Hey, I’m not here to fight! Like I said, I believe your position (that there’s no dogmatic statement) is the right one. Apart from Fr. Jone’s quote, all the others are from Denzinger, which is a collection of theological documents from the Church and is fairly representative of the “ordinary Magisterium”; some of them (like the prohibition on completed heterosexual anal sex) are authoritative, I guess.
representative of the ordinary Magisterium? The Catechism is supposed to reflect the Magisterium ! If the Catechism calls homosexual acts disordered and depraved I think that pretty well reflects the magisterium.The catechism is about as authoritative as you can get.I will stick with that thanks
I think a number 4 is missing.
Well said and very clearly put.The lack of fertility does not change whether the act is ordered toward procreation. There is no Church teaching that the marital act is only permitted when one is fertile.
I disagree,historically and biblically the ACTs are sodomy. The catechism does not have to be explicit anatomically,It goes on to state that these acts have always been considered depraved. How could introducing fecal bacteria into your spouse not be depraved?Because you are married that makes it morally acceptable?
CJ, “homosexual acts” in the Catechism means just that - sexual acts between people of the same gender, with no specific anatomical reference intended. Admittedly, that doesn’t answer the question completely, but it does provide some context for this discussion.
I’m not defending the act (God forbid!); I’m just providing food for thought. None of it (and especially not the private opinions of theologians, even if they have the Imprimatur) is authoritative.
Exactly,because an imprimatur can be withdrawn.It has been done before by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,the highest moral and theological teaching body of the Church.
I thank you for answering. I have read it, and I may be dense, but it still doesn’t specify whether “oral sex” between a husband and wife is a sin. Is there a definitive answer?
I looked into this, since it was so shocking, and my results:
Depends on what you mean by “oral sex”. My opinion is that most things people label as oral sex would be properly labeled sodomy or mutual masturbation. In which case, these are clearly defined as immoral by Church teaching.
I’m going to ask my question in broad terms, and then fill in some of the details. The question is this: Does the fact that Catholic married couples are now permitted to engage in various activities – including activities that were once considered sodomy, like oral stimulation – make it more difficult for us to provide a consistent witness to the sinfulness of homosexual acts?
I bring this up because of a comment by a poster in another thread, who said something that (frankly) shocked me: he said that certain theologians were considering whether anal sex “without consummation” could be licit among married couples, if it had a canonical conclusion. Now throughout history this act of anal sex has been resoundingly and repeatedly condemned by the Church – and now we are supposed to believe that the Church’s objection applies only to the depositing of seed in the anus, and not to the action of anal penetration?
Now I don’t think those theologians are mainstream, but it got me thinking. When we tell homosexuals that “homosexual activity” is wrong, I always thought we were saying that a particular activity was wrong – an activity that would be wrong for straight people too. I have heard a distinction made between fornicating couples and sexually active homosexual couples, and this distinction too made sense to me, so long as the fornicating couple was only engaging in intercourse, since intercourse is naturally fecund.
But once we say that married couples may have oral sex as foreplay, and so on, it becomes very hard to understand how there could be something intrinsically wrong with certain acts, as opposed to the gender of the people who commit those acts – and it was always Church teaching that sodomy was a specific sexual act that was not concerned with the gender of its participants.
But now I feel like Church teaching has become fuzzy, since oral sex is permitted within certain limits. And the caveat that it not be done to the point of orgasm is not a real distinction, because (among homosexuals) both oral and anal sex are often done without any orgasm being involved. It’s obvious, historically, that one commit sodomy without ejaculating.
How can we explain why gay sex is wrong in this landscape? Have theologians been wrong to tolerate such changes in Catholic moral teaching? What should we do now?