Unfortunately I don’t have the exact citation as I read it probably over ten years ago. he dedicate an entire section to lust which is a wonderful read and it was within lust. Maybe Joie de vivre knows the citation or an English version? St Alfonso’s entire moral theology isvery good so if you find an eEnglish version and have the time, reading the entire section of lust may give you a great understanding on it.
I will look into it. Thanks!
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?
Fr. Jone was wrong. If you have anal sex with your wife before turning her around and depositing your seed in her vagina, it is wrong. You have defiled your penis even if not contaminated with fecal matter and you have indeed wasted seminal fluid because in the sexual act, seminal fluid flows before ejaculation. I don’t dare to imagine our saints who have really known God being involved in that type of action without repenting and confessing it. On the other end, you have the Immaculate Conception which shines a light on what is Godly and pure. Of course, we are humans and our means of conceiving are different from those in which God had direct intervention, but they shouldn’t be sullied by sodomy.Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: ―I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…‖ (―3. The Sins of Married People,‖ Section 757.)
Note that Jone had been writing this in his book since 1929 (from the source I have), so this isn’t a “Spirit of Vatican II” innovation. This book was printed, with an Imprimatur, under the papacies of Pius XI and XII - as “conservative” as you can get.
True. But as Jone points out above, “sodomy” is a completed act
The “change” happened before Vatican II, so I now hand over to a priest or expert in moral theology to set us straight (pun not intended.)
Yes, I think that you’re right both in terms of theology and in terms of understanding what the nature of the acts is. Ejaculation seems completely irrelevant to me – anal sex and oral sex are not acts which manifest complementarity, and they are not acts which embody a gift of self.
I’m curious. Does the church condone oral sex? I have never heard of such a thing.
Some interpreters of Church teaching say that oral sex is fine so long as (a) the man does not ejaculate, and (b) the act is intended as foreplay. This interpretation is so common as to be the “party line” I hear, even on a site like CAF.
Yes. The Church’s arguments would be much stronger if their focus was on the importance of unitive and procreative unions rather than individual acts.
It’s not legalism to say that anal sex is wrong for married couples, no more than it’s legalism to say that rape is wrong. No one is saying that kissing one’s spouse’s body in certain spots is wrong – that would be legalism.
There is a flip flop on sexual teaching between Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.
Jaaa, What do you mean by this? What is a revealed law? And if you are implying that oral and anal sex are OK between man and wife, please site the Catechism or whatever I may have missed.
Yes me too. Where in the Catholic teachings is this said to be okay?
A married couple deeply in love would know what is right and wrong in their bedroom.
