Sin of the Sodomites

[GloriaPatri4]

bluezone7:

Anal sex and oral sex between heterosexuals could be used as a prerequisite to vaginal intercourse, which can create life.

Anal sex just seems like it would be wrong even if it is a prerequisite to vaginal intercourse. The anus has a function and I don’t think intercourse was part of the plan. Bodily bacteria laced waste is expelled from the anus why would anyone want to put an instrument that was intended to plant a seed to make new life into such a place and then insert it into vagina where the bacteria would be introduced? What other bodily orifice has a higher bacterial content than the anus? None.

Are there any church teachings on this?

 

[elizabeth4truth]

GloriaPatri4:

Anal sex just seems like it would be wrong even if it is a prerequisite to vaginal intercourse. The anus has a function and I don’t think intercourse was part of the plan. Bodily bacteria laced waste is expelled from the anus why would anyone want to put an instrument that was intended to plant a seed to make new life into such a place? What other bodily orifice has a higher bacterial content than the anus? None.

Are there any church teachings on this?

I agree with you 100%. Besides that has anyone else ever been so constipated that when they finally went the sensation was excruciating? It isn’t exactly a pleasure center.

Still have this burning question, “Could oral ejaculation be the Original Sin committed by Adam and Eve?”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This thread took a wrong turn at Albequerque and is head straight over the edge of the Grand Canyon.

 

[elizabeth4truth]

Timidity:

When we read the euphemism “sin of the Sodomites”, does that refer strctly to homosexual acts, or does it also refer to similar acts that a man and woman might engage in?

The extra credit question is “how do we know?”

Thanks, and let’s keep the language vague, please.

Scott,

Here is the original question. How did it take a wrong turn? “sin of the Sodomites” include oral sex doesn’t it? That is a similar act men and women engage in isn’t it?

I don’t understand your comment. Sorry.

Elizabeth

 

[DaMaMaXiMuS]

Rich I considered the same thing you said, I’ve heard of Mr. West as being somewhat of an authority before. So it would make sense that he would take strict precautions not to be contrary to church teaching.

But still I would like to know if there are official church writings on this, and if so I would like to read them to see how the church leaders came to their understanding scripturally. I see one of the ladies to first post on this thread, GloriaPatri4, sort of asks the same thing. Are their any church teachings on this?

The thing is that when I looked up sodomy in the dictionary among it’s definitions it’s defined as both anal and oral sex commited by either 2 men or a man and women. Now I know from reading scripture, that as far as I’ve been able to understand the referrences to sodomites seem to have been speaking of homosexuality, (men with men).

So I’m wondering if the churche’s definition to sodomy is only limited to men with men, and if this is why these acts are allowed between married hetersexual couples as long as it leads to vaginal intercourse. I realize that the dictionary definition is what’s probably causing the dilema in my mind.

Needless to say I’m very curious to know how the church officially teaches on this subject so that I can examine it. Incidently, I’ve tried asking a apologist on these matters, I’ve posted on ask an apologist thread and even called and left a message, but haven’t gotten any responses yet.

As for the other question raised by Elizabeth4truth, “Could Original sin have been oral ejaculation?” I for one really don’t know. Elizabeth what leads you to think it may have been this?

 

[buffalo]

?

The thing is that when I looked up sodomy in the dictionary among it’s definitions it’s defined as both anal and oral sex commited by either 2 men or a man and women. Now I know from reading scripture, that as far as I’ve been able to understand the referrences to sodomites seem to have been speaking of homosexuality, (men with men).

So I’m wondering if the churche’s definition to sodomy is only limited to men with men, and if this is why these acts are allowed between married hetersexual couples as long as it leads to vaginal intercourse. I realize that the dictionary definition is what’s probably causing the dilema in my mind.

For a real eye opener look up the word truth - circa 1850, then 1900, 1950 and today.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

I think the sodomy laws in the U.S. was finally struck down by the Supreme Court but when it existed (it may still in a few states) most of the laws applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Sodomy Law
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Scott_Lafrance:

This thread took a wrong turn at Albequerque and is head straight over the edge of the Grand Canyon.

Dear Scott,

If you are referring to my graphic post I’m sorry if it offended you. There was a time when our society viewed anal sex whether it was between homosexuals or heterosexuals as abhorrent it was a place that most folk did not go. Our society now views it as just another sexual activity.

 

[catsrus]

I’ve heard that “gays” consider the sin of the sodomites to be inhospitality.
For real.

 

[elizabeth4truth]

DaMaMaXiMuS:

As for the other question raised by Elizabeth4truth, “Could Original sin have been oral ejaculation?” I for one really don’t know. Elizabeth what leads you to think it may have been this?

Dear DaMaMaXiMuS,

First, thank you for responding in such a gentle manner. This subject is sooooo difficult to approach because it implies Adam possibly had more culpability in the act, then maybe we’ve thought. I too have asked this question of the Apologist, but have not received an answer, as of yet.

What led me to this question is the study of Genesis. If you can, please re-read it with the thought that this could have been the act of original sin. It makes sense to me.

First God told Adam, not Eve, not to eat of the tree or even touch it. This was before Eve was created. Maybe He was telling Adam not to masturbate because things weren’t complete for him until Eve was created, to correspond with his maleness.

Second, my bible says Genesis is an allegory, “a figurative story with a veiled meaning.” I’ve never understood the tree in the center of the garden. I can’t picture a physical tree, being more important than man, in God’s sight. Men have been described, like trees. Maybe the tree in the center of the garden was Adam’s? Maybe he was confused about physical sensations he was getting, before Eve was created, and didn’t know what to do about it?

Men produce “fruit” each time they ejaculate, don’t they? The possibility of life exists, every time…unless they don’t climax in the right place.

If we look at the punishment of Adam and Eve, wasn’t it really self-inflicted? Didn’t God give them what they asked for? I guess it bowls down to Adam asking Eve and Eve saying “yes”. In this light it makes sense why Eve’s urge then was turn toward her husband and he became her master.

There is more to consider but I’m short on time now.

Does any of this make any sense? Is it possible? I don’t know either. I wish I did or that someone would refute it logically for me so my spirit might be at ease over the whole topic.

 

[miguel]

elizabeth4truth:

Is it possible the Original Sin was oral ejaculation?

I think that is a sin. But I don’t think it was the original sin. Personally, I don’t see the connection with eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That’s all we’re told. I don’t see how you can read anything more into it than that.

 

[buffalo]

elizabeth4truth:

Dear DaMaMaXiMuS,

First, thank you for responding in such a gentle manner. This subject is sooooo difficult to approach because it implies Adam possibly had more culpability in the act, then maybe we’ve thought. I too have asked this question of the Apologist, but have not received an answer, as of yet.

What led me to this question is the study of Genesis. If you can, please re-read it with the thought that this could have been the act of original sin. It makes sense to me.

First God told Adam, not Eve, not to eat of the tree or even touch it. This was before Eve was created. Maybe He was telling Adam not to masturbate because things weren’t complete for him until Eve was created, to correspond with his maleness.

Second, my bible says Genesis is an allegory, “a figurative story with a veiled meaning.” I’ve never understood the tree in the center of the garden. I can’t picture a physical tree, being more important than man, in God’s sight. Men have been described, like trees. Maybe the tree in the center of the garden was Adam’s? Maybe he was confused about physical sensations he was getting, before Eve was created, and didn’t know what to do about it?

Men produce “fruit” each time they ejaculate, don’t they? The possibility of life exists, every time…unless they don’t climax in the right place.

If we look at the punishment of Adam and Eve, wasn’t it really self-inflicted? Didn’t God give them what they asked for? I guess it bowls down to Adam asking Eve and Eve saying “yes”. In this light it makes sense why Eve’s urge then was turn toward her husband and he became her master.

There is more to consider but I’m short on time now.

Does any of this make any sense? Is it possible? I don’t know either. I wish I did or that someone would refute it logically for me so my spirit might be at ease over the whole topic.

In the garden Adam and Eve were tempted to eat of the tree of knowledge because they were tricked into believing that they could be like God, all knowing and omniscient. God has no body. I don’t think yur post fits with this.

 

[elizabeth4truth]

buffalo:

In the garden Adam and Eve were tempted to eat of the tree of knowledge because they were tricked into believing that they could be like God, all knowing and omniscient. God has no body. I don’t think yur post fits with this.

Dear Buffalo,

Thank you for writing.

I see what you are saying, if we look upon the tree as merely a tree. What do you imagine the “tree of knowledge” was? A physical tree, unlike any other? I’m sorry but my limited brain can’t understand that concept. In the front of my bible it states that Genesis is an allegory, “a figurative story with veiled meaning.” What does that mean about the tree? Was it a spruce or some other sort, that no longer exists on earth?

You said, “because they were tricked into believing that they could be like God.” What does that mean? Did they think they could be greater then themselves? That they could create something from nothing, like God? When Adam became Eve’s master, was that like making him god over Eve, in a way? Was man given rule, over woman, until Jesus came, because that is what they asked for, by eating of the tree?

When they first discovered shame, was it because they had eaten fruit from a tree or because they had oral sex? Where did sexual perversion start? With man and woman or with man and man? Aren’t we ashamed we are naked because of sexual perversion?Didn’t they try to cover up their shame by Adam blaming God for giving him Eve, then he blamed Eve and then Eve blamed the snake?

 

[buffalo]

elizabeth4truth:

Dear Buffalo,

Thank you for writing.

I see what you are saying, if we look upon the tree as merely a tree. What do you imagine the “tree of knowledge” was? A physical tree, unlike any other? I’m sorry but my limited brain can’t understand that concept. In the front of my bible it states that Genesis is an allegory, “a figurative story with veiled meaning.” What does that mean about the tree? Was it a spruce or some other sort, that no longer exists on earth?

You said, “because they were tricked into believing that they could be like God.” What does that mean? Did they think they could be greater then themselves? That they could create something from nothing, like God? When Adam became Eve’s master, was that like making him god over Eve, in a way? Was man given rule, over woman, until Jesus came, because that is what they asked for, by eating of the tree?

When they first discovered shame, was it because they had eaten fruit from a tree or because they had oral sex? Where did sexual perversion start? With man and woman or with man and man? Aren’t we ashamed we are naked because of sexual perversion?Didn’t they try to cover up their shame by Adam blaming God for giving him Eve, then he blamed Eve and then Eve blamed the snake?

Sexual perversion started after as you can see here in the Catechism:
** How to read the account of the fall**

390 The account of the fall in *Genesis *3 uses figurative language, **but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.**264 Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.265

** III. ORIGINAL SIN **

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."276 The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"277 symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.** This is what man’s first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.**

398 In that sin man *preferred *himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.279

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed:** the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”.284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”,285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286**
__________________

 

[buffalo]

401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain’s murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ’s atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man’s history:

What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.288

 

[RichT]

DaMaMaXiMuS:

Rich I considered the same thing you said, I’ve heard of Mr. West as being somewhat of an authority before. So it would make sense that he would take strict precautions not to be contrary to church teaching.

But still I would like to know if there are official church writings on this, and if so I would like to read them to see how the church leaders came to their understanding scripturally. I see one of the ladies to first post on this thread, GloriaPatri4, sort of asks the same thing. Are their any church teachings on this?

The thing is that when I looked up sodomy in the dictionary among it’s definitions it’s defined as both anal and oral sex commited by either 2 men or a man and women. Now I know from reading scripture, that as far as I’ve been able to understand the referrences to sodomites seem to have been speaking of homosexuality, (men with men).

So I’m wondering if the churche’s definition to sodomy is only limited to men with men, and if this is why these acts are allowed between married hetersexual couples as long as it leads to vaginal intercourse. I realize that the dictionary definition is what’s probably causing the dilema in my mind.

Needless to say I’m very curious to know how the church officially teaches on this subject so that I can examine it. Incidently, I’ve tried asking a apologist on these matters, I’ve posted on ask an apologist thread and even called and left a message, but haven’t gotten any responses yet.

As for the other question raised by Elizabeth4truth, “Could Original sin have been oral ejaculation?” I for one really don’t know. Elizabeth what leads you to think it may have been this?

I wont pretend to be an expert on the history of the word Sodomy. I do beleive it to be a word that has evolved to mean more than what it origianlly meant. I recall reading somewhere that the original meaning was taken from the story of the Sodomites, meaning homosexuality, or more specificly, anal sex between two men. It’s meaning has grown over the centuries to include much more. For example, you may hear in the case of child abuse that a man sodomized a young boy or in the case of rape that a man sodomized a woman. This use of the word generally brings up notions of a forceful violent sex act.

As far as official church teaching, I don’t know of any. And then again, if there were any that forbids sodomy, what definition of the word do you use? I think West’s approach to the subject is a logical and safe approach. He doesn’t say the church forbids it as an act of foreplay between a man and his wife, but he sure does make a good argument against it.

Unfortunately, our church has been a little quiet in the past regarding sexual matters, so I tend to think there is no real*** clear*** teaching on this specific subject.

 

[Michael_T]

Here is my attempt at explaining Catholic teaching on sexual morality regarding issues discussed in this thread:

Years ago, my grandma taught her children that in marriage, “No kiss or touch is wrong, as long as the seed is not wasted.”

This is an essentially correct formulation of Catholic teaching on sex in marriage, although it is a simplified version of the truth.

All completed sexual acts within Catholic sexual morality must be: male/female complimentary, within the context of marriage, and open to life. This is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

*2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. (CCC 2361 - 2363)*

and

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (CCC 2366)

For the full context of the above, see: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

continued…

 

[Michael_T]

Therefore, deducing from the above, it follows that certain sexual acts involving touching and kissing, and even oral sex may be done morally, so long as they are not done in a manner which causes a complete sexual act in the man with the result of the wasting of his semen (and therefore a completed sexual act which is not ordered to life per se). So technically, oral sex, in marriage, is allowed. However, it may not be performed to completion on a man, but only as an act of foreplay. If it should accidentally result in ejaculation, this would not be sinful because it was not volitional, or it would be partially sinful if the orgasm and ejaculation were partially willed by the husband, wife, or both. It should be noted that human weakness can involve intellectually deceiving yourself, and it truly would have to be accidental and completely unintentional in order to not be sinful. I would add that St. Alphonsus Ligouri (the doctor of moral theology within the Church) advises against oral intercourse within marriage (for the man) because “the danger of pollution [ejaculation] is too great”.

Arguments against anal intercourse in Christian marriage are in keeping with the principles stated above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and posit the following reasons: anal intercourse is unsanitary and does damage to the anus, which is not a sexual organ. Since all sexual acts must be male/female complimentary, within the context of marriage, and open to life, anal intercourse is not permissible, since going from anal intercourse to vaginal intercourse is extremely unhealthy and can cause serious infection. Therefore, anal intercourse does not lend itself towards sexual acts that are ordered towards procreation per se.

continued…

 

[Michael_T]

These three Church documents should help in further understanding Church teaching on sexual morality inside and outside of marriage:

Casti Connubii
Encyclical Of Pope Pius XI
On Christian Marriage

Persona Humana
Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
December 29, 1975

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
Pontifical Council for the Family
Guidelines for Education Within the Family
November 21, 1995

Pope John Paul II wrote about sexual morality extensively in his “Theology of the Body” and in a work titled “Love & Responsibility”. I recommend them:

The Theology of the Body According to John Paul II: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Parish Resources)
by Pope John Paul II

Love and Responsibility
by Karol Wojtyla, H.T. Willetts (Translator)

I also recommend:

Sex and the Sacred City
by Steve Kellmeyer

Good News About Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching
by Christopher West

Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s "Gospel of the Body
by Christopher West

Sexual Wisdom: A Guide for Parents, Young Adults, Educators, and Physicians
by Richard Wetzel (M.D.)

This article features an interview with Dr. Wetzel about his book:

No One Needs Sex
Orange County Doctor and Author Discusses Sexual Wisdom
By Christopher Zehnder

 

[Starsweeper]

Michael T.- Thanks for the links and great advice, I agree with just about everything you said!