From my reading of what is quoted, he is making it clear that a wife is not guilty of the sin of (completed) sodomy on the part of her husband, as long as she does not cooperate in it.
It is exactly the same logic that permits a spouse to have sex with a contracepting spouse, as long as their objection is clear.
So, if a woman came to confession to confess the sin of completed anal sex, the priest would assure her that if she did not directly cooperate in it, but passively accepted her husband’s sin, then she has not sinned herself.
And I see no reason to interpret this as a recommended action; merely a morally acceptable one.
How is that supposed to work in theory? Are we to believe that both are supposedly enjoying the foreplay section of the event and the woman has to then detect through some means the exact moment of the ejaculation upon which she stops feeling her supposed pleasure and makes an internal resistence to it? The reality is that the physiology of the area makes finalisation there likely most of the time. Anecdotally I know that the use of this practice is nearly always done to completion where its most pleasurable for the male… not as foreplay.
Jone’s confession guide is just one of many formulated to address the problems of the era they were written in. He revised it at least 13 times to address the flock at the time. Taken in isolation they simply don’t have any timeless merit. Jone was a priest in 1920s to 1960’s Europe and a time when women did just close their eyes and think of England. The womans experience was of very little importance to conjugal morality. Jone was renowned for looking for ways to signify reduced culpability in this unequal environment. According to this assessment
“Jone provided a host of nervous conditions that diminished the agent’s moral responsibility: neurasthenia, hysteria, compulsive disorders, melancholia, hypochondria, inferiority, etc.”
usfca.edu/uploadedFiles/Destinations/Institutes_and_Centers/Lane/Events/documents/KeenanLecture7.2.08forhtml.pdf
Some other sinful things included…
To the Sabbath…Servile works are forbidden even though done gratis, as a form of recreation, or for some pious purposes. About two and a half or three hours of such work, according to its arduousness, is a grievous sin. Thus, operating a modern washing machine, which consists in putting the clothes in the machine, pressing a button, removing and hanging clothes, would be only a venial sin. He later acknowledged that indispensable housework is legitimate Sunday work.
He provided innumerable excuses for missing mass, including persons who cannot endure the air of the church (e.g., certain neurotic persons and sometimes pregnant women in the first or last months of pregnancy)…women and children who would incur the grave displeasure of their husbands or parents by attending mass….those who have reason to
think that by staying at home they can hinder sin; or who would suffer injury to their good name or possessions by going to Church.liii
and more of the ideas of the day espoused as sin by Jone…
“it is venially sinful to glance at the indecent parts of another of the same sex or to look at them out of curiosity,” “it is venially sinful out of curiosity to observe animals mating if no sexual pleasure is caused.”
“Touching animals indecently is generally not gravely sinful, unless it is done with an
evil intention or for a long time or until the animal suffers pollution.”
These are ideas that belonged to a time and place we have not a lot of familiarity with or proper understanding of the whys and whats of the culture. All of those things make a difference to how something can constitute a case of diminished responsibility in one era and constitute a moral offense in another.
