PAGE COLLECTIONS -- CHECK THEM OUT!

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Sodomy and Theology of the Body: The Death of Common Sense

Today is the feast of St. Charles Lwanga and Companions, the martyrs of Uganda. These 22 young men lived and died near the end of the 19th century during the reign of King Mwanga. He was a pederast who demanded that the young men of the court engage in lustful relations with him. They refused and were put to death either by being burned at the stake or beheaded. What saints for our immoral age when in-your-face homosexual lust has taken to the streets and hotel ballrooms of our country! And what was the primary sin St. Charles and his companions condemned? Sodomy.

Please, somebody explain how sodomy can be considered acceptable foreplay in a loving, Catholic marriage or any marriage for that matter. It defies common sense! If anything goes in foreplay, what's the problem with using pornography or sex toys or with tying your spouse to the bedpost?

Randy Engel has common sense on her side. I'm sorry to be critical because I respect both Smith and West, but this issue absolutely defies reason!

FROM RANDY ENGEL

Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 10:55 PM

In my two year study on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body which ran as a 7-part series in Catholic Family News (May-November 2008) and is now available online at www.newengelpublishing.com, I tackle the issue of the morality of anal penetration by married couple as a form of foreplay as explained by Christopher West.

In Chapter Five of his book Good News About Sex & Marriage – Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teachings (First Edition), in response to a question on the morality of anal sex for married couples, West states “There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” This is a false teaching and a serious moral error.

Based on my 17 years of research for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, which included a study of all of the Church Fathers, including Saint Peter Damian and Saint Bernardino of Siena, on the vice of sodomy, I can categorically state that the Catholic Church has always defined sodomy to include anal penetration, with or without ejaculation.

The act of sodomy, whether carried by homosexuals or by spouses, is intrinsically evil and a perversion. A married couple who engages in anal penetration and then goes on to normal coitus has engaged in two separate acts - the first, sodomy, is a grave sin, whether or not ejaculation has occurred. Further, the physiology of anal copulation is such that it would be most difficult to prevent ejaculation.

In West’s revised edition of Good News About Sex & Marriage, this grave moral error was not corrected. After pointing out that anal penetration is unsanitary and unaesthetic, West asserts:

Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense, there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking… it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment.

Now, alas, we have Janet Smith, claiming that:

Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible…. Perhaps it is time for ethicists to work on the question…

What madness is this?

Where, pray tell, is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found?

What question is there for ethicists to work on?

Isn’t 2000 years of Church teachings on the immorality of sodomy good enough for West or Smith?

Do West and Smith have to be reminded that not all married couples have normal sexual desires? Indeed some are drawn into sinful acts as a prelude to intercourse including sadomasochist acts, the viewing of pornography to stimulate sexual excitement, and sodomy.

Isn’t it time that TOB advocates like Christopher West and Janet Smith be held accountable for their erroneous and dangerous pronouncements on Catholic sexual morality and conjugal love?

75 comments:

  1. Unfortunately Christopher West has recieved more public attention being wrong than when, if ever, he was right.

    Jim Dorchak
    http://qm2ss.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi. My, there are a lot of rhetorical questions in here:

    "What madness is this? Where, pray tell, is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found? ... Isn’t 2000 years of Church teachings on the immorality of sodomy good enough for West or Smith?"

    But to the extent the question, "Where, pray tell, is the Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found?" was sincerely posed, I think we will find support for Smith's assertion (PROPERLY understood) in Ford & Kelly, Vermeersch, Noldin-Schmidt, and Davis, all of which I looked at today, and none of which are susceptible to claims of herterdoxy.

    Anyway, this should all probably be aired someplace other than a blog commentary. My only point is, Smith can defend her reading of the moral tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. From Fr. Heribert Jone's _Moral Theology_, Section 757, on "The Sins of Married People”:

    "Imperfect Sodomy, i.i., 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. - Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure." (emphasis mine)

    This is a classic pre-Vatican II Catholic moral theology manual, with an Imprimatur, currently reprinted by TAN Books.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Right, Christina. Notice how closely one must read these texts. "Commerce" in Jone means effusio seminis. So, he does NOT take back what he just said about AS being licit in se, altho a casual reader might think he did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I repeat my assertion that it defies common sense. If anal penetration is acceptable as foreplay, why not bondage or beating as long as your partner is willing? (I won't add pornography because that brings in third parties.)

    If anything is acceptable as foreplay provided the act is completed normally, what is the argument against sado-masochism? I'm not being sarcastic when I say that I'm not sure whether Christopher West would approve of it with the same caveats he makes about sodomy.

    With regard to Jim Dorchak's statement, of course being wrong gets more attention than being right because of the potential for public scandal. Being right doesn't hurt anyone. When you put a little poison in the brew, however, even if you added it by mistake, you can injure or kill somebody.

    We're talking about souls here. How is sodomy going to draw couples into a more loving embrace rather than to make the woman an object? While I can't speak from experience, I suspect there is little pleasure for a woman in the practice and that those who engage in it are trying to please their husbands which is so often where serious sin arises.

    In view of the physical damage sodomy causes to the sphincter muscle, it seems an obvious violation of the fifth commandment which calls on us to respect the health and dignity of the person. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us to "take reasonable care" of "life and physical health." The same commandment calls for temperence where we "avoid every kind of excess."

    Sodomy is a diseased practice. We teach little girls to wipe from front to back because of the potential to infect the vagina with fecal matter. How can it possibly not be damaging to the woman's health to engage in sodomy and then complete the act vaginally? Perhaps part of the problem here is the voices defending sodomy are mostly men and an unmarried woman. As a wife and mother, I believe sodomy has no place in the intimate relations between a husband and wife.

    I hope the debate that is occurring will result in the explicit condemnation of sodomy in the marriage bed. It is already, I believe, implicit in the fifth commandment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What's wrong with these people? Sure sounds like "situational ethics" to me...sodomy, at the right time, the right place, the right spouse, in the right sequence of events?...balderdash!

    ReplyDelete
  7. IMHO, your arguments against non-consummated rectal intercourse are good ones, Mary Ann. I think you are looking at the act from a different angle than those moral theologians did. They were probably looking at it mainly from the question of the wasting of seed, which does not occur under the circumstances cited.

    When looked at from all angles, however, this act may in fact be wrong. Which is why I agree with Dr. Smith that moral theologians should revisit the question.

    However, the quote from Fr. Jone still contradicts Randy Engle's assertion. She couldn't have done her homework on Catholic moral theology thoroughly enough if she missed that one - or the ones Ed Peters mentions from the other moral theologians.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MAK: Calm down. The only point at issue here is whether JS's assertions about the moral tradition are accurate. They clearly are. I have found more since posting. If you would like to disgaree with these giants of moral theo, by all means, go ahead, but one simply cannot claim the Smith, et al., have no support in the SOUND tradition.

    Unelss you're good at Latin, I suggest you read Ford and Kelly first. They talk about not confusing actions that are, to many, disgusting, with actions that are, for anyone, immoral. They are not always the same things.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You know, people, it's really not hard. Jone's MORAL THEOLOGY says that within marriage rectal intercourse with no emission is not a grave sin. But even if it isn't a sin that doesn't mean it's prudent to do it, for reasons such as those Mary Ann stated above. Something may be lawful but not expedient, as St. Paul wrote.

    Therefore, a valid criticism of Christopher West should be along the lines of prudence. But clearly, as demonstrated here, Randy Engle does not understand the Catholic tradition(in spite of her dubious claims) and should not be taken as a competent critic of West. She is at best giving her own private interpretation which is certainly non-binding on anybody's conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for the referrals. The complete text of Ford and Kelly, Marriage Questions, VOLUME TWO of
    Contemporary Moral Theology is available on the web. I tried to include the url, but it wouldn't post properly.

    And per your advice, EP, I took a Prozac (just joking).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Larry Craig,Mark Foley, Ted Hubbard were public figures
    who presented themselves as straight laced conservatives but
    chose to use their bullypulpit to discuss sexual issues most Americans likely found disgusting.
    Sodomy. Now we know why.
    In my opinion, any Catholic who is talking about these topics in a public forum has issues. I hope my gut instinct is wrong here, but it rarely is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Most every society in the world has always permitted capital punishment for sodomy, including the Catholic church. God left no doubt about the ACT, when he burned Sodom and Gommorah to the ground. Now, some enlightened "Catholic" is telling us this act is acceptable. Sick.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You know, I care little about what contemporary Catholic ethicists say about this subject. They are prone to the same blindness as the general culture. Any thinking person who cannot see that putting a penis into an anus is not a clear violation of the natural law is either mentally ill or is in the throes of sexual perversion. The act destroys the proper working of the human body and spreads terrible disease and infection. Just google "gay bowel disease." This is ESPECIALLY true if you "finish off" with normal intercourse and subject your poor wife to your fecal matter in her vagina. Authentic Catholic love now has to "finish off" with a dose of penicillin!

    What a pass that we've come to as Catholics. What a sad, dreary mess. I hold Smith and West responsible for a great deal of damage to married couples. Gosh, I hold them both responsible for wanting to dip myself in bleach every time I hear their names. If the Church Fathers could overhear this conversation, they'd think they were in a very specific ring of hell. Can you guess which one?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Two years ago I went to a seminar put on by my diocese. It was about annulments. I went just to listen.
    The canon lawyer in charge of annulments was asked a bunch of questions after the talk. One woman said she got an annulment about 10 years ago, and was now divorced from hubby #2. Could she apply for a second annulment.Here was the answer: Of course, we have several members in the diocese with 3 annulments and a few folks working on #4. Response: lots of laughter. This cannon lawyer told the group of mostly women, that 98% who apply for an annulment get one, and if you cannot find a reason, we are here to help you. You heard that right.
    I left that meeting wondering what is going on here.
    Now we have a catholic on the lecture circuit with a message that anal intercourse is A-OK.
    This is the slop we get when we have bishops without the faith.
    Pope Benedict, are you listening to our pleas?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Just so people know:

    Divine Revelation is made up of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, which are, in turn, interpreted authentically by the Sacred Magisterium of the Church.

    Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired, and is the soul of Sacred Theology, not vice versa. Prooftexting sodomy is not the way to go.

    Sacred Tradition is the supernatural infusion of the Living Truth of the faith, the same for everyone, handed on not so much by ourselves, by almost as if by hand (it looks that way), that is, quasi per manus, for it is the work of the Holy Spirit. A few recent comments by a few ecclesiastics does not the Holy Spirit make.

    The Sacred Magisterium is found, par excellence, with the successor of Peter. We know that many lesser individuals, however nice and sincere and otherwise orthodox, are simply wrong about this or that, not having the gift of infallibility. Imprimaturs or having a name are not the criteria by which one should judge the viability of someone’s statements, as some around the internet have triumphantly insisted.

    The only ‘tradition’ to which the pro-sodomites belong is their own little, relatively extremely recent group. Claiming an argument by such lowly authority, and then calling this the moral tradition, of all things, is misleading. Salvation of souls is at grave risk.

    Ed Peters sometimes has some good comments, as does Janet Smith, as does Christopher West, as does pretty much anyone. In defense of Ed, it should be noted that he has an interest in defending Janet: they both teach at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. That seminary was once a hell-hole. It’s much better, which is no doubt partially due to their presence there. That’s nice, but it doesn’t make either him or her correct in this matter.

    Moral Theology for many ecclesiastical students was often part of Canon Law until it was discovered that not all canon lawyers are like Saint Alphonsus Liguori, who was both a canon lawyer and a moral theologian. Some of the legalistic discussions about the spilling of the seed go back to legalistic casuistry concerning the story of Onan back in Genesis 38, which has nothing whatsoever to do with sodomy. He spilt the seed on the ground, as it is said. That doesn’t mean that sodomy is permitted if one doesn’t ultimately spill the seed except where it should be spilt! But that’s legalistic commentary on Scripture and morality for you!

    It has to be said: true beauty is not necessarily in the relativistic eye of the phenomenological beholder. Sodomy is not good for one even while it is disgusting for another. Beauty is one with what is true. Sodomy is never reflective of the truth about human sexuality.

    What is this about? It’s about treating one’s spouse as a piece of meat for one’s own perverted, selfish, actually inverted, essentially homosexual lust (certainly not eros). People scream about their free love expressed in the context of heterosexual marriage. That’s all rubbish. Why? Simply because it is merely relativistically disgusting for whatever commentator? No. Rather: Because it objectively contradicts the truth of human sexuality. It doesn’t matter whether or not this precedes what is truly intercourse. The argument about “preparation” is ludicrous on physiological and psychological levels, a reductionist argument of casuistry, sophistry really.

    What we are witnessing is the homosexualization of heterosexual marriage. This is not good, not holy. It is a grave danger to souls.

    Father George David Byers
    Chaplain of the Sanctuaries of Our Lady of Lourdes, France

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sigh.

    Just when I thought we were getting people to actually read what was virtually uncontested in PRE-Vatican II moral tomes, we get a new round of posters who obviously have no interest in or ability to do so. Okay, post your opinions as emphatically as you want, it does make you right or JS's point wrong. She is indisputably correct, it's you guys who are not using the concepts correctly. As for me defending JS because she teaches at my sem, well, I defend her because (on this point) she is right. As for me defending the homosexualization of marriage, that is LOL ridiculous.

    I can't think of anything to add, so once again, I just say, read what the likes of Jone or Vermeersch said, understand what they said (and DIDN'T say), and accept it or not. NO one's here to force you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So, he does NOT take back what he just said about AS being licit in se, altho a casual reader might think he did.

    Jone says that it is not a grave sin, not that it is not a sin. However, Jone definitely agrees with those who point out that the act is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if it is not brought to completion. I think it is obvious from the passage that follows in Jone that he does consider it at least a venial sin. Those who are claiming its licety would have to conclude that the wife need not offer resistance if there is no intention of wasting the seed. I find that difficult to justify given the language of the passage.

    Prummer makes no allowance for it whatsoever.

    As far as Ford and Kelly are concerned, there is an entry in the index for this act but it leads only to a discussion of imperfect acts in general, and they note that such acts "are never gravely sinful as violations of chastity unless they involve a serious and unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside the marriage act," which says little about whether such acts could be venial sins. And given what they say later about oral-genital contact (that there is "probably no venial sin as long as the partners have a justifying reason, for instance that these acts are necessary or useful to the achievement of satisfactory sexual relations"), I find it hard to believe that there would be no venial sin in rectal intercourse (is this act ever "necessary or useful to the achievement of satisfactory sexual relations"? I doubt it). Maybe there is a better reference in Ford and Kelly or a more explicit permissive reference in one of the other books cited by Dr. Peters.

    The fact that the act can be classified as a venial sin if there is no wasting of the seed does not mean that it is permitted. It is true that venial sins need not be confessed, and Ford and Kelly state that confessors should not try to "ferret out" venial sins from penitents, but venial sins are not permitted. We don't tell people that they are allowed to tell "little white lies" or that they're allowed to steal as long as it's less than a certain amount, do we?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thus always goes Internet discourse. Those who argue and obfuscate the loudest and longest too often prevail, even if they ignore (or don't attempt to understand) the previously stated facts.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I am NOT a Moral Theologian but I am a lowly Registered Nurse and I have a few comments against those who consider sodomy non sinful foreplay in the marital bed. Aside from being a disgusting act against the Natural Law...the catholic sexperts claim as long as the male semen is not wasted but is placed in the vagina everything is okay.....consider the myriad of bacterium and mycotic infectious material which is also deposited in the female genitalia please after sodomy ....the so called pro life theological sexperts must realize that what can harm the mother can also cause harm to the potential life being created.....Mrs Engel's piece makes so much more common sense compared to others on this blog...I would suggest they look into all medical ramifications before they assert their lustful preferences.........and men please consider the arousal factor for your spouse especially women with internal hemhorroids which is common after having given birth to children.Gross,but frank and with sarcasm for the ignorant...nothing can be more sexually arousing to a woman than having what feels like a difficult bowel movement.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In the interest of fairness, it's also worth pointing out that West does qualify his statement re: rectal intercourse in the 2nd edition of his book.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (My last comment is in response to Ed Peter's last comment, not dcs)

    The problem with the argument that it is a venial sin is that it is, so far at least, an argument from silence. "Fr. Jone says it's not a grave sin - so it must be a venial sin, even though he never actually says it is." (I do wish he had said a little more on this, but alas, he didn't. Guess the book wouldn't be so small if he went into more detail in matters.)

    Ditto Ford and Kelly: They said that oral stimulation is "probably no venial sin...," but do not similarly state whether the matter at hand is a venial sin. An argument from silence is not a very strong argument. This is why I wish the Church would clarify the matter.

    Prummer shows that this is not a universal opinion among moral theologians. No one claims that it is, of course, only that some of them held this opinion. As I heard someone say once on another blog, moral theology is not an "exact science."

    ReplyDelete
  22. As for the hygenic concerns, those are perfectly valid and it's possible the moral theologians were not aware of that aspect of the question. Thus the need to revisit the question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you Mary Ann Kreitzer, Randy Engel, Father George David Byers and others for having the courage to unmask as evil that which is evil. How unutterably sad that the day has come when those who claim to be true exponents of traditional Catholic moral teaching denigrate chastity as an aberration and exalt sodomy, sensuality and carnality as moral rectitude.

    Then what are we to make of the ancient and long-held understanding of Jesus as the "Lily of Chastity"? What of Our Lady's Virginity and her Immaculate Comception? Are all these things now as nothing?

    Kyrie eleison!

    ReplyDelete
  24. >Mrs Engel's piece makes so much more common sense compared to others on this blog...I would suggest they look into all medical ramifications before they assert their lustful preferences

    Are you suggesting that anyone here who has pointed out what PRE-Vatican II moral theologians wrote has a "lustful preference" for sodomy? If so, thanks for the calumny!

    FYI, I find the act disgusting. I'm just pointing out that Engle is mistaken in her condemnation of West and Smith.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christina,

    It is true that an argument from silence is not a strong argument, however silence on an issue does not necessarily indicate disagreement, either. So if certain moral theologians say the act is not allowed, and other moral theologians do not even discuss the act, then we can't conclude that there is disagreement among moral theologians on the matter.

    As far as the Church clarifying the matter is concerned, I very much doubt that this will happen any time soon.

    Anonymous,

    No one is "denigrating chastity" or "exalting sodomy." One would do well to read what a writer has written before criticizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. A couple of thoughts, cristina.

    1. I am sure the moral theos were aware of the hygenic objections to AP; they were simply dealing with the morality question. which is JS is dealign with. nb: ALL of them require for liceity that such acts take place by mutual consent. Either spouse could easily raise the hygenic problems, and withhold consent.

    2. The moral definition of "sodomy" differs from the legal definition and from the common understanding. Hence, much confusion above. Every good moral theo condemns "sodomy". AP is not per se sodomy in the moral tradition. Sorry if that comes as a surprise to most people posting here, but they should be aware of what terms mean in context before they debate them.

    3. One poster above, in a different forum, ridiculed JS's acknoeldgment of embarrasment at using the term "anal penetration", calling it a "wink wink" ploy to get people to listen to her. Of course, JS is emabarrased at talking about these things. Decent people would be, but at some point, plain talk is required lest euphemisms cloud the issue.

    You know, when Henry Davis deals with this, he writes only in Latin. 1,700 pages of moral theo in plain English, but when he discusses this topics (and a couple related ones)for 17 pages, he writes in Latin! Was that a wink-wink on his part?

    4. I always chuckle when people who disgaree with me pose as shining defenders of orthodoxy, when all I have done is to point out and defend what the orthodox hold. If it makes them feel better to do that, than to come to grips with what is actually at issue, well, fine. :)

    Thx for trying to understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm curious. Can anyone point to some opinions of moral theologians before the 1950s. That's pre-Vatican II, but the seeds for the post V-II rebellion were already growing and some of the sex abuse cases go back to the 50s. So what were the theologians, say before 1940, saying?

    ReplyDelete
  28. dcs said:

    "No one is "denigrating chastity" or "exalting sodomy." One would do well to read what a writer has written before criticizing it."

    Perhaps you are the one who should do the reading, dcs. There is an enormous amount of written material very supportive of Christopher West and TOB. Certain recurring themes are found in this material, including the perception of chastity as an outdated and unenlightened concept, and the perception of sodomy as acceptable on occasion.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ed,

    Are you trying to say that PRE-Vatican II tomes are exempt from critique? That they are orthodox because they are PRE-Vatican II? Is that really the level we're at? Really?

    Christopher West revised his original comments, but still had a place for sodomy in marriage for those who like that kind of thing, for whom it is, in the context of his perspective, that which is holy and good, however disgusting some, including himself, might think it is.

    Since sodomy does not in reality express the truth about human sexuality, it is intrinsically dishonest.

    Moral theology 101: The question is about what one is doing, not just the intention. The intention doesn't change what one is doing. Sodomy is sodomy. It is always intrinsically dishonest, whatever one's following actions happen to be, whatever one's intentions happen to be.

    Sodomy is mere lust, not eros, and a lust which screams out that it is homosexual in nature, whether poeple intellectually find this repugnant and would deny such a thing about themselves. America has become a homosexual anti-culture. That's the way it is. Presenting sodomy as permissable is, especially in the present anti-culture, the homosexualization of heterosexual marriage.

    Anyway, Christopher West's arguments for sodomy do not rest on your PRE-Vatican II moral theologians, but on the inversion of the ends of marriage which necessarily follows upon a relativistic epistemology of phenomenology. Janet Smith, by citing that little group (not a tradition!) is merely distracting people from the more foundational issues.

    About the now famous "wink, wink" comment: It just strikes me that anyone who can rationalize sodomy to the world is not very shy.

    Father George

    ReplyDelete
  30. Common sense dovetails with nature's laws and God's law. We don't need theologians, good or bad, to tell us practicing Catholics that anal sex wrong. We all have an inherent knowledge of sin and perversion.
    J. Smith and C. West may have something to offer those who seek compromises but they can hardly compete with the traditional Church. Alice von Hildebrand is right on target. Sex is something one does in cooperation with God.....Scripture is quite clear about unnatural acts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Father.

    I know you’re a priest and I’m just a layman, but a little less condescension toward my qualifications to discuss this matter would be appreciated. I don’t need to be told what Moral Theo 101 teaches. You, however, need to understand accurately what the moral tradition understood by “sodomy” (which it universally condemned!) and what it means by possible ‘acts preparatory to conjugal intercourse’ which acts are per se licit, though consent for them might be withheld for a number sound reasons. Would you please point out to me a single instance where I have ever endorsed “sodomy”? If you cannot, please do the right thing and apologize, or at least retract.

    Nor are you being fair in ascribing to me a blind acceptance of anything written before V-2, although I personally think that one is more likely to find good articulations of sound morals in tomes preceding V-2 than in those following. Maybe it’s just me who is more comfortable appealing to them than to most later writers. I am, in any case, quite aware that there is no bright line drawn down the middle of the 1960s in terms of who is trustworthy and who is not.

    Finally, please note that I am not defending West (I have not read him closely enough to know his position). I was answering Randy Engle’s (rhetorical?) question about where in the moral tradition JS can find support for her claims about AP as preparatory for conjugal intercourse. Either I have done that, or I have not, but don’t attack me for arguments I have not raised or frays I have not entered.

    Finally, instead of continuing to ridicule JS for acknowledging the difficulty of discussing this topic, why not reflect on the words of Ligouri: “Piget me de hac materia quae tantam prae se fert foeditatem, ut castas mentes ipso solo nomine perturbet longiorem habere sermone.” L nevertheless goes on to discuss a number of licit and illicit sexual acts. Why? Because people need to know what the truth is.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ed Peters (and Janet Smith) have asserted that there is a Catholic tradition that approves of anal penetration as a forerunner to coitus to be found, but at this time it appears that there is no such tradition that "approves" of it, but only examines when it is a grave sin and when it isn't. What is required are citations of orthodox moral theologians that affirm it is not a sin and is approved. Ed Peters says he's found citations that support the position that "AP" is approved, but until those cites can be examined by everyone here (not that the passages need be quoted verbatim here), this discussion won't get anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  33. EP: To repeat your advice to me, "Calm down." You are not the only one reading this blog and I took Father's moral theology 101 statement as a teaching to all of us, not just you.

    I think, for the most part, everyone here has been respectful in stating their opinions. A big thank you from me as moderator.

    I'm curious about how the "senus fidei" relates to this discussion.
    My husband commenteded that he doubts there are many Catholic couples doing it and those who do may have homosexual temptations and may be fantasizing. Interesting...I hadn't thought of that frankly.

    I'd also like to know what the tradition in earlier (rather than modern times) was. What were theologians of the Church saying in the middle ages, for example? And, Ed, where does the definition of sodomy come from that says AP isn't sodomy unless the act is completed? That seems counter-intuitive.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mary Ann,

    I think you and your husband are right on target.

    Paschal is brilliant to mention the Natural Law being available to everyone. Saint Paul says that even the pagans know these things, for such Natural Law is written on our of our hearts.

    Mary Ann, the sensus fidelium coincides with the Natural Law. Wonderful.

    =========

    Ed, I'm sure that you and Janet and myself agree on most everything. We have a different definition for sodomy. I say that because it is intrisically dishonest, there can be no defintion which permits it, even just a little bit. Mary Ann points that out well.

    Again, I think this entire problem will be best studied not with any prooftexting of latter day moral theologians, but by seeing what the foundations of the Theology of the Body are all about. That deals with epistemology and exegesis.

    Please God, I will be working on a major commentary on all of this in the months to come.

    No hard feelings, I hope!

    If I'm ever near Detroit, I hope I'll be able to take you and Janet out to dinner, on me. Do you accept?

    Father George

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi. At some point I have to get back to my day job, but the last couple of posts ask fair questions.

    Jordanes asks for cites. I don't have them here, but in each of these tomes, look under marital chastity or related headings. Nearly all of them will be in Latin, you know. For folks not inclined to do that research, they can accept on faith that I found them, or they can remain unconvinced that I did. But they can't say I made it up.

    MAK. Fair enough. You understand, when people directly challenge my orthodoxy (or that of people whom I know to be beyond reproach), as has been done several times here, I'm gonna react.

    Two points: about fantasy, that's irrelevant in that, people might fantasize during conjugal intercourse, rendering illicit what is unquestionably good, so the idea proves nothing; about the requirement of effusio seminis, sometimes, it is expressly stated as such, but usually, it's derived from pervious definitions made by the author and assuemjd when reading these sections. That's why, btw, some moral theo debates are not for casual readers. It requires entry into a new way approaching things that is not common or superficial. It's a lot like law, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. >Common sense dovetails with nature's laws and God's law. We don't need theologians, good or bad, to tell us practicing Catholics that anal sex wrong. We all have an inherent knowledge of sin and perversion.

    I agree. Let's take the argument outside of the contentious issue of sodomy and look at it another way.

    AFAIK, the Church does not teach that it is a mortal sin to eat one tablespoonful of dirt from one's backyard every day. However, that does not mean that it is okay to eat dirt, since that is a disgusting and unhealthy practice. I don't think we need a moral theologian to tell us that this is wrong... most of us are revolted by the idea.

    It's the same with AP as foreplay within marriage. Even if it's not a sin... or at least not a grave sin it is still disgusting and unhealthy. Just because something is "not a sin" doesn't mean you should do it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Some here seem to wish to draw a distinction between sodomy and anal penetration. I think that is a straw man. Both are physically destructive of an organ not intended for this sort of action and therefore a violation of the 5th commandment.

    Imagine, if you will, a man wishing to insert his penis into a woman's nose prior to consummating the sexual act. He can only do so by destroying her nostrils. It has little to do with his ejaculation or not.

    Anal penetration is inseparably and inherently destructive and therefore wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh and jeez - I just realized the horrific irony of my name in the context of this discussion.

    Sorry about that, but I've had it for some time. It's what St. Francis of Assisi called himself.

    No intent to offend.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fr. Jone saw a moral distinction between sodomy and mere AP as a non-completed act when he wrote:

    "...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...."

    So your argument is with him and moral theologians who agree with him. From a medical standpoint both are injurious, as you said. So there are other good reasons for avoiding the act.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Amen..........
    Christ had a few things to say concerning sexual fantasies also.Remember He said and I paraphrase here ..if a man look lustfully at a woman he commits the same sin in his heart as if he acted on it? Surely sodomy aka "anal penetration" is of no erotic value to a woman...unless she too has perverse tendencies towards sado masochism so what Mary Ann's husband stated is valid......Perhaps the man has homosexual tendencies? What then of the Natural Law? Surely God did not intend man's seed to be planted in fecal matter.So why go there? What is the purpose? Frankly, I am shocked catholics would even have to bring this argument up.The Orthodox prohibit homosexuals from the priesthood and state it clearly while catholics preclude this with the provision they are not practicing or are "chaste homosexuals"....an oxymoron for sure......My dear Catholic bretheren where have you been led with all your theological arguments over what is clearly against the Natural Law? West likened sex to heavenly experiences (Maybe for him but not what I am looking forward to).....Christ said something about that too...Remember when the Apostles were arguing as to whom a certain widow would belong to in heaven if she remarried? Christ corrected them stating there was NO sex in heaven between spirits.....it is a bodily function people like eating..Do we eat with our ears? Give birth through the nostril?Everything has a purpose under heaven and the rectum is for defacating.
    As for the writings "Theology of the Body" belonging to the late Pope JP2....well guess what NOT everything a Pope states or writes is wise,correct or ex cathedra...there were perverted Popes in Church history.
    As for refusing said act with my spouse you better believe I would have to ask myself ,"What the heck is he thinking?"......and the answer would not make me happy.....

    ReplyDelete
  41. Ed Peters Sez: "Jordanes asks for cites. I don't have them here...."


    I thought so. Sorry counsel, you'll have to do better than ask me to do your research for you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm just a layman, but I was recently listening to a talk by an FSSP priest on marriage and he states something that I did not see mentioned. He says that both St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus Ligouri consider anal intercourse always mortally sinful because it violates the natural law, whether or not the seed is spilled. This argument states that God created the genital organs for a specific purpose. (trying to be modest here)Placing the male organ in places where it does not belong or other objects in the female organ that do not belong there is a sin against the natural law on a par with sodomy. I don't have any references for this, perhaps someone else does. This seems so common sense to me as a layman - perhaps the recently Pre-Vat II moral theologians are too narrowly focused on the "spilling of the seed" aspect and neglect another morally important facet of this issue.
    Gary

    ReplyDelete
  43. >As for the writings "Theology of the Body" belonging to the late Pope JP2....well guess what NOT everything a Pope states or writes is wise,correct or ex cathedra.

    What does this have to do with the discussion? We're talking about Chris West's presentation of TOB... and West added a lot that the late pope never said. AFAIK JP2 said nothing about AP.

    Please don't tar West and JP2 with the same brush. The late pope is not responsible for everything West writes.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Thankyou Gary,
    I am glad to read that perhaps Aquinas and Lagouri knew something about the Natural Law....I can only hope West and Smith read their quotes......Nightline was only too happy to feature the inane advertisement efforts for a hot selling ticket to the uncatechized. Is it any wonder that the media would jump at this? so much for the Catholic League watch dog protecting anything catholic or sacred..... where are they when we are being attacked from within?

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Please don't tar West and JP2 with the same brush. The late pope is not responsible for everything West writes."

    Well the Christina WHO did put the TOB writings of Pope JP2 together to be marketed as such and better yet WHY?

    Isn't that the real underlying question?

    ReplyDelete
  46. How funny. I gave above the names of several authors (which is how works are identified in this field) and I told folks the specific topic headings to look under. I don't have exact pages here because I am posting from a student computer lab, not my office. My bad. But so what? Christina cites verbatim a solid text and gives a full citation, and it's still not enough! Not one single opponent has acknowledged her citation of Jone as proving our point, namely, that RE's challenge to find support in the (reliable) moral tradition for AP (not sodomy!) has been met.

    Why should we do more? It's just a blog comment box for pete's sake. If you want to think I made it all up, be my guest. Some folks might want to say, oto, that Peters tends to know what he's talking about, he says there is support for JS's position here, so maybe I'd better think twice about consinging JS et al to the fiery pits of hell for irreparably damaging marriage.

    Or not, if that's what you want.

    ReplyDelete
  47. >Well the Christina WHO did put the TOB writings of Pope JP2 together to be marketed as such and better yet WHY?

    Many people have presented TOB to the masses: Steve Kellmeyer, Mary Healy, Fr. Brice Sibley, among others. West is only the most well-known.

    That is not the issue, though. You (or perhaps some other Anonymous) said:

    "As for the writings "Theology of the Body" belonging to the late Pope JP2....well guess what NOT everything a Pope states or writes is wise,correct or ex cathedra...there were perverted Popes in Church history."

    What was that implying? That JP2 was one of those "perverted popes"? That his TOB is bad because West made a certain statement about AP in one book? I was responding to the unfairness of attacking the Pope for what some other guy writes later on.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm still looking for a good definition of sodomy. I went to my tried and true Fr. Hardon dictionary.

    SODOMY: In general, unnatural sexual relations. The term is derived from the biblical city of Sodom on the Dead Sea, destroyed with the city of Gomorrah because of the wickedness of the people (Genesis 13:10). More particularly, sodomy is homosexuality between male persons or between a human being and an animal. (Etym. French sodomie; from Latin Sodoma, Sodom.)

    I also found some interesting material from St. Thomas Aquinas. This comes from question 154, The Parts of Lust:

    "Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Genesis 37:2, 'He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime,' says that 'they copulated with cattle.' After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the 'vas' than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances."

    Doesn't sound like an argument in favor of AP. I still argue for Catholic common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Randy Engel sent me this comment privately, but gave me permission to post it. So I do:

    Anal penetration is a perversion, an unnatural act, that is, it uses the reproductive organs in a way that is contrary to their purpose as designed by God. Objectively speaking it is always a grave sin. It is a species of lust. Buggering one’s wife is not what Saint Paul had in mind when he said, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it." … Ephesians 5:25."

    Randy Engel

    ReplyDelete
  50. Well, Peters wins the argument against Engel that at least there has been ambiguity on the matter among orthodox Catholic moral theologians.
    As the question hasn't been formally defined, however, that doesn't mean they're right, nor that the faithful may not rise in condemnation of the ambiguity.
    Joining them in that effort, this
    grotesquerie comes to mind. If there is anything licit about a husband's A-penetration of his bride, would it not follow that she could bestow a comparable expression of affection, say - forgive me - with a banana?
    If not, perhaps Mr. Peters could explain the distinction. If, as seems likely, there could be none, addressing the subject from as it were the banana perspective, might help to give it a more focused moral framework.
    As MAK says, much to be said for a little common sense. Still, it helps to have the sense explained, which DH Lawrence once sought to do, when he wrote:

    The sex functions and the excrementory functions in the human body work so close together, yet they are, so to speak, utterly different in direction. Sex is a creative flow, the excrementory towards dissolution, decreation...
    In the healthy human being the distinction between the two is instant; our profoundest instincts are perhaps our instincts of opposition between the two flows.
    But in the degraded human being the deep instincts have gone dead, and then the two flows become identical.

    AP degrades, is meant to, & is degrading. It is an expression of the Adamic cursed loathing - pornography might suggest particularly with men - that often attends our struggle with sexual intimacy; & would accordingly be an antithesis of His late Holiness's discourses on the subject. And obviously so, it crosses the mind.
    Lawrence's observations also of course apply to societies as well as individuals, about which a further degrading example obtained yesterday, in New Hampshire.

    Antigon

    ReplyDelete
  51. Christina,
    Again I ask...who compiled the writings now known as TOB to market them as such and why? That is an important question whether or not any posters consider it as such.The intent says much about the effects........

    ReplyDelete
  52. Poop is crap and it belongs in the rectum or toilet, not on the end of someone's penis or in someone's vagina. Disease alone should be enough to discourage anyone let alone the sinfulness of the act of sodomy.

    ReplyDelete
  53. >Again I ask...who compiled the writings now known as TOB to market them as such and why? That is an important question whether or not any posters consider it as such.The intent says much about the effects........

    AFAIK, the first ones to compile and market the pope's TOB speeches were the Daughters of St. Paul (DSP). They compiled them because they published a lot of papal letters, speeches, etc.

    The DSP originally printed the whole series of JP2's Wednesday speeches on what would later be called TOB in four small volumes back in the early 1980's... long before Chris West began promoting TOB.

    I still fail to see how any of this is relevant to the "perverted popes" statement above. JP2 is not responsible for a comment that another man made in a book... and it is wrong to use such guilt by association to imply that the late Pontiff was a "perverted pope."

    ReplyDelete
  54. >Poop is crap...etc.

    I agree completely with that comment, but please be more temperate with your language. There is no need to devolve into crudity when discussing such issues. Yes, the act-in-question is disgusting... that is not in dispute. But our language should still remain as temperate and chaste as possible, given the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  55. As a convert to the faith -- 30 years ago -- I was drawn by the Church's teaching on sexuality. Specifically, Humanae Vitae. And it has always delighted me that "Ma Church" did not shrink from discussing how one lived the Faith in the most intimate of acts -- i.e., food, money, sex. No over-spirituality, disconnected theology here! And I'm still delighted that this is so. Thank you, everyone, for your thoughts and input. I have a minor contribution and observation: until I have personally read Michael Waldstein's English version of the TOB material, I don't know what I think of TOB. It seemed so simple: the body is made to express love, according to one's state in life and in keeping with respect for life and dignity of the human person. So, having carried, nursed and cared lovingly for 6 children and, much later, for the intimate needs of a beloved husband who died of cancer after 41 years of marriage, I think that the youngsters who are writing about marital privilege in relation to TOB don't know anything about love, not yet. I'm not a moral theologian; I'm a mother, grandmother, wife and now widow. It is obvious to me that this act of AP, by any other name, is a degrading act, an act of domination, an act that causes pain and discomfort, and an act that carries contamination with fecal matter that can lead to serious disease, including AIDS. What else is there to discuss? But I'm glad that we Catholics can and do discuss how we live our Faith -- even in such strange areas as this which is about as unsavory as it can be. God love you all!

    ReplyDelete
  56. At the risk of sounding disrespectful, as far as Ms. Engel's comments are concerned, I think we are past the point at which we can just take her word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I give Dr. Peters the benefit of doubt that there is a tradition in orthodox Catholic moral theology that allows for AP as foreplay. But that only makes matters worse for us.

    How would he or others address what I think is a widespread response to that teaching tradition: (1) intense rejection of it at a visceral level and (2) raising doubt on other traditional orthodox teaching?

    Every bit of me cries out that AP is, unequivocally, an outrageous immoral act that violates nature. Nothing can convince me otherwise.

    So now I'm asking myself - Where else did the Church's moral teaching tradition get it so wrong?

    This is a real crisis.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Where else? In the seminaries hence, the crisis of pederasty and homosexuality in the church which has been draining the coffers...and btw Christina it appears the correspondence of the late Pope to a certain woman has been holding up the canonization process. One must also consider his close friendship with Maciel....a Pope yes, but not necessarily saint material. The Legion thought Maciel was also a living saint.Seems the Daughters of Saint Paul capitalized on the same in the Papolatry promoted by the cults like the Legion /Regnum Christi.and here we are debating the obvious as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ed Peters said:
    "...why not reflect on the words of Ligouri: “Piget me de hac materia quae tantam prae se fert
    foeditatem, ut castas mentes ipso solo nomine perturbet longiorem habere sermone.” L nevertheless goes on to discuss a number of licit and illicit sexual acts. Why? Because people need to know what the truth is."

    No, the answer is rather because shepherds of souls need to know how to help the sinner and heal his wounds - big difference. Morbid curiosity is no excuse. The same holds for salacious reading material and other media, (as well as heretical material for that matter). It is a sin for the faithful to access such material unless they are priests, doctors and others who are in the business of having to deal with pathology of the soul or the body or both.

    Innocence is its own best defence. In a Catholic, even Christian age we would not be having this discussion, let alone on a public forum where the intimacy and mystery which is appropriate for this subject is being violated. However, those times are long gone, and we are now dealing with a type of brutalisation and desensitisation that is usually associated with the most debased and degraded cultures. So, christina, saying that "there is no need to devolve into crudity" is a bit like straining the gnat and missing the camel. In talking about the sex functions and the excrementory functions in the human body Antigon makes a good point when he says that "in the healthy human being the distinction between the two is instant; our profoundest instincts are perhaps our instincts of opposition between the two flows. But in the degraded human being the deep instincts have gone dead, and then the two flows become identical."

    Innocence is its own best defence. There have been fairly recent studies pertaining to the mutilation of the male and female genital organs which is quite common in many cultures and is now entering our own culture together with other mutilations such as body tattooing and body piercing. In certain parts of the world one traditional form of mutilation still in existence is the sewing up of the female parts in order that the young woman may remain a
    virgin because that would have a bearing on her marriageability. This drastic measure is used
    because there are no societal norms in place to restrain the sexual drive of the males.

    In a survey done to assess the extent of these genital mutilations and their negative effects in certain societies it was found that in strongly traditional Jewish and Christian societies the matter was a non-issue since the practice was non-existent. So perhaps, Mary Ann, for similar reasons there was no need for theologians of the Church in the middle ages to speak long and loud on sodomy and its difference from AP. The 'sensus fidei' was so strong that the matter was a non-issue.

    Besides, the exaltation of the virtues of virginity, chastity, purity and modesty has always
    acted as a strong brake to the glorification of sex with all its perversions. The same can be said of the traditional Catholic ethos of observing a sense of decorum and reticence when speaking about sex. Another "braking" mechanism has been the expectation that men no less than women should maintain continence. This expectation has been honoured most gloriously by countless men saints, including such greats as St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph and St. John the Evangelist.

    As for christina saying "we're talking about Chris West's presentation of TOB" and asking
    "please don't tar West and JP2 with the same brush" the fact is that for overwhelmingly many
    Catholics the late Holy Father's TOB *is* equivalent CW's exposition of it. Such is the height of the profile accorded to CW and such is the position of credibility that he has attained in the heart of the Church. One may well ask: by what right?

    ReplyDelete
  60. To C. O'Brien,

    As I say, a group of relatively extremely recent non-magisterial authors do not equal the Holy Spirit, nor the Magisterium, etc.

    Orthodox Catholic doctrine is not at risk!

    Father George

    ReplyDelete
  61. The 59th post on this board reads as though it was written by a saint.

    And special praise to Fr George.

    ReplyDelete
  62. In the context of the present discussion I couldn't help thinking of the late Carrie Tomko and some of the excellent research to be found on her blog. In investigating the doings of Fr.
    Ron Rolheiser she has this to say about his article entitled "In Praise of Skin":

    (Quote) Here he pulls no punches. In here he says that "skin meets skin, in sacramental sex, and temple commingles with temple." He knows he's being outrageous because he says "Not an easy thing for us to accept." (Um, yeah, ya got that right!) "Untouched skin is rife with fever spots...we don't get touched enough." But he doesn't quit there:

    It seems too earthy to be spiritual. Consequently we generally lack the courage to accept a theology of sexuality that is earthy enough to do justice to how shockingly physical the incarnation really is. In sacramental sex there is eucharist. Just as in eucharist, God enters, caresses, and kisses human skin....God becomes more than words, more than a belief, more than a teaching. In the eucharist, God...becomes the great healer who touches, caresses,
    massages, and kisses our skin.

    Picture it. The lecture hall is full of fresh faced innocent seminarians preparing for a life of celibacy. Out comes the lecturer who tells them that sacramental sex is eucharist and their skin is burning to be touched. What is supposed to be the intended results of these words of Fr. Rolheiser? This is the priest who lectured to the rectors and key seminary personnel on "Affective Conversion" at Mundelein Seminary through the sponsorship of the Cleveland
    Cardinal Suenens Center. Along with Fr. Richard Rohr. And we wonder why we have a sexual abuse crisis. (End of quote)

    One also wonders to what extent Christopher West has been influenced by the likes of Frs.
    Rolheiser and Rohr. Note in particular Fr. Rolheiser's reference to "a theology of sexuality".

    ReplyDelete
  63. Verbally sanitizing sodomy by calling it anal penetration wreaks of coming from a sodomite apologist.It reminds me of the many times pederasts in clerical abuse cases have used the defense ,"I did not think it would harm the child ,I was just showing my love".West used the "Song of Songs" in the Nightline presentation to sanitize oral sex also. Reminded me of a former President who denied that it was sex at all.
    The late Pope was marketed by special interest groups within the Church as a way of sanctifying their Movements. In fact ,as a cradle Catholic who has lived through five Pontificates, I can attest to the fact that no other Pope was used to this extent for that purpose.
    He is still being marketed and will be worth a lot more money to many if he is canonized whether in sales of TOB for the Daughters of St Paul or seminars, books and television spots for the likes of West.
    No one is putting the breaks on it from the Vatican or any of the special interest sects in the church.One can only assume promoting sodomy and oral sex are serving a purpose to someone or some group within the institutional church even though against the Natural Law and common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Ed Peters Sez: "How funny."

    No, it's not. Still waiting for your citation, counsel. Blaming your computer is like the poor craftsman who blames his tools. No excuse. If you don't have a citation, don't post.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Exactly right, Anonymous of 2:06 am.

    These are all essentially homosexual acts: sodomy, oral sex, etc.

    We are dealing with that which is intrisically dishonest. We are dealing with that which is grave matter. We are dealing with what is objectively gravely sinful.

    When homosexuals do these kind of things, it is objectively gravely evil for them. These are not light matters, nor "merely" on the level of venial sin.

    When heterosexuals, married or unmarried, do these kind of things, it is objectively gravely evil for them. These are not light matters, nor "merely" on the level of venial sin. And this is regardless of any intention to finish anything in any normal way. It is what is being done, however momentary.

    Just because a group of manualists (who were good at copying and filling out their class notes with their own imaginations over their years of sometimes brilliant teaching) did not consider the intrinsic dishonesty of the matter, but were rather concerned with a forced interpretation of Onan's withdrawal, that doesn't mean that we can't see the matter more clearly.

    =============

    To Brother Ass:

    Wonderful name, not only because of the great Saint Francis of Assisi, but because of Chesterton's poem about the magnificent donkey who carried Christ into Jerusalem with palm fronds under his hooves and shouts about his ears. I've been known as a Jackass for many decades, once in a while in the Chestertonian sense. Yet, I'm just such a schmuck without the grace of Christ, as are we all.

    But that's also to the point. We are never to pretend that we can throw off the cross of the effects of original sin. Those effects are most useful in our salvation. We look to Christ, who brings us to Himself, making us whole and holy, though we remain weak in this world. We are strong only in our weakness, for then our strength is only in Christ. Deo gratias.

    Father George

    ReplyDelete
  66. :) I gave you plenty above, if you know what you're doing, anon., but here's a new one:

    Inchoare copulam in vaso indebito v.g., in vase postero vel in ore, cum intentione eam consummandi in vagina; item gentalibus tangere vas posterum aut ore ea lambere, non sunt mortale, dummodo praecaveatur profusio seminis et excludatur affectus sodomiticus, qui tamen facile aderit si praedicta non obiter fiant sed aliquo tempore durent; imo si quaerantur ut solum medium et praeparatio actus debiti et adsit ratio sufficiens v. g., quia aliter excitari quis non posit, non sunt peccatum. B. Merkelbach, Quaestiones de Castitate et Luxuria (1936) 110.

    Ok? Do some research yourself.

    I think this exchange has run its course. Kind regards, edp.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Father George said: "As I say, a group of relatively extremely recent non-magisterial authors do not equal the Holy Spirit, nor the Magisterium, etc. Orthodox Catholic doctrine is not at risk!"

    But Dr. Peters and Janet Smith are saying that orthodox Catholic doctrine DOES permit AP.

    I am content to be docile to the teaching of the Church even on things that I intellectually disagree with or don't understand. But, this issue of AP goes from intellectual to visceral. What I think is the Holy Spirit is screaming within me that AP is immoral and deserving of unequivocal condemnation by the Church. At minimum, there is no such condemnation.

    So, orthodoxy most certainly is at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  68. To answer a few things various posters said:

    >So now I'm asking myself - Where else did the Church's moral teaching tradition get it so wrong?

    This is not "the Church's" official teaching, just the opinion of some moral theologians... and that's not even unanimous since at least one (Prummer) opposed it. Please don't confuse the opinons of men with Mother Church's infallible dogma.

    As I said above, moral theology is not an exact science; some matters are the subject of debate, and moral theologians can be mistaken. Individual theologians are not infallible... the Magisterium is.

    >and btw Christina it appears the correspondence of the late Pope to a certain woman has been holding up the canonization process.

    Even if this is true (I don't know where this information came from) I rather doubt the pope condoned sodomy or even AP in those letters.

    >One must also consider his close friendship with Maciel

    Again, guilt by association here. A saint can be a saint and still be friends with sinners. Not that I'm saying that JP2 will/should be canonized... I don't know. I believe he is in heaven but canonization isn't up to me and I've never agreed with the "santo subito" crowd anyway. His cause should go through all the usual stages like everyone else's.

    >So, christina, saying that "there is no need to devolve into crudity" is a bit like straining the gnat and missing the camel.

    No, it IS possible to use more delicate language than an Anonymous poster used in the short post that I objected to. We are supposed to use euphemisms in the confessional... that is what we should aim for in this discourse as well. There is no reason to shock or disgust others with a graphic description of the act or its aftermath - no one here is arguing that the act-in-question is safe and sanitary anyway.

    >the fact is that for overwhelmingly many Catholics the late Holy Father's TOB *is* equivalent CW's exposition of it.

    Considering the kind of expressions West uses during his talks, that is a tragedy because he's adding a lot of his own stuff to what JP2 said. I believe that he is misrepresenting TOB.

    However, that does not mean that we, in this forum, have a right to blame JP2 for what West adds to his words. Do we blame St. Francis of Assisi because Matthew Fox uses and misrepresents the saint's writings in his "creation-centered spirituality"? Of course not!

    >But Dr. Peters and Janet Smith are saying that orthodox Catholic doctrine DOES permit AP.

    No, if you read the quotes from both of them above, they do not say that this is "doctrine." In fact, Smith begins by stating: "Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level...."

    No teaching at a magisterial level = not a doctrine. Her use of the word "tradition" (note the small-"t") in the next sentence also does not indicate a doctrine, since it is just among Catholic "ethicists," not the Magisterium.

    I don't think Smith should have used the term "approval," though... saying that something isn't a grave sin doesn't necessarily amount to approval of the practice.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Okay I looked up the info on the late Pontiff's correspondence with a woman. The problem is that the Congregation for Causes wants to read the five decades worth of correspondence between them now that it has come to light... and that will necessarily delay the cause for sainthood.

    There is no indication of an inappropriate relationship between them... he apparently corresponded with many people, not just her. So how is that relevant to the discussion?

    Ed Peters is right, the exchange has run its course. Now its devolving into rumor and innuendo against the late Holy Father. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  70. C. O'Brien,

    Even if Ed Peters and Janet Smith claim that a handful of non-magisterial manualists speak for orthodox Catholic doctrine, that doesn't mean that they or the commentators represent orthodox Catholic doctrine on this point. No one has personal infallibility over faith and morals except for the Holy Father when he's solemnly speaking to the Universal Church on matters of faith and morals. This is true even if someone writes in Latin before Vatican II, that is, during or in the wake of the modernist crisis. I'm not saying that any of the commentators he cites are modernists. What I'm saying is that people have to read things with a grain of salt.

    Your conscience is right on target. Saint Paul says that you will be held to that conscience, for it is the Law of God written on our hearts. We are all held to the same Law by God. Romans 1 is great.

    Some have commented (and I paraphrase) on why there was never an ex-Cathedra statement on the evils of some kinds of intrisically dishonest behavior, and they are on target. There was no need to define such things, etc. Not everything needs to be or should be defined. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important or that one can do what one wants.

    The Church would be a joke if she started to describe in detail all the horrific things people can do and then proceed to condemn that kind of behavior. That would be horrific. Usually, if people were concerned about this, they would just ask their priest. Of course, now we live in difficult times.

    The Church expects us to use our reason. Sodomy (and a.p., which is the same thing) is intrinsically dishonest because of what one does, regardless of the intention one has, regardless of how it finishes. Just because those moral theologians leading up to the situation ethics era of Fuchs, et al., didn't see this, doesn't mean that their ignorance is to be canonized as traditional and orthodox Catholic doctrine. Far from it. It is just rubbish.

    Sodomy (and a.p., which is the same) is unequivocally condemned, if one is reasonable. The problem is that some people have dropped reason when -- and get this -- when they rejected how we, as human beings (with bodies!)perceive with the senses but only after that understand others. They dropped this way of knowing (which is the only way we have), in favor of a way of knowing, an epistemology, that is merely sense "knowledge", a make-believe "knowledge" of phenomenology, upon which Theology of the Body rests, but which is nothing more than not-able-to-be-understood perceptions of phenomena, perceptions which are, therefore, relativistic, and which, ultimately, cannot be subject to any of those... you know... pesky moralistic rules, the reason being that commandments for everyone is not possible when everyone is perceiving things in their own individualistic, relativistic ways. This result is not what Pope John Paul II had in mind. Not at all. But it is where some commentators have led the thing.

    The job now is not so much to get the Church to describe horrific things in detail and then condemn them (for we KNOW those things already), but rather to undo the damage of a phenomenological epistemology given over to such relativism. The ends of marriage have to be demonstrated to be, and in this order: (1) procreation; (2) unity.

    I hope to being such an enormous study, please God, in the following months.

    Father George

    ReplyDelete
  71. There has been 1 pope canonized in the past 500. Those suggesting JP II is about to jump over all those
    other popes is quite the leap of faith. The last 5 popes were asked by heaven, to do one simple task, which would have granted peace to the entire world, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with ALL the bishops of the world
    It was asked of Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II. It would have avoided the wars and abortions of the last 80 years. The failure of these popes to obey one simple request from heaven, puts the canonization talk into perspective. It will not happen, because the refusal to cooperate with heaven unto death
    is on the order of denying
    the messages of Fatima. Fatima was the greatest miracle since the time of Jesus. The Catholic Church says it is authentic. Failure to follow the one favor heaven asked of the popes, which would have saved hundreds of millions of lives is beyond words.

    ReplyDelete
  72. christina ,No one said JP@ was a "pervert pope" (your words) and judging from your outrage you have been affected by the same Papolatry that was fomented by both opus dei and the Legion/RC druing and now after his Pontificate.
    "However, that does not mean that we, in this forum, have a right to blame JP2 for what West adds to his words."

    Christina he WAS clearly a phenomenologist and thus placed us on this very slipper slope.
    As Fr George so kindly stated....
    "The job now is not so much to get the Church to describe horrific things in detail and then condemn them (for we KNOW those things already), but rather to undo the damage of a phenomenological epistemology given over to such relativism."
    As far as those letters Christina is it not interesting that the Vaticanites rage on within over them and to the defense of the late Pope's beatification the ex Vatican opus de spkesman Psychiatrist steps up to the fore to protest?
    Again JP2 was a phenomenologist and a very sick man who was used by so many agendites to promote their own.He obviously had zero control over his Bishops and did little to halt the pederasty or clean out the seminaries.How sad they all seek to beatify him for their own glory.Yet how appropriate because he condoned the changes of the canonization process of Escriva despite the voluminous oppositional letters to the Devil's Advocate that were discarded along with the position.....a phenomenologist indeed and so even sodomy can be sanctified in the same process.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The canonizaton of Opus Dei founder Fr. Escriva is one that has many Catholics I know very puzzled. One side says these canonizations are absolutely infallible, the other side says maybe not. One thing all sides can agree on is OD has plenty of power and money. Diocesan priests who I consider to be very well read and
    fair minded, have told me it OD fits the definition of a cult. If that is true, then is it possible the canonization process was manipulated via persons with an agenda. After all, if a person is insane on their wedding day, no marriage has taken place in the eyes of church, despite all appearances to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  74. >christina ,No one said JP@ was a "pervert pope" (your words)

    No, I was quoting the above post of June 4, 2009 2:56 PM, which said:

    "As for the writings "Theology of the Body" belonging to the late Pope JP2....well guess what NOT everything a Pope states or writes is wise,correct or ex cathedra...there were perverted Popes in Church history."

    The implication appears to be that JP2 belongs in the latter category... and the Anonymous who posted it has not denied that is what he or she meant. Rather, more dark insinuations have since been made about JP2 since then, and so far I'm the only one here who has condemned the lack of charity toward him.

    >and judging from your outrage you have been affected by the same Papolatry that was fomented by both opus dei and the Legion/RC druing and now after his Pontificate.

    Well thank you for judging me, but No... I am not a "papolater." Never was, never will be. I always believed that some people went too far in their adulation of the late Pontiff and, as I said above, I don't agree with the whole santo subito thing. Thank you for the ad hominem attack, though.

    >Christina he WAS clearly a phenomenologist and thus placed us on this very slipper slope.

    Did you ever read the article "A Primer: Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, by Brian Thomas Becket Mullady? He shows that TOB is not strict phenomenology... but has a strong Thomistic element. I found it online here if anyone is interested:

    http://www.the-boondocks.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&goto=121572

    But then again, maybe he can just be accused of "Papolatry" and dismissed.

    One need not be a papolater to object to rumor, innuendo and calumny... which is why I object to the treatment of the late Holy Father in this combox. Like I said above, the discussion here has gone way off course and the anti-JP2 poster(s) here are becoming more unpleasant and obnoxious.

    I made my point about Engle over and over again above. I didn't come here to argue over whether the late pope should be canonized or not... so if that's where the discussion is now I see no sense in hanging around. God bless you all.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I agree with Christina that things have gone pretty far afield here and with Ed Peters that there's not much more to be gained by continuing. I also agree that the spurious attacks on Pope John Paul II are unfair.

    I thank everyone for their participation, especially Father George David Byers
    (Chaplain of the Sanctuaries of Our Lady of Lourdes, France) who I think acted in some ways as a spiritual director to the conversation. I hope all who participated will visit other posts on my blog. Thanks to everyone for their insights and to Randy Engel whose initial comments inspired the discussion.

    ReplyDelete