N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
This is the point.
- Status
M
Mickey
Guest
No. Anal penetration and/or insertion of genatalia into the mouth is sodomy…whether the act is finished or not. There is no way around this fact and the Catholic Church would never agree with your opinion on this matter. And a “theologian” from the 1920’s who contradicts himself does make your case.
A
ahs
Guest
The other point is that you asserted that anal stimulation is sodomy (according to my understanding of your post).
Either clarify that this is not your understanding, or provide official Catholic support for your position as I have done for mine.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
ahs, don’t bother. At this point it’s really only trolling that they’re doing. They’re trying to pass off their personal proclivities and discomfort with anything outside of purely hypothetical sexual relations which, if practiced, would probably result in an extraordinarily poor martial experience. They don’t use anything other than “my confessor said X” and “sodomy is Y” whereas those supporting the actual teaching of the church have quoted theologian after theologian and at least two popes.
Go read the Catechism. Go look at the section on sexuality and married life. There’s absolutely nothing about this issue. The Church is deliberately silent on everything except to say that sex is for marriage and must be ordered towards procreation and unity between the spouses. There’s a reason for that. I do not have the answer as to why she is silent but I’m sure she has her reasons.
Hypothetically, I imagine that part of the reason may be that there could be discord if one spouse wanted to do something that the Church explicitly said is morally licit but the other spouse was still uncomfortable. Then the spouse who wanted to engage in a certain act could use the Church’s teaching as a guilt trip or something like that. Or perhaps the Church just doesn’t need to provide anything more than a road map to salvation as opposed to a step-by-step manual.
She is very explicit when it comes to contraception, abortion, murder, theft, heresy, war and countless other issues. She is silent on specific actions leading up to the completion of the marital act and it’s very likely she has a good reason for it.
Go read the Catechism. Go look at the section on sexuality and married life. There’s absolutely nothing about this issue. The Church is deliberately silent on everything except to say that sex is for marriage and must be ordered towards procreation and unity between the spouses. There’s a reason for that. I do not have the answer as to why she is silent but I’m sure she has her reasons.
Hypothetically, I imagine that part of the reason may be that there could be discord if one spouse wanted to do something that the Church explicitly said is morally licit but the other spouse was still uncomfortable. Then the spouse who wanted to engage in a certain act could use the Church’s teaching as a guilt trip or something like that. Or perhaps the Church just doesn’t need to provide anything more than a road map to salvation as opposed to a step-by-step manual.
She is very explicit when it comes to contraception, abortion, murder, theft, heresy, war and countless other issues. She is silent on specific actions leading up to the completion of the marital act and it’s very likely she has a good reason for it.
A
ahs
Guest
The Catholic Church agrees with Jone’s definition…otherwise his work would not have been approved for use for the education of Priests.
Provide your official Catholic source to support your position, as I have. I assert that you can do no such thing and that you are relying soley on your own opinions for defining what you believe to be Church teaching. The support for my assertion is the fact that so far you have offered ZERO official Church teaching to back you up and have offered your own opinion and a secular definiiotn of sodomy.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Says you right. Says you. Not the Church. You. You are the one making this assertion. The Church does not. You are saying that the Church would never agree to it because it makes you uncomfortable. You are substituting yourself for Her doctrine just as someone who wants to use contraception would. “Well, I’m a special case and there’s no way the Church would want me to suffer, so it’s OK for me to do.” That’s the mindset of people who, in tough situations, turn to contraception to “solve” problems related to sex. It’s precisely what you are doing. You are projecting your own beliefs, your own proclivities onto the Church.
Nice work.
A
ahs
Guest
attack here]. If you don’t already know that anal sex is always considered sodomy, then I must put in a vote of “no confidence” against you.
:doh2:
You are wrong on 2 counts:
- Strawman fallacy - no one is arguing for anal sex. I clarified this for you earlier.
- If you are confusing anal sex for anal stimulation and actually mean to say that anal stimulation is always considered sodomy…“Easily asserted, easily rejected.” I have provided official Catholic documentation that states the opposite of what you are claiming. You are wrong, based on official Catholic documentation approved by the Church. You have no support for your position other than your own opinion.
A
ahs
Guest
Indeed. I wanted to praise this post…but it quickly turned into a sad reality. It becomes a sadness to see how correct you are in this statement.
A
ahs
Guest
Implicitly (I qualified it as such in that post…please re-read). “…What I mean is that, you implicitly find fault with the Church, who approved of Jone’s work to the extent that it was used for the formal education of Priests since the 1920’s. Are you more learned that Jone was? Are you more wise than the Bishops who stamped his volume wiht approval?”
Oh, and don’t forget to post the official Catholic source that supports your position.
M
Mickey
Guest
Catholic Encyclopedia: “St. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (inI. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his “Summa Theologica” he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. For this controversy see: Cornoldi, “Sententia S. Thomae etc.”, (2nd ed., Naples, 1870); Ronard de Card, “L’ordre des Freres-precheurs et l’immaculee Conception” (Brussels, 1864), Pesch, “Prael. dogm.” III (Freiburg, 1895), 170; Heinrich-Gutberlet, “Dogmat. Theol.”, VII (Mainz, 1896), 436; Tobbe, “Die Stellung des hl. Thomas zu der unbefl. Empfangnis” (Munster, 1892); C. M. Schneider, “Die unbefl. Empfangnis und die Erbsunde” (Ratisbon, 1892); Pohle, “Lehrbuch d. Dogmatik”, II (Paderborn, 1903), 254. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., “Summa Theol.”, III, Q. xxvii, a. 2, ad Sum). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of this difficulty from his own premises.”
M
Mickey
Guest
Can you show where the Church says that anal penetration and/or genatalia-to-mouth stimulation is perfectly acceptable?
V
ValPal
Guest
Classically it is also outside of marriage and not part of a unitive and procreative act.
The “splitting hairs” is relevant when discussing these issues.
As noted earlier, procreative is classically understood to mean begetting children. Permanently sterile people cannot procreate, yet the Church still refers to the intercourse between a married sterile couple as unitive and procreative. This would clearly make no sense in the classical sense.
All relevant issues must be taken into account when having this discussion. Laser surgery can’t be performed on a word/concept, removing on a section of it, then taking that one particular section and dumping into another concept to produce meaningful results.
M
Mickey
Guest
And yet he seems to contradict himself. Well at least he states that there is consumated and unconsumated sodomy…which is still sodomy.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: ―230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is
unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or
of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse
(imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-
consummated according as semination takes place or not.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
*The insertion of the erect penis into A. an anus and/or B. a mouth has classically been understood as sodomy.
Why are we splitting hairs?*
That’s what I said. It’s basic. No one refutes this except ahs.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552329/sodomy
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy
Why are we splitting hairs?*
That’s what I said. It’s basic. No one refutes this except ahs.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552329/sodomy
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy
V
ValPal
Guest
He actually contradicts your definition.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
**The point is **that married couples go into their bedrooms and do those things that they both agree will work for them, things that niether of them find degrading and both of them find pleasurable and “unitive.” This doesn’t mean ignoring church teaching, but it also doesn’t mean asking a bishop to stand over their bed to make sure that every touch is in accordance with the Magisterium…
This is still the point. This is what I’m saying. Stop throwing red herrings at me.
This is still the point. This is what I’m saying. Stop throwing red herrings at me.
V
ValPal
Guest
Now do the same with “procreative” and explain to me how sterile people have procreative sex, as the Church has stated they do.
Secular definitions are not a substitute Church definitions (direct or implied).
T
thewanderer
Guest
Seeing as his definition of sodomy is thisAnd yet he seems to contradict himself. Well at least he states that there is consumated and unconsumated sodomy…which is still sodomy.
Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone: ―230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is
unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or
of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse
(imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-
consummated according as semination takes place or not.
I fail to see how he is contradicting himself at all. It is possible for two people of the same sex to engage in unconsummated sexual behaviour, wouldn’t you agree?
- Status