Christopher West On Sabbatical

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503']
I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy.
[/quote]

Are you suggesting that some people on Phatmass think anal penetration as foreplay is okay?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503']
I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy.
[/quote]
I cannot agree with this definition of sodomy. Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='14 April 2010 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1271278626' post='2093501']
Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA.
[/quote]

Hedonistic disordered carnal pleasure is possible from any manner of actions with other people or alone, but I think you are onto something.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271278882' post='2093503']
I wouldn't be as so pompous to wear them as a badge of honor, but the points are born out of differing interpretations of sodomy. Those giving you negative points interpret sodomy as the completion of the marital act through such an action, and therefore anything less as West defines it, would not be sodomy, and is a moral gray area. I would define it traditionally as any penetration. When crimes are perpetrated against people and they use objects against a victim it is still classified as sodomy.
[/quote]

Sodomy is not a gray area, those that do not define it traditionally are in error and wrong. I also believe there is a bit of 'fanboyism' going on with the negatives.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='14 April 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1271278626' post='2093501']
Other than not being able to understand how anal penetration could be enjoyable, my main difficulty with the discussion is that type of activity could play into someone's SSA.
[/quote]
I agree.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1271279044' post='2093508']
Are you suggesting that some people on Phatmass think anal penetration as foreplay is okay?
[/quote]

I would say some people disagree about how to define the act of sodomy.

[God Conquers]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1271276732' post='2093457']
Your being 'smart', you know the two are the same.
[/quote]

No, I"m not.

I don't know you, and you claim that someone I know teaches Catholic teaching with the support of bishops and other theologians, doesn't have Traditional Catholic thought. Why place a descriptor (with a capital T) if it doesn't mean something different?

[HisChildForever]

I also agree with Catherine concerning SSA. If a man is aroused by anal penetration, well I really question that.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1271279136' post='2093515']
I would say some people disagree about how to define the act of sodomy.
[/quote]

Anal penetration and anal sex (I will use that term to mean when the man finishes improperly) are [i]both[/i] sodomy and to claim that anal penetration is [i]not[/i] sodomy is just an attempt to justify the immoral behavior.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1271279047' post='2093510']
I cannot agree with this definition of sodomy. Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if we disagree or not. I agree that "Anal penetration for sexual purposes is contrary to nature even if the man in question does not complete the act in that manner" and haven't stated anything to the contrary.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 03:06 PM' timestamp='1271279193' post='2093517']
I also agree with Catherine concerning SSA. If a man is aroused by anal penetration, well I really question that.
[/quote]
I agree. There is no moral way to justify anal penetration, even if orgasm is not achieved through the act in question, because the [i]telos[/i] of the physical organs involved does not support this notion.

[Brother Adam]

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 11
Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of lust. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration given above (1, Objection 1). Therefore it is not a species of lust.

Objection 2. Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5). Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

Objection 3. Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (153, 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of lust (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."

I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.

Reply to Objection 1. There we enumerated the species of lust that are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.

Reply to Objection 2. Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.

Reply to Objection 3. The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

[Apotheoun]

The anus is not a generative organ and so there is no way in which penetration of the anus for sexual purposes can be morally justified.

[HisChildForever]

Ohhhh.

So you mean some people define "sodomy" [u]only[/u] as man-man, and that anal penetration between man-woman falls under some other category?

Edited April 14, 2010 by HisChildForever

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1271279463' post='2093523']
The anus is not a generative organ and so there is no way in which penetration of the anus for sexual purposes can be morally justified.
[/quote]

Exactly. Also, anal penetration seems to be more for the man's pleasure than the woman's, and there seems to be an element of dominance involved in that which is certainly contrary to marital love.