do it.

I started this thread, NOT because I wanted OPINIONS, but bc I was curious as to whether or not there was a Catholic BAN on anal play between married couples. I got my answer - there is NOT.

Thanks everyone.

With all due respect I’m curious as to your beliefs stating there’s NO Catholic Ban restricting Anal Sex/Sodomy in exclusive favor of Catholic Married Couples.

Please state the Catholic source.

Peace
Chris

 

[Debora123]

With all due respect I’m curious as to your beliefs stating there’s NO Catholic Ban restricting Anal Sex/Sodomy in exclusive favor of Catholic Married Couples.

Please state the Catholic source.

Peace
Chris

My proof that there is no ban on this act?

How can I prove the non existence of something?? lol

On my OP, I asked if there was official Catholic ban on anal sex, and have since learned that there is none.

 

[tlimon]

Some pithy words of advice from my potty training days: “Poop is for the toilet.” I like to waxing on in discourse as much as the next person. Sometimes, though, the simplest advice is the best advice. The vagina is wonderful and procreative. The anus is disgusting (that’s where poop comes from) and digestive. The vagina is okay but the anus is not. Simple.

 

[Newbie2]

Again, folks, let’s distinguish between anal foreplay and anal sex to “completion”. Clearly, anal sex to completion is forbidden,as is oral sex to completion, “hand” sex to completion, foot sex to completion, etc. etc…the possibilities are endless.

Best, methinks, to stick to the term “anal foreplay” if that’s what we mean.

 

[centurionguard]

There’s absolutely nothing written in Natural Law that says Sodomy is Morally sound or condoned by anyone.

The Rite of Sodomy: alcazar.net/Book_Sodomy.pdf

rcf.org/docs/droleskeyriteofsodomy.htm

Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, which included a study of all of the Church Fathers, including Saint Peter Damian and Saint Bernardino of Siena, on the vice of sodomy, I can categorically state that the Catholic Church has always defined sodomy to include anal penetration, with or without ejaculation.

The act of sodomy, whether carried by homosexuals or by heterosexual spouses, is intrinsically evil and a perversion. A married couple who engages in anal penetration and then goes on to normal coitus has engaged in two separate acts - the first, sodomy, is a grave sin, whether or not ejaculation has occurred. Further, the physiology of anal copulation is such that it would be most difficult to prevent ejaculation.

Where is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found?
Isn’t 2000 years of Church teachings on the immorality of sodomy good enough?

Divine Revelation is made up of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which are, in turn, interpreted authentically by the Sacred Magisterium of the Church.

Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, and is the soul of Sacred Theology, not vice versa. Proof texting sodomy in the Bible is not the way to go.

Sacred Tradition is the supernatural infusion of the Living Truth of the faith, the same for everyone, handed on not so much by ourselves, by almost as if by hand (it looks that way), that is, quasi per manus, for it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The Sacred Magisterium is found, par excellence, with the successor of Peter. We know that many lesser individuals, however nice and sincere and otherwise orthodox, are simply wrong about this or that, not having the gift of infallibility. Imprimaturs or having a name are not the criteria by which one should judge the viability of someone’s statements, as some around the internet have triumphantly insisted.

The only ‘tradition’ to which the pro-sodomites belong is their own little, relatively extremely pansexual group. Claiming and condoning the argumentative practice of Sodomy/Anal Sex between Catholic Married Couples, and then condone this as part of teachings within Catholic moral tradition, is misleading. Salvation of souls are at grave risk.

Why is our Church’s moral teaching tradition getting such a bad rap in modernistic circles within the Church today? Could it be that the crisis of pederasty and homosexuality in the Catholic Church has usurped and drained the minds of so many?

The Failing of Orthodoxy within the walls of the Catholic Church today couldn’t be at a worse time and at such great awful risk.

 

[Debora123]

Some pithy words of advice from my potty training days: “Poop is for the toilet.” I like to waxing on in discourse as much as the next person. Sometimes, though, the simplest advice is the best advice. The vagina is wonderful and procreative. The anus is disgusting (that’s where poop comes from) and digestive. The vagina is okay but the anus is not. Simple.

hahahaha, that’s hilarious! and agreed 100%.

i wasn’t looking for advice though, just curious about the church’s stance.