Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[davidv]

Unfortunately and curiously sodomy is not even listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You would think, so great a sin it is, that it would be listed.

It is listed. It is called a “homosexual act” and judged to be an act “of grave depravity.”

Ref: CCC 2357

 

[Amandil]

Unfortunately and curiously sodomy is not even listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You would think, so great a sin it is, that it would be listed.

It doesn’t need to be listed by word. All the acts that the word “sodomy” apply to are explicitly condemned by the Catechism.(CCC 2351, 2352, & 2357).

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I haven’t read through the thread (but I will ) but I start with is that Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Then I might add all the things that the Church ultimately teaches as disordered (contraception, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, pornography, masturbation, etc.) to emphasize that people who are gay are not singled out as “disordered” because that’s how they might understand it (this also knocks the homophobes of their high horse or at least gets their attention). I probably have to come back to marriage since same sex marriage is increasingly legal and recognized and fall back on the Church teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman, etc. etc.

I guess I don’t focus on the acts, because I don’t find it a compelling argument for myself. A lot of people find sex between two people of the same sex icky (and there seems to be an significant amount of people who are freaked out my affection between people of the same sex) and freak out about it and think that should make it compelling reason…and I don’t have that same squick factor.

I also don’t really like talking about sex acts so I try not to go there. And people making a against anal sex sometimes cite dubious information and anal sex doesn’t apply to lesbians so it becomes less and less compelling.

Now I’ll read the thread to see what I’ve missed.

 

[Miserissima]

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?

Based on the info we have AC/DC the guidelines listed upthread:

If we are going to start parsing words and courting definitions, there is a difference between “sex to completion by the male” and “stimulation where intercourse ends the proscribed way.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is listed. It is called a “homosexual act” and judged to be an act “of grave depravity.”

Ref: CCC 2357

Oral sex (covered under “sodomy”) is referred to as the “homosexual act”? That’s hardly plausible.

 

[Julianna]

How about this… everyone stay out of everyone’s bedroom? Simple really.

 

[underacloud]

If anyone wishes to understand what conjugal love is PLEASE READ THE CATECHISM.You cannot go wrong.These beautiful spiritual teachings were approved by Bl John Paul 2,soon to be a saint!This holy man had such a deep and profound understanding of theology and morality.

As I stated before there are many offering opinions but the authority is in our Catechism.Too many people neglect this authoritative compendium of our beliefs and teachings.

The catechism describes the basis for Catholic sexual ethics. Sex is to be between husband and wife, and must be unitive and open to procreation.

Beyond this, the catechism does not provide a list of what is allowed and what is banned between husband and wife. No official Church document does this. The Church does not choose to impose strict rules on married couples regarding sex (other than the two noted above), so I don’t understand why others want to take it upon themselves to do so.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I haven’t read through the thread (but I will ) but I start with is that Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Then I might add all the things that the Church ultimately teaches as disordered (contraception, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, pornography, masturbation, etc.) to emphasize that people who are gay are not singled out as “disordered” because that’s how they might understand it (this also knocks the homophobes of their high horse or at least gets their attention).

But for that very same reason, I think discussion of sex acts is beneficial to clarifying the matter. When you say that “extramarital sex is wrong”, and then you tell gay people they can’t get married to each other, they get awfully curious awfully fast about *why *they can’t get married. The ban on masturbation doesn’t explain that, and appealing to the wrongness of extramarital sex is circular. So what’s wrong with gay marriage?

My answer would be that there is a problem with particular sex acts. And I have experienced that for myself: that certain sex acts are not only not lifegiving, but they also are self-centered. It’s not that the person involved with the act has to be selfish, but rather that the activity itself tends toward the selfishness of at least one of the partners.

The marital embrace – done well – is not that way. The act itself becomes more and more wonderful the less you care about your own pleasure.

When you pin the problem on the sex acts, the philosophical basis for the opposition to gay marriage gets a lot clearer, I think. But then there is a problem: modern marriages are being destroyed by sexual selfishness, characterized by an obsession with oral and anal sex. And even the Church seems to be OK with this, to some point, since they are (at best) looking the other way while it is taught that these things are morally licit, with certain qualifications.

But nobody listens to the qualifications. They just think – as you suggest – that sex acts don’t matter. If you’re married and open to life, you’re good. But I just think that might be dangerously false.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Church does not choose to impose strict rules on married couples regarding sex (other than the two noted above), so I don’t understand why others want to take it upon themselves to do so.

The same reason any rational person would want to give a rule to another person: because they think following the rule will make the person happy and healthy.

It will be a VERY sad day when we stop trying to make rules for each other, and rules for our children.

 

[underacloud]

It is listed. It is called a “homosexual act” and judged to be an act “of grave depravity.”

Ref: CCC 2357

Let’s look at that reference (with my bolding):

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

That reference is clearly, as bolded by me, refering to relations between men or between women. It is not at all related to husbands and wives. By its very defitition, a husband and wife cannot even engage in a homosexual activity, and thus cannot be condemned for it.

 

[underacloud]

The same reason any rational person would want to give a rule to another person: because they think following the rule will make the person happy and healthy.

It will be a VERY sad day when we stop trying to make rules for each other, and rules for our children.

And sometimes rules are imposed that seem arbitrary and not in the interests of the person. Is oral stimulation some sort of risk to a married couples happiness or health? For many couples, oral stimulation is a wonderful aid to their mutual enjoyment of the marriage act.

I’m not against rules. But in moral matters I prefer the Church to offer them. When others try to impose strict rules, on this or any other topic, that the Church has not seen fit to impose, I tend to view them with caution. When wieghed against the principles offered by the Church for marital relations (unitive and open to procreation), I can find no basis for saying that oral stimulation between marriaed couples, as a prelude to completed intercourse, is wrong.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

That reference is clearly, as bolded by me, refering to relations between men or between women. It is not at all related to husbands and wives. By its very defitition, a husband and wife cannot even engage in a homosexual activity, and thus cannot be condemned for it.

Using that logic, though, a sexual act committed by two heterosexual men or by a homosexual man and a heterosexual man does not fall under the rubric of homosexuality as at least one person in either scenario does not experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex. In this way, twenty-year old heterosexuals in an experimental sexual phase will not ever have committed a homosexual act even if they’ve had sex with someone of the same sex. Which is odd, no?

You’re reading suggests that the catechism defines homosexuality as: sexual stuff that homosexuals get up to. I would argue that’s a very self-reflexive and therefore highly dubious definition. I would further suggest, therefore, that your literal reading is flawed.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[underacloud]

Grace & Peace!

Using that logic, though, a sexual act committed by two heterosexual men or by a homosexual man and a heterosexual man does not fall under the rubric of homosexuality as at least one person in either scenario does not experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex. In this way, twenty-year old heterosexuals in an experimental sexual phase will not ever have committed a homosexual act even if they’ve had sex with someone of the same sex. Which is odd, no?

You’re reading suggests that the catechism defines homosexuality as: sexual stuff that homosexuals get up to. I would argue that’s a very self-reflexive and therefore highly dubious definition. I would further suggest, therefore, that your literal reading is flawed.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I was merely noting that the CCC reference davidv offered did not say what he was implying it said.

Whether my interpretation of this specific reference is definicent or not, I am noting that the catechism simply does not comment on specific sex acts between married couples.

As for a couple of heterosexuals experimenting, their acts would still be prohibited, as being outside of marriage, and as not being open to life. We don’t need to label the acts as “homosexual” or not to know that they’re wrong either way.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When wieghed against the principles offered by the Church for marital relations (unitive and open to procreation), I can find no basis for saying that oral stimulation between marriaed couples, as a prelude to completed intercourse, is wrong.

It doesn’t matter what you think. It’s what God intended according to the natural law, a teaching of the Catholic Church. The penis was not designed for the mouth. Nor was the mouth designed for the vagina. They were designed for urinating and procreation, both necessary bodily functions for the individual and the race.

That something gives pleasure is no warrant for saying it is not wrong. If that were so, gluttony would be good. Alcoholism would be good. Heroine would be good. But they are not.

 

[Amandil]

Another problem is that if the Church really started getting into specifics, the more narrow and pedantic the laws and definitions get, the more narrow and pedantic those who really want nothing more than to continue those sins get.

You see it in legal proceedings constantly, people arguing over what the meaning of the word “is” is and such.

You’re always going to have those people who rationalize their sins away or operate under the motto, “its easier/better to ask for forgiveness than permission.”

You’d think common sense would recognize that you error on the side of NOT committing a sin.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

There is no such thing as justice? No such thing as condemnation?

I suppose that is a comforting thought for you.

 

[underacloud]

It doesn’t matter what you think. It’s what God intended according to the natural law, a teaching of the Catholic Church. The penis was not designed for the mouth. Nor was the mouth designed for the vagina. They were designed for urinating and procreation, both necessary bodily functions for the individual and the race.

That something gives pleasure is no warrant for saying it is not wrong. If that were so, gluttony would be good. Alcoholism would be good. Heroine would be good. But they are not.

You won’t find what you are saying in the teaching of the Church. The Church has never spoken against oral stimulation, nor defined it as unnatural. To say it is unnatural is merely your opinion.

The hands, mouth, genitals, etc all have many different functions. Who are you to say what is a “natural” function and what is unnatural and thus prohibited? If the Church wants to do so, I will obey. But she does not.

Many typical faithful Catholic married couples would find such sexual activity to be entirely natural.

 

[Amandil]

You won’t find what you are saying in the teaching of the Church. The Church has never spoken against oral stimulation, nor defined it as unnatural. To say it is unnatural is merely your opinion.

The hands, mouth, genitals, etc all have many different functions. Who are you to say what is a “natural” function and what is unnatural and thus prohibited? If the Church wants to do so, I will obey. But she does not.

Many typical faithful Catholic married couples would find such sexual activity to be entirely natural.

And you just proved my point.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

But for that very same reason, I think discussion of sex acts is beneficial to clarifying the matter. When you say that “extramarital sex is wrong”, and then you tell gay people they can’t get married to each other, they get awfully curious awfully fast about *why *they can’t get married. The ban on masturbation doesn’t explain that, and appealing to the wrongness of extramarital sex is circular. So what’s wrong with gay marriage?

Yeah, I know my argument isn’t going to go very far with a lot of people, but might (and has) made a point here and there and be satisfying enough for some.

After taking a couple of philosophy classes from a very liberal professor I realized that being honest about falling back on the Church was the best place for me to rest while everyone else duked it out. I was able to reason just enough to let the professor know I had actually thought about it but would ultimately go to Church teaching (which to them was a cop out) while others continued arguing and found themselves backed into corners that nearly forced them to agree with incest and…other things. I was happy and secure on my little “cop out” island while it was the Hunger Games in the rest of the class. Wait…my point. My point is I don’t think most arguments are going to be persuasive and this one isn’t for me.

My answer would be that there is a problem with particular sex acts. And I have experienced that for myself: that certain sex acts are not only not lifegiving, but they also are self-centered. It’s not that the person involved with the act has to be selfish, but rather that the activity itself tends toward the selfishness of at least one of the partners.

If it seems self centered then the someone is doing it wrong, or has the wrong attitude, I should say.

The marital embrace – done well – is not that way. The act itself becomes more and more wonderful the less you care about your own pleasure.

Maybe. From reading this board alone I know a few things. There are a lot of women that do not climax from intercourse alone and couples are encouraged to try different positions but I also know that not every position is always mutually beneficial. And it doesn’t seem like that that always is enough and I think what you’re suggesting also takes oral stimulation performed on the woman off the menu. Does it? You haven’t said so explicitly (no pun intended.)

When you pin the problem on the sex acts, the philosophical basis for the opposition to gay marriage gets a lot clearer, I think. But then there is a problem: modern marriages are being destroyed by sexual selfishness, characterized by an obsession with oral and anal sex. And even the Church seems to be OK with this, to some point, since they are (at best) looking the other way while it is taught that these things are morally licit, with certain qualifications.

Maybe the opposition would become clearer (I don’t know) but is anal and oral really a problem? Someone once said that every generation acts like they invented sex and previous generations were repressed. I don’t think previous generations were repressed sexually but verbally. People didn’t talk about it in public. Are oral and anal more prevalent? Very possibly. By how much? Is the difference significant?

But nobody listens to the qualifications. They just think – as you suggest – that sex acts don’t matter. If you’re married and open to life, you’re good. But I just think that might be dangerously false.

This is why TotB are good because it can help couples talk honestly and openly about sex and church teaching. There are some acts that one person might not be okay with and part of that teaching is respecting the boundaries of one’s spouse.

 

[underacloud]

And you just proved my point.

What point? This one:

You’re always going to have those people who rationalize their sins away or operate under the motto, “its easier/better to ask for forgiveness than permission.”

You’d think common sense would recognize that you error on the side of NOT committing a sin.

If that’s your point, you should try to understand that you are begging the question here.

You can’t accuse me of trying to rationalise a sin that hasn’t first been demonstrated to be a sin.

I am all for avoiding sin. But I don’t go around avoiding every acticity that someone else chooses to label a sin, when the Church has not.