Catholics and Anal Sex

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**Apparently I made myself unclear. I’ll try again. Please explain this logic

1. Doing anything to prevent pregnancy during sex is wrong.
2. This is how you have sex if you don’t want pregnancy.
   ??? **

Let me try again:

(But I am not defending the Catholic position, OK?)

1. The Catholic Church admits that not every sex act however naturally performed ends up with conception or pregnancy.

2. But you must not do anything positive to intervene in the natural act to prevent or to abort the possible conception.

3. Now, if you don’t want pregnancy to occur; and since non-occurrence of pregnancy is possible even in the natural performance of natural sex;

4. It is allowed for you to find out how natural sex can result in non-pregnancy, and use your knowledge acordingly.

5. What are these natural factors resulting in non-conception?

6. Only two (one of which does not seem natural to me):

a) don’t have coital sex with a partner of the opposite sex that is still productive (not very natural, in my view, but all right with the Catholic Church);

b) have sex only when a partner is not productive.

The whole matter is rather subtle, but that’s the meddlesome character of wanting to impose an apparently absolute norm, and at that same time disposed to allow an escape route to couples who really cannot afford or cannot allow a pregnancy.

Let me try again, OK:

The whoe trouble it seems with the Catholic Church is first it maintains that sex is for procreation, that is the broad principle.

But there are instances when people can’t afford or allow a pregnancy on the one hand, and on the other it is humanly impossible for them to abstain from sex.

The solution then is to examine the nature of sex and its consequence, procreation.

There in nature itself is a justification for having sex and effectively not having babies.

Namely, that in nature itself not every natural sex act naturally performed results in pregnancy.

Find out those circumstances where sex does not result in pregnancy, and do sex in those circumstances.

How am I getting on? Are you getting anywhere?

This all sounds very hypocritical, jesuistic is the term.

But there is a rational basis, though.

End conclusion: It is not prohibited to not want pregnancy.

How’s that?

Here, in a positive phrasing:

It is allowed by the Catholic Church to avoid pregnancy but not to evade pregnancy.

Like in tax avoidance and tax evasion?

Exactly, it is lawful to search far and wide to avoid tax, but not to evade tax.

So, you consult an expert priest casuist (look up that word), as you look up a very good tax accountant/lawyer.

Jesuits are very good at casuistry.

Now, I think I get the perfect explanation:

If you are a Catholic couple and one of you is infertile, then you can have all the natural sex you want and not have pregnancy, and it is not sinful for you to congratulate yourselves that you are not burdened with pregnancy, whatever the Catholic teaching that sex is for procreation.

In effect, here is the final and best explained position of the Catholic Church on sex, procreation, and contraception (let me try again):

1. It’s not forbidden to have sex when you cannot have a pregnancy:

because one partner is infertile even transiently.

Examples: when your wife is menopausal or in the period when no egg is waiting in her uterus for your sperms to come along;

Or you yourself are sterile but of course possessed of an actively erectile penis (you don’t have viable sperms).

2. If both of you are productive, then you can still make use of your wife’s non-fertile period to have sex without resulting pregnancy;

because that also is very natural, it is all nature’s way and schedule.

Final word, you may positively work out that period of infertility, it is not sinful; if you have good reasons why you cannot afford or allow a pregnancy.

Without good reasons, and you seek out that period to have non-pregnancy sex; it is just an imperfection.

An imperfection, what’s that?

There are three things that do not make God happy:

Imperfection, venial sin, mortal sin.

Imperfection means an act not pleasing to God and not displeasing either, just plain indifferent, at most lacking in generosity that is not obligatory.

Venial sin means it will get you to purgatory where you will spend some time before you get to heaven.

Mortal sin means you will get to hell and stay there for eternity.

Joel, keep your questions coming, I enjoy exercising my cerebral cells.

Susma Rio Sep

[tracer]

*Originally posted by istara *
**A female muslim friend tells me that many muslim girls have anal sex for years before they have vaginal, just to preserve the hymen for marriage. How fucking sad. **

So to speak.

[Icerigger]

As TVAA said:

When a female chimp is ovulating she gives off powerful pheromones and her genitals glow bight red, every male knows she is in heat. The chimps and most mammals would be perfect candidates for Catholic NFP, God for some reason turned advertised ovulation off in human women, why? The NFP Catholics use only became practical in the early 20th century when unnatural knowledge gained by science of the human fertility cycle was understood enough to be of use.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by Icerigger *
**As TVAA said:

When a female chimp is ovulating she gives off powerful pheromones and her genitals glow bight red, every male knows she is in heat. The chimps and most mammals would be perfect candidates for Catholic NFP, God for some reason turned advertised ovulation off in human women, why? The NFP Catholics use only became practical in the early 20th century when unnatural knowledge gained by science of the human fertility cycle was understood enough to be of use. **

Ice, you understand then what I am saying, trying to explain to Joel the Catholic positions on sex ordained for procreation on the one hand, and natural family planning allowed just the same on the other.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *

---

Are you referring to Orthodox Jews? Becuase if you are, you’d be wrong.

If you are familiar with the OT, then please kindly point me to the verse where it states that anal sex is prohibited. Or, if you like, I’ll spare you the trouble and tell you that it’s not there. There is no verse in the Torah prohibiting anal sex and in the Talmud it is specifically permitted.

Zev Steinhardt **

Dear Zev:

Are you telling me that Orthodox Jews are allowed to do anal sex?

And anal sex is allowed in the Old Testament?

In which case I have no problems with that.

So, I must admit that my reading of the Old Testament is not very extensive, and my understanding is also not quite precise.

Susma Rio Sep

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by ResIpsaLoquitor *
Wrong. The Church teaches that NFP is only acceptable for “grave reasons,” the logic being that they DON’T want NFP to become a Catholic equivalent of contraception.

No. The Catechism, Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 6, SubSection 3, Heading 1, § 2368 provides:

A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality.

(Emphasis mine).

§ 2370:

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

I’m not sure where “grave reasons” came along, but it’s not the standard.

[zev_steinhardt]

*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep *
**Dear Zev:

Are you telling me that Orthodox Jews are allowed to do anal sex?

And anal sex is allowed in the Old Testament?
**

Yup. That’s what I’m telling you.

Zev Steinhardt

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**Susma Rio Sep is offering absolutely inaccurate information and dispensing it with calm surety. This really bothers me.

In addition to the mistake with respect to Jewish law, with which I have passing familiarity, there are serious errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. For example, in responding to Kalhoun’s question about married priests and if the Church is “looking the other way:”
This is a lie.

The requirement that a priest not marry is not set in stone. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 1047 § 2) provides that if a man already married wishes to become a priest, the Holy See alone may grant permission.

Now, if you, Susma Sep Rio are talking about any case in which a priest has married without the permission of the Holy See and continues to exercise his office with the church “looking the other way” or “closing both [her] eyes,” please present it, and then I’ll glady retract my characterization of you as a stinkin’ liar.

But I see no reason to withdraw that characterization at present.

• Rick **

Tell me, Brick, what statements exactly of mine are lies.

And I will explain or admit my misinformation.

I fear you are shooting at strawmen.

I was talking about priests in active ministry but living in with women, not properly married ones with the sanction of the authorities.
About married men being ordained, tell me if I am mistaken, in the Vatican Roman Catholic Church, I have read that such ordained men can carry on the duties of a priest, but not their conjugal duty anymore to their wives.

And their wives can’t anymore demand the conjugal debt from them.
No anger, please. If you have to be indignant, adopt the appropriate literary style and device.

Susma Rio Sep

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep *
Tell me, Brick, what statements exactly of mine are lies.

And I will explain or admit my misinformation.

I fear you are shooting at strawmen.

Happily.

I was talking about priests in active ministry but living in with women, not properly married ones with the sanction of the authorities.

Here’s Lie #1. What evidence do you have that any such situations were sanctioned by church authorities? In short - cite?

About married men being ordained, tell me if I am mistaken, in the Vatican Roman Catholic Church, I have read that such ordained men can carry on the duties of a priest, but not their conjugal duty anymore to their wives.

You are mistaken. This is untrue.

• Rick

[Nobody]

Susma Rio Sep, just one question. Say in a marriage, the wife isn’t in the best of shape. In fact, a pregnancy would do extreme damage to the wife. I understand that this is a place where Natural Family Planning would be recommended. However, with Natural Family Planning, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a greater risk of pregnancy than with, say condoms, or diaphragms, and so on. Plus, with NFP you’re opening yourself up to the possibility of pregnancy. But, if to protect the health, if not the life, of the wife, you have to not allow for the possibility of pregnancy, do you think the church would say that the couple shouldn’t have sex at all, or would this be a case where artificial contraception would be allowed, since there really isn’t an in-between?

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**Susma Rio Sep, just one question. Say in a marriage, the wife isn’t in the best of shape. In fact, a pregnancy would do extreme damage to the wife. I understand that this is a place where Natural Family Planning would be recommended. However, with Natural Family Planning, correct me if I’m wrong, there’s a greater risk of pregnancy than with, say condoms, or diaphragms, and so on. Plus, with NFP you’re opening yourself up to the possibility of pregnancy. But, if to protect the health, if not the life, of the wife, you have to not allow for the possibility of pregnancy, do you think the church would say that the couple shouldn’t have sex at all, or would this be a case where artificial contraception would be allowed, since there really isn’t an in-between? **

Dear Joel:

As I have always maintained that people looking for the real authentic genuine official teachings of the Catholic Church or any church for that matter, namely, the most productive approach is to contact the concerned official spokesmen of the church in question.

Now, if their questions are brought up in these boards, and I come to read them, I will give them my own opinions, in addition to the official positions of the church concerned, in our present context, the Vatican Roman Catholic Church – for there are quite a number of churches calling themselves Catholic – for I assume that the inquirer is not only after the official teachings but also and maybe very important for him something different, which he might find useful to him in his conscience.

That said, here is my contribution.

If you want to be a good Catholic, faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you are only morally allowed to practice NFP, even though everyone with eyes open and can think staright knows that the longer you practice NFP the surer you will have a pregnancy.

It’s the statistics; like the longer you drive a car, no matter how careful you are, you are going to end up with some vehicular accident.

So, the Catholic Church admits that certainty in NFP is not as good as in AFP, but you have to trust in God’s grace and when you do come to a pregnancy: that’s God’s will.

If your wife should get hurt as a result, that’s also God’s will.

"We have not here a lasting city, but we seek and await the one in heaven… " (correct me for any imprecise wording or phrasing).

As a postgraduate Catholic, I practice AFP.

If you try several Catholic priests, you will come across some who will tell you to follow your conscience, and they will even give you some theological premises why you can and be justified to follow your conscience.

But they will – unless they are also postgraduate Catholics themselves – not give you the leave to practice AFP.

Ask around, and you will find from Catholics who are the more liberal priests in the neighborhood or community.

Susma Rio Sep

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear Brick:

You say that I tell lies.

Please put those lies I tell in brief statements; and as I said I will explain them or admit my misinformation.

For the purpose of our exchange, I would like to seriously request from you what you understand by ‘lies’.

May I earnestly propose that you consult your Catholic catechisms or commentaries on Canon Law.

Susma Rio Sep
Addenda:
1st post of Brick on Susma’s lies:

---

---

Susma Rio Sep is offering absolutely inaccurate information and dispensing it with calm surety. This really bothers me.

In addition to the mistake with respect to Jewish law, with which I have passing familiarity, there are serious errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings.

For example, in responding to Kalhoun’s question about married priests and if the Church is “looking the other way:”

===================
quote:Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn't usually work.

That's how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

================
This is a lie.

The requirement that a priest not marry is not set in stone. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 1047 § 2) provides that if a man already married wishes to become a priest, the Holy See alone may grant permission.

Now, if you, Susma Sep Rio are talking about any case in which a priest has married without the permission of the Holy See and continues to exercise his office with the church “looking the other way” or “closing both [her] eyes,” please present it, and then I’ll glady retract my characterization of you as a stinkin’ liar.

But I see no reason to withdraw that characterization at present.

• Rick

---

---

Brick’s second post on Susma’s lies:

---

---

quote:Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep
Tell me, Brick, what statements exactly of mine are lies.

And I will explain or admit my misinformation.

I fear you are shooting at strawmen.

Happily.

quote:
I was talking about priests in active ministry but living in with women, not properly married ones with the sanction of the authorities.

Here’s Lie #1. What evidence do you have that any such situations were sanctioned by church authorities? In short - cite?

quote:About married men being ordained, tell me if I am mistaken, in the Vatican Roman Catholic Church, I have read that such ordained men can carry on the duties of a priest, but not their conjugal duty anymore to their wives.

You are mistaken. This is untrue.

• Rick

---

---

[Ben]

Forgive me if this has already been pointed out, but it’s worth noting Catholic theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann’s (sp?) research into the history of the Catholic Church’s views on sexuality.

In her book Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, she explains that historically the view of the Church has been that every ejaculation belongs in a vagina, period. (Thus the Monty Python “Every Sperm is Sacred” song is apparently no joke.) She quotes a number of medieval theologians as saying in no uncertain terms that masturbation is a worse sin than rape or incest. Why?

Because at least raping your mother deposits the ejaculate where God intends it to be. That is, in a vagina.

She goes on to argue that much of the Church’s public explanations for their doctrine isn’t really accurate. For example, you’ve probably heard the Pope say on a number of occasions that in artificial insemination (or in vitro fertilization- I don’t quite remember which) is unacceptable because “everyone deserves a natural birth.” Ranke-Heinemann explains that this isn’t really the case. It is, in fact, acceptable for Catholics to undergo artificial insemination, so long as it is done in a way in which the semen lands- if only technically- in a vagina. A condom with a small hole in it permits the semen to be ejaculated as part of sex, into a vagina, while retaining enough to make artificial insemination possible.

Let me say that I realize all this sounds pretty extreme, and I would be very skeptical indeed if Ranke-Heinemann weren’t herself a Catholic theologian. If anyone else has evidence to the contrary, I’d be interested in hearing the other side.

[Tuckerfan]

I remember reading years ago, about a Catholic priest who was working with fertility doctor on developing a leaky condom. Seriously. The reason for the leaky condom was so that the couple who was attempting to have children through IVF, wouldn’t have to worry about the couple going to hell. Instead of having the husband, uh, manually provide a semen sample, the couple would have sex. The leaky condom, would allow enough of the semen to escape, so that the couple could theoretically concieve (but you know, if they were able to concieve naturally, then why would they be at a fertility clinic?), and yet capture enough semen to allow for IVF. I have no idea of how popular this is among Catholics (all of the Catholics I’ve known have been pretty much, "I know what the church says about birth control, but they’re just wrong as far as I’m concerned), or if it’s ever been used, but I know that it was being developed.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear Ben:
It gets better and better.
I have not looked up Uta R. Catholic theologian.
There was a question some very naughty classmate of mine in moral theology asked the father instructor.

Whether when he was having intercourse with a girl not his wife, and then he suffered terrible pangs of conscience, but he was coming; should he push ahead or should he withdraw and jettison outside?

There was a heated discussion ensuing, but at the end we all agreed that he should push on; because to pull out would be a more damnable sin than to complete the act, which is fornication but still natural intercourse.

If he had pulled out, he would be committing the more grievous sin of an unnatural act, coitus interruptus.

Uta R. now tells us that the natural home of sperms is the vagina.

That makes sense.

I think I told Joel that if he searches just a little, he will find very liberal Catholic priests who might give him the theological reasons, why he could use his conscience in deciding for AFP.

My point is that if you search a little wider and further, you will find theologians who are better informed and more profound thinkers and researchers than the Pope and his official experts.

So, Uta R. tells us that the Pope not allowing fertilizatio in vitro is not altogether correct; because you can always put a bit of the semen in the vagina while retaining the main volume in the condom, then proceed to the in vitro fertilizatio.

And God is hoodwinked again.

Or nature.
Back to Uts R., she has a point.
The whole mess is the idea of looking for all kinds of moral dictates from biological nature.

As though man’s intellectual resources should be bound to the designs in his biological nature.

Susma Rio Sep

[Bricker]

You say that I tell lies.

Please put those lies I tell in brief statements; and as I said I will explain them or admit my misinformation.

Did before. Will again:

Susma Rio Sep Lie #1, in response to Kalhoun’s asking about married priests and the Church “looking the other way”:

Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.
.
.
I was talking about priests in active ministry but living in with women, not properly married ones with the sanction of the authorities.

Your response to Kalhoun agreed that the Church was “closing both eyes” to a priest that was married. I pointed out that priests could be married, and your response to that was… less than clear to me. It certainly did not amount to a retraction of your “closing both eyes” criticism.

Ben: Ms. Ranke-Heinemann is a self-styled “Catholic theologian.” She has previously asserted that the Virgin Birth is a metaphorical event, not a reality. Her ecclesiastical license to teach was revoked in 1987. She does not have any standing whatsoever to teach the views of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

Dear Brick:

Before anything else, let’s both of us have a good laugh about vagina, and condom, and all those anatomical and physiological details.
Put into a very brief statement:

My lie: Church authorities close both eyes to priests living in with women.

Is that the lie I committed?

But also tell me what for you is a lie.
We have the following in language:

a wrong statement;

a misinformed statement;

an untruth which is a perjury in government court;

and a lie which is an untruth on the morality venue.

Finally, we have all kinds of literary devices and writer’s liberties.
Now, practiced readers can automatically discern all these things, specially literary devices and writer’s licenses.
Let’s have another big laugh over vagina and semen and all the details of anatomy and physiology of the lower male and female groins.
You give me the impression of a overly solemn character.

Please, take everything with a cup of humor.

Then also, a fraternal tip: abstain from calling people stinkin liar.
Withal, I love you and I know many many people like you; our good brother, Spectrum, is like you.
Anyway, tell me what you understand to be a lie.

Honestly, my statement: Authorities close both eyes to priests living in with women’, that is a lie in your understanding?

Susma Rio Sep

[Philly_Style]

Most of the reponders are correct, any sex between unmarried persons is a sin, and therefore not to be practiced.

The chuch does not teach us that the sole purpose of sex is procreation (at least not at my pre-cannan classes). It is a loving act between committed people, joined before God and man. In this setting, what the couple wants to do, or not do, is up to them.

Then there is the whole birth control issue. What we are taught is to lovingly accept children as God provides them. In other words, we can do what we want, as long as we take no “un-natural means” to prevent pregnacy. This is very different then saying that all sex should be used soley to procreate.

Couple who cannot have children due to age or a physical problem are not barred from sex as they are techincally not doing anything to prevent conception.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Susma Rio Sep *
Honestly, my statement: Authorities close both eyes to priests living in with women’, that is a lie in your understanding?

Yes. That is a lie. Where are these closed-eyes authorities?

[Susma_Rio_Sep]

*Originally posted by Bricker *
**Yes. That is a lie. Where are these closed-eyes authorities? **

What about my other request? that you tell me what you understand to be a lie.

So, again, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, to tell me what you understand to be a lie.

Then we will talk about those closed-eye authorities.
Susma Rio Sep