Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [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 Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 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 Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 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 Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) 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 Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [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.
rkwright Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 04:11 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] Does this imply that all foreplay is morally impermissible as well?
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1271279695' post='2093525'] 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. [/quote] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong.
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1271280321' post='2093533'] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong. [/quote] Yes, but none of those things have to do with penetration.
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1271280321' post='2093533'] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong. [/quote] I suppose I will just have to stand upon the shaky ground of the natural law and the Church's moral tradition.
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1271280573' post='2093536'] I suppose I will just have to stand upon the shaky ground of the natural law and the Church's moral tradition. [/quote] You are wrong if you believe any of those things I mentioned are contrary to natural law or the Church's moral tradition. My point stands
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1271280502' post='2093535'] Yes, but none of those things have to do with penetration. [/quote] No, but they all use non-reproductive organs in a sexual way, which Apo said was wrong.
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 A lot of recent talk about the conjugal act seems to be minimalist in nature, and by this I mean that it seems to be reducing the act of love to where a man deposits his semen. I have never in my life come across a single writing of one of the Church Fathers where he supports the notion that anal penetration without orgasm is morally acceptable.
jeffpugh Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I can see why all this is a big deal... just remember, a whole town was "nuked" by God over this sort of matter!
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1271280938' post='2093542'] A lot of recent talk about the conjugal act seems to be minimalist in nature, and by this I mean that it seems to be reducing the act of love to where a man deposits his semen. I have never in my life come across a single writing of one of the Church Fathers where he supports the notion that anal penetration without orgasm is morally acceptable. [/quote] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that.
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1271281386' post='2093551'] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that. [/quote] That is no doubt how you see it.
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1271281386' post='2093551'] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that. [/quote] No. He has argued that the anus is not a generative organ but he has also argued that anal penetration is contrary to nature i.e. the way our bodies are designed - while the genitalia are generative organs, when used properly they act in accordance with nature.
tinytherese Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 I'm so confused. I don't find what is involved in the act of anal penetration and anal sex as appropriate regardless. From what I've been told, it can be painful for the woman and come on does a man really want to put himself in an area where human waste comes out of? Oh and one more thing. I'm sorry if this post needs to be edited or if this makes people uncomfortable but how could a man keep himself from not finishing in that area? That strikes me as a hard thing for him to possibly do anyway.
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) [quote name='God Conquers' date='14 April 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1271279172' post='2093516'] 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? [/quote] By Traditional Catholic thought I mean to say what the Church has always taught, Sacred Tradition. There is no known Scripture, or Church Father, that supports sodomy of any kind during the Marriage Act. It is a sin so wicked it traditional is known as the Unpardonable Vice and Unspeakable Sin. Edited April 14, 2010 by KnightofChrist
God Conquers Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1271284065' post='2093572'] By Traditional Catholic thought I mean to say what the Church has always taught, Sacred Tradition. There is no known Scripture, or Church Father, that supports sodomy of any kind during the Marriage Act. It is a sin so wicked it traditional is known as the Unpardonable Vice and Unspeakable Sin. [/quote] Let's look at your original quote: [quote]He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought. [/quote] hmmmm... Nope, that's not what you meant at all. What did you mean? There is no "Traditional", or "Current", "old" or "new", "liberal" or "conservative". There is only Catholic. I don't think anyone disagrees with what you do about the Vice. WHat I don't get is why you are trying to contrast Christopher West's teaching with what the Church teaches. If that isn't what you are doing, explain yourself properly. Don't pretend you meant what you clearly did not.
kamiller42 Posted April 14, 2010 Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='rkwright' date='14 April 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1271280089' post='2093532'] Does this imply that all foreplay is morally impermissible as well? [/quote] I see both sides to this, but I think Apo's definition is a bit restrictive. If it's not generative, it's off limits? No kissing? No female chest organs? I won't go any further. After reading this thread, I need to go wash my eyes out.
Recommended Posts