Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[dominicansoul]

There are a lot of acts Catholics shouldn't be participating in that debase and pervert the gift of sexuality that God gives to us...

I'm sure if we use common sense, we will recognize what Holy Scripture teaches and our traditions teach us...and not try to justify abhorrent acts just because they aren't explicitly condemned in Scripture...but condemned nonetheless

I find it sad that some Catholic couples behave like couples in pornographic movies and that some Catholic husbands ask their Catholic wives to perform actions that are on the level of a prostitute...

Read St. Paul...i'm sure you'll get what he's speaking of when he condemns certain sexual acts...

And remember that our bodies are the Temples of the Holy Spirit...and members of the Body of Christ on earth...we are not our own...we were bought at a price...so we must honor God with our bodies...

[kamiller42]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 12:45 PM' timestamp='1271349911' post='2094076']
Contraception is not clearly outlined in Scripture, even though Onan disrupted the marital act to avoid pregnancy and was punished for it (death). The Scriptures do not go into any specifics about medicines but the [i]Didache[/i] clarifies the matter. Since nothing is mentioned in the Scriptures concerning physical contraceptives, we must rely on Tradition and common sense to know that it is immoral. The same applies to abortion. There is no specific mention of abortion in Scriptures, but it is clearly outlined in Tradition.

Yes, the Scriptures clearly condemn homosexuality. The Scriptures also condemn fornication, sexual activity outside of marriage. Where in the Scriptures is appropriate foreplay addressed (for spouses)? Inappropriate foreplay? Again, we must rely on Tradition and common sense. If homosexual "intercourse" is condemned between two men, then why would the same act (anal penetration) NOT be condemned between a man and a woman? It is not a form of foreplay, because foreplay is used to encourage arousal. And foreplay is not penetration, since penetration is the marital act. It is also a misuse of our bodies. Here some argue that touching a spouse intimately is not what the hand was intended for. This is a poor argument, because the hand is an important tool for communication and relaying feelings. I think everyone here can agree that anal penetration is a misuse of the genitalia. It also degrades both spouses. There is no self-giving, as I imagine the woman experiences no physical pleasure - in this way, she is turned into an object meant to give pleasure. If you think about the positioning required for anal penetration, well this only emphasizes the idea that the woman is being used.

Note that our common sense should be linked to our existing knowledge of Catholic teaching.
[/quote]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I raised the question because it was said the Bible destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the act of sodomy. I didn't remember God saying anything with such specificity.

Tradition is a better route to take as Scripture does not say much about specific acts. The teachings of the Magisterium can help us understand the application Scripture. Are there some writings which address this act, specifically between husband and wife?

[quote]If homosexual "intercourse" is condemned between two men, then why would the same act (anal penetration) NOT be condemned between a man and a woman?[/quote]
Scripture also condemns two men kissing. Therefore, husband and wife can't kiss? I understand Scripture to condemn all homosexual relations, not just an act.

[quote]There is no self-giving, as I imagine the woman experiences no physical pleasure - in this way, she is turned into an object meant to give pleasure. If you think about the positioning required for anal penetration, well this only emphasizes the idea that the woman is being used.[/quote]
What is objectively right or wrong cannot be based on someone else's pleasure or displeasure. A crack addict probably takes great pleasure in getting high, but it's not morally right. I understand where you are coming from. You are making the argument West is making that for subjective reasons, sodomy is not acceptable.

The fear I have, based on the arguments against I've read here, with the anti-sodomy in all cases argument is it comes close to turning the act of love into something mechanical, procedural.

1. Take off clothes.
2. Unite reproductive organs.
3. Put clothes on.

For me, the most compelling scriptural arguments against sodomy would rest in God's creative order and the body as a temple, sacred and holy. It would not be in arguments against homosexuality, contraception, and God's wrath on some sinful cities. But hey, that's me.

[CatherineM]

Sometimes I think when things aren't spelled out in detail in Scripture it is because at the time, they were self evident.

[Brother Adam]

This thread, as much as the last thread, makes me sad. This isn't even so much a debate about Christopher West, who is an incredible apologist that is consistently unfairly attacked, but about a specific type of sexual act and whether or not it is moral when it takes place between who married people. Christopher West's whole corpus is nearly 100% faithful, if not 100%. I say lay off Christopher West unless you are ready to study his content and method as a whole - the obsession says more about posters than it does about Mr. West. God bless him as he takes time off for prayer.

Before asking whether or not anal penetration or any type of what is deemed as "anal play" is appropriate, moral, or justified within marriage, you have to take a giant step back and learn about the marital act itself, the role and nature of love in marriage, how erotic love is a type of love and what it is meant to accomplish. Really, you have to study the [u]nature of love and marriage[/u] and [u]theology of the body[/u].

It's like teens asking "How far is too far? Is it holding hands? Kissing goodnight? Making out?" It's the wrong question in the first place. Anal sex is immoral not just because it is not a reproductive organ, but because the action is not one of self-giving love, especially if the man is "taking" this pleasure at the expense of the woman. It uses the beloved and is a "lie" using the body.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1271352220' post='2094088']
The fear I have, based on the arguments against I've read here, with the anti-sodomy in all cases argument is it comes close to turning the act of love into something mechanical, procedural.
[/quote]

I find it hard to believe that married couples deeply in love with each other are capable of just "mechanical" sex.

[quote]
1. Take off clothes.
2. Unite reproductive organs.
3. Put clothes on.[/quote]

Even these steps would suffice, I am sure for passionate sex between people in love with one another...

this isn't aimed at you, kamiller....I just wanted to say, that generally, ...it sounds like we are always thinking that we know more than God...that what He's given us is not good enough...

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1271352725' post='2094093']
I find it hard to believe that married couples deeply in love with each other are capable of just "mechanical" sex. [/quote]
I agree, which is why this is such a hot topic. The discussion is what are the bounds of licit expressive love. My disagreement was this statement:
[quote]Sodomy is condemned throughout Scripture. God even brought His wrath upon a city because of it...[/quote]
Whether sodomy is objectively right or wrong can't rest such a thought because it's not true. Scripture isn't so specific. It speaks at a more macro level.

[quote]Even these steps would suffice, I am sure for passionate sex between people in love with one another..[/quote]
Just those steps? Not even a kiss? Hmm, not enough expressive love for me if limited to those three steps. With the exception of steps 1 and 3, that's how animals do it. Ick.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='15 April 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1271352419' post='2094090']
Anal sex is immoral not just because it is not a reproductive organ, but because the action is not one of self-giving love, especially if the man is "taking" this pleasure at the expense of the woman. It uses the beloved and is a "lie" using the body.
[/quote]

Yes, I have said this already. In case you missed it.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 01:42 PM' timestamp='1271353344' post='2094097']
Just those steps? Not even a kiss? Hmm, not enough expressive love for me if limited to those three steps. With the exception of steps 1 and 3, that's how animals do it. Ick.
[/quote]

i tend to think of animals when it comes to oral and anal sex...

again, I would dare to say...if you are deeply in love, you don't need to do illicit sexual actions to make your love-making "more exciting!!!!"

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1271352220' post='2094088']
The fear I have, based on the arguments against I've read here, with the anti-sodomy in all cases argument is it comes close to turning the act of love into something mechanical, procedural.

1. Take off clothes.
2. Unite reproductive organs.
3. Put clothes on.
[/quote]

I have certainly not been given that impression. Anyone here speaking in opposition of anal penetration holds the marital act in the highest esteem.

[Seven77]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='15 April 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1271352419' post='2094090']
This thread, as much as the last thread, makes me sad. This isn't even so much a debate about Christopher West, who is an incredible apologist that is consistently unfairly attacked, but about a specific type of sexual act and whether or not it is moral when it takes place between who married people. Christopher West's whole corpus is nearly 100% faithful, if not 100%. I say lay off Christopher West unless you are ready to study his content and method as a whole - the obsession says more about posters than it does about Mr. West. God bless him as he takes time off for prayer.

Before asking whether or not anal penetration or any type of what is deemed as "anal play" is appropriate, moral, or justified within marriage, you have to take a giant step back and learn about the marital act itself, the role and nature of love in marriage, how erotic love is a type of love and what it is meant to accomplish. Really, you have to study the [u]nature of love and marriage[/u] and [u]theology of the body[/u].

It's like teens asking "How far is too far? Is it holding hands? Kissing goodnight? Making out?" It's the wrong question in the first place. Anal sex is immoral not just because it is not a reproductive organ, but because the action is not one of self-giving love, especially if the man is "taking" this pleasure at the expense of the woman. It uses the beloved and is a "lie" using the body.
[/quote]

[mod]Thank you for your response. From this point forward, I suggest that KofC leaves Mr. West out of this discussion. I'm changing the title of this thread instead of closing it. -777[/mod]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1271352220' post='2094088']
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I raised the question because it was said the Bible destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the act of sodomy. I didn't remember God saying anything with such specificity.

Tradition is a better route to take as Scripture does not say much about specific acts. The teachings of the Magisterium can help us understand the application Scripture. Are there some writings which address this act, specifically between husband and wife?


Scripture also condemns two men kissing. Therefore, husband and wife can't kiss? I understand Scripture to condemn all homosexual relations, not just an act.


What is objectively right or wrong cannot be based on someone else's pleasure or displeasure. A crack addict probably takes great pleasure in getting high, but it's not morally right. I understand where you are coming from. You are making the argument West is making that for subjective reasons, sodomy is not acceptable.

The fear I have, based on the arguments against I've read here, with the anti-sodomy in all cases argument is it comes close to turning the act of love into something mechanical, procedural.

1. Take off clothes.
2. Unite reproductive organs.
3. Put clothes on.

For me, the most compelling scriptural arguments against sodomy would rest in God's creative order and the body as a temple, sacred and holy. It would not be in arguments against homosexuality, contraception, and God's wrath on some sinful cities. But hey, that's me.
[/quote]
That's basically how I read West in that book. He seemed to be saying, even if you can't find a specific definitive condemnation of this particular act as foreplay, it's not something that should be done.
I got the revised edition, and read it without any prior bias one way or the other - I'm not a Christopher West "fanboy," but it certainly did [i]not[/i] appear to me that he was condoning sodomy. It seems you have to read a lot of other stuff into it to read it otherwise.

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='15 April 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1271352419' post='2094090']
This thread, as much as the last thread, makes me sad. This isn't even so much a debate about Christopher West, who is an incredible apologist that is consistently unfairly attacked, but about a specific type of sexual act and whether or not it is moral when it takes place between who married people. Christopher West's whole corpus is nearly 100% faithful, if not 100%. I say lay off Christopher West unless you are ready to study his content and method as a whole - the obsession says more about posters than it does about Mr. West. God bless him as he takes time off for prayer.

Before asking whether or not anal penetration or any type of what is deemed as "anal play" is appropriate, moral, or justified within marriage, you have to take a giant step back and learn about the marital act itself, the role and nature of love in marriage, how erotic love is a type of love and what it is meant to accomplish. Really, you have to study the [u]nature of love and marriage[/u] and [u]theology of the body[/u].

It's like teens asking "How far is too far? Is it holding hands? Kissing goodnight? Making out?" It's the wrong question in the first place. Anal sex is immoral not just because it is not a reproductive organ, but because the action is not one of self-giving love, especially if the man is "taking" this pleasure at the expense of the woman. It uses the beloved and is a "lie" using the body.
[/quote]
Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

This endless focus on anal penetration is indeed disturbing and questionable.

[Brother Adam]

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jlTVrEx8L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg[/img]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1271353495' post='2094099']
i tend to think of animals when it comes to oral and anal sex...

again, I would dare to say...if you are deeply in love, you don't need to do illicit sexual actions to make your love-making "more exciting!!!!"
[/quote]
You are absolutely correct.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 April 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1271353495' post='2094099']
i tend to think of animals when it comes to oral and anal sex...[/quote]
Which goes to show we lose our humanity if we become puritanical or licentious.

[quote]again, I would dare to say...if you are deeply in love, you don't need to do illicit sexual actions to make your love-making "more exciting!!!!"
[/quote]
What is illicit is up for debate. (Sodomy is heavily the focus because of its agreed subjective immorality, but the points touch all sexual acts.) From what I've read, any action that is not pro-creative (generative) or has a similar or like action in a homosexual relationship is illicit.

Socrates, I have West's book and heard his Naked Without Shame series. I don't think he is the villain he's being painted to be. I think he is a breath of fresh air because he's able to address topics and issues which would be difficult to hear from clergy. His position helps adults, especially married or soon to be married adults, apply theology to reality.

Edited April 15, 2010 by kamiller42

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1271355145' post='2094119']
Which goes to show we lose our humanity if we become too puritanical or licentious.


What is illicit is up for debate. [/quote]

there is nothing "puritanical" about condemning illicit sexual acts..you can't debate Holy Scripture or Holy Tradition...what the Church has handed down to us, and what Scripture preaches is there for us to accept or reject...