D
Debora123
Guest
Yes, that is what I meant. I already know the Church’s stance on marital sex - it needs to end with the husband in the right place. i meant anal sex just as foreplay.
- Status
R
roelblomsma
Guest
The Bible states very clear that you can’t sodomize anyone (in any situation).
D
Debora123
Guest
Right, so it looks to me as though the Church has no stance on it, meaning there is no ban, no label of it being a mortal sin.
Thanks again!
C
centurionguard
Guest
No need to be sarcastic!
May I suggest some light reading here:
America’s Abandonment of the Founding:
The Absence of Natural Law ashbrook.org/publicat/respub/v8n2/rankin.html
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
For some reason, I find the “Catholic Kama Sutra” comment hilarious.There is no such thing as the Catholic Kama Sutra. The Church is likely never going to produce a detailed and specific guide as to what is allowed in the marital bedroom. If they did, I think many, many people would be greatly scandalized.
D
Debora123
Guest
I was not being sarcastic
U
underacloud
Guest
Feel free to quote the scripture and to show that your translation fits into this specific circumstance (heterosexual anal sex as foreplay). Like I said, there is debate regarding what specifically sodomy refers to in the scritpures, and many scholars will state that it specifically refers to male-male acts. Others will state that it is even less clear than that, and there is debate as to exactly why the men of Sodom were punished.
The issue is not “very clear” at all.
D
Debora123
Guest
I think this is the most accurate info I found, provided to me by another member here at CAF:
U
underacloud
Guest
I believe completely in the authority of the Magisterium to interpret scripture and tradition and to guide Catholics in matters of faith and morals. The point is that the Magisterium has not guided Catholics on this particular topic.
No one has said that the Church has condoned, explicitly or implicitly, this act. But neither has it condemned it. If souls are at risk, surely the Magesterium would teach on the issue. Debora has asked if the Church has an official teaching on this, and you or anyone who condemns the act cannot provide one.
(Like Debora, I have no bias in this debate. I don’t practice this act and find it “icky”. Even if I did find it intriguing, I know my wife wouldn’t be up for it, so that’s that. My interest in the topic is purely academic.)
V
VivaCristoRey27
Guest
(The thread on the same topic in the other forum was closed so I will reproduce one of my longer posts here)
I have not read Christopher West’s books or studied the “Theology of the Body” teachings of JPII so I cannot comment on Christopher West’s opinions. However, based on St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, we have some principles we can work with. (I hope I am not being too obtuse in attempting to maintain some sense of modesty in mixed company.)
The purpose of the marital act is reproduction. Male genitals were made for female genitals, female genitals were made for male genitals. With regards to oral sex, it can be utilized in order to provide the needed stimulation to make the marital act possible if certain principles are followed. One of these principles is distinguishing between what is passive and what is active. When discussing a moral act, there is always the person who acts (active) and the person or object that is acted upon (passive). In the marital act, the nature of the act is such that the male is active and the female is passive (regardless of who is being more aggressive). It is the male organ that acts upon the female organ (‘vas’), not vice versa.
It is immoral to substitute another body part or object for either the male organ or the female organ. So thus oral stimulation on the man is morally licit as long as the mouth does not take the place of female organ. That is to say, as long as the woman takes the active role in this rather than a passive one. The same goes for the other direction, the man can orally stimulate the woman but again neither body parts nor foreign objects can morally substitute for the male organ. That is to say that all stimulation done by anything apart from the male organ must be done externally and not substitute for the male organ by penetration.
So when we discuss the issue of the posterior, how can it be licit? Here the backside is substituted for the ‘vas’ without a doubt, even if there is no pollution and hence it is immoral. However, It may be licit (again, I am not a moral theologian and I have not seen this discussed) to utilize other body parts or even foreign objects to stimulate that region since the genitals do not factor into it. But it still seems to be unnatural and disordered, akin to a fetish (a true fetish is where the erotic stimulation normally provided by the opposite sex is replaced by some other object – such as feet or women’s stockings) and so it should be ignored for the sake of modesty even though a small minority of individuals seem to have a proclivity towards anal stimulation. God gave us reproductive organs and that’s not one of them.
I was then asked for more specifics on where from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. St. Thomas:
Summa:
Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, formerly professor of dogmatic and moral theology at the FSSP seminary in the United States and a solid Thomist gives a candid overview of the issues during a series of talks on marriage (this was to an audience of men). He tries to balance speaking frankly and speaking modestly about the issues but errors on the side of frankness. Here is the sermon (44min).
I have not read Christopher West’s books or studied the “Theology of the Body” teachings of JPII so I cannot comment on Christopher West’s opinions. However, based on St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus, we have some principles we can work with. (I hope I am not being too obtuse in attempting to maintain some sense of modesty in mixed company.)
The purpose of the marital act is reproduction. Male genitals were made for female genitals, female genitals were made for male genitals. With regards to oral sex, it can be utilized in order to provide the needed stimulation to make the marital act possible if certain principles are followed. One of these principles is distinguishing between what is passive and what is active. When discussing a moral act, there is always the person who acts (active) and the person or object that is acted upon (passive). In the marital act, the nature of the act is such that the male is active and the female is passive (regardless of who is being more aggressive). It is the male organ that acts upon the female organ (‘vas’), not vice versa.
It is immoral to substitute another body part or object for either the male organ or the female organ. So thus oral stimulation on the man is morally licit as long as the mouth does not take the place of female organ. That is to say, as long as the woman takes the active role in this rather than a passive one. The same goes for the other direction, the man can orally stimulate the woman but again neither body parts nor foreign objects can morally substitute for the male organ. That is to say that all stimulation done by anything apart from the male organ must be done externally and not substitute for the male organ by penetration.
So when we discuss the issue of the posterior, how can it be licit? Here the backside is substituted for the ‘vas’ without a doubt, even if there is no pollution and hence it is immoral. However, It may be licit (again, I am not a moral theologian and I have not seen this discussed) to utilize other body parts or even foreign objects to stimulate that region since the genitals do not factor into it. But it still seems to be unnatural and disordered, akin to a fetish (a true fetish is where the erotic stimulation normally provided by the opposite sex is replaced by some other object – such as feet or women’s stockings) and so it should be ignored for the sake of modesty even though a small minority of individuals seem to have a proclivity towards anal stimulation. God gave us reproductive organs and that’s not one of them.
I was then asked for more specifics on where from St. Thomas and St. Alphonsus. St. Thomas:
ibid. A.12:
St. Alphonsus treats of the issue in Theologia Moralis, Bk. IV, Tract. IV, Sect. 466. St. Alphonsus treats explicitly of these issues but it is in Latin so it softens it somewhat.
Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, formerly professor of dogmatic and moral theology at the FSSP seminary in the United States and a solid Thomist gives a candid overview of the issues during a series of talks on marriage (this was to an audience of men). He tries to balance speaking frankly and speaking modestly about the issues but errors on the side of frankness. Here is the sermon (44min).
U
underacloud
Guest
A few responses to this:
Firstly, neither the Summa nor the other texts/talks you cite are required to be followed. They do not constitute teaching of the Magisterium. They are great works and worthy of consideration, but not infallible or required.
Secondly, the section of the Summa you cite still does not clarify the issue. Anal sex as replacement for copulation is clearly prohibited. But we are not talking about anal sex as a replacement for proper copulation. Anal sex as foreplay, followed by proper copulation, is not explicitly covered by Augustine there.
Thirdly, you introduce a premise of passive-active as principles within the marital act, but offer no introduction or justification for this premise.
Fourthly, it is interesting that Augustine defines the “vice of sodomy” as male-male or female-female sex. This is clearly at odds with others in this thread who would contend that sodomy refers to any anal sex, including hetero.
Firstly, neither the Summa nor the other texts/talks you cite are required to be followed. They do not constitute teaching of the Magisterium. They are great works and worthy of consideration, but not infallible or required.
Secondly, the section of the Summa you cite still does not clarify the issue. Anal sex as replacement for copulation is clearly prohibited. But we are not talking about anal sex as a replacement for proper copulation. Anal sex as foreplay, followed by proper copulation, is not explicitly covered by Augustine there.
Thirdly, you introduce a premise of passive-active as principles within the marital act, but offer no introduction or justification for this premise.
Fourthly, it is interesting that Augustine defines the “vice of sodomy” as male-male or female-female sex. This is clearly at odds with others in this thread who would contend that sodomy refers to any anal sex, including hetero.
S
secondeve
Guest
And therein lies the problem. No wonder that people outside the Church believe we Catholics are a repressed sex-hating bunch. Anal sex is practised every day by millions of couples in the world (including me and my husband) and is perfectly natural and normal. It is not dangerous, dirty or evil. When are Catholics going to stop pushing their noses into other people’s sex lives. The main problem for some people is that anal sex is extremely pleasurable and they have a problem with that. ie they don’t like to see other people enjoying themselves. Why would "many many people " be scandalized by a Catholic Kama Sutra? Because they believe sex is evil, as did eg St Augustine, who taught that Christians should take as little pleasure as possiible from the sexual act.There is no such thing as the Catholic Kama Sutra. The Church is likely never going to produce a detailed and specific guide as to what is allowed in the marital bedroom. If they did, I think many, many people would be greatly scandalized.
D
Debora123
Guest
I think this all refers to perfect sodomy, not imperfect sodomy. (please see my post #48). And as someone else here already pointed out, this is not Church doctrine.
D
Debora123
Guest
I would never do it personally, but I have heard that it can be very pleasurable and arousing for a lot of people.
Trying to tell someone it’s wrong just because** I **think it’s gross would be inappropriate and a little immature, IMHO.
…Few things bug me more around here than people trying to tell others that a certain action is wrong even though the Church doesn’t condemn it. Who do they think they are, God or something? The pope?? Ridiculous.
S
secondeve
Guest
Absolutely. Personally, I think we should be very carefull in handing out judgements in a matter in which solemn infallible pronouncements are thin on the ground, if not non-existent. Thank you for being tolerant.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Respectfully; your attempt to support the Fr. Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology” of Perfect Sodomy in Marriage is outrageously and morally controversial.
Any form of Sodomy practiced by any gender married or single is nothing but Evil.
In cross referencing statements made in your other thread Sodomy intrinsically Evil?; I see a lot of secular humanism and moral relativism being used in an attempt to morally legitimize Anal Sex/Sodomy in a Catholic Marriage.
Peace
Chris
C
centurionguard
Guest
Looking at all the Modern vile nuances of Anal Sex depicted here at Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex
I can hardly believe the Catholic Church would condone any of it or give dispensations to Catholic Married couples to explore any of it in what ever fashion.
Perfect Sodomy? What a farce!
I can hardly believe the Catholic Church would condone any of it or give dispensations to Catholic Married couples to explore any of it in what ever fashion.
Perfect Sodomy? What a farce!
B
Brendan
Guest
CG, those are terms used in Moral Theology.
“Perfect Sodomy”, in essence, refers to completed sodomy, sodomy where the copulative act is completed.
“Imperfect Sodomy” referes to cases where anal intercourse is started, but the act is not completed.
What exactly is your issue with Fr. Heribert Jone’s “Moral Theology”. It was the world wide standard Seminary text book on the sinfullness of individual action for the early to mid 20th Century?
It is indexed by particular act and then describes the sinfullness, or non sinfullness of the act, along with any mitigating factors.
I am certainly NOT a proponet of doing what was described.
But the fact remains, if someone went into the confessional during the 20’s to 60’s just about anywhere in the world and confessed the act described under 'imperfect sodomy" with their spouse; the priest, if he did not remember it from his Moral Theology class, would have looked it up in his in confessional copy of Jone’s and told the penitent what they did was not a sin.
While I personally think that anal penetration as an act of foreplay is abosolutely, positively disgusting and unhygenic, I have to concur that the Church does not find it an act against Natural Law.
B
Brendan
Guest
FYI,
My copy is the 15th English Edition, copyright 1961
The imprimatur is from +John Wright, Bishop of Pittsburgh, dated Dec 8. 1961
The section on Sodomy is #757
My copy is the 15th English Edition, copyright 1961
The imprimatur is from +John Wright, Bishop of Pittsburgh, dated Dec 8. 1961
The section on Sodomy is #757
W
Warrior1979
Guest
One thing that has become very evident during my analysis of various Catholic issues is that the Magisterium typically doesn’t go out of their way make infallible statements on matters that don’t have Scriptural basis. The “ban” on this type of sex as foreplay between married couples doesn’t have Scriptural basis, which is likely no pronouncement of the ban has been made by the Magesterium.
- Status