CathInfo.com

If you are responding to my comments, I reaffirmed that this is not sinful, and was submitting that no priest I can imagine, would ever say this is sinful.

No, this was a general response.

I sure hope the answer to the first is in the negative while the answer to the second in the affirmative, otherwise... I'm in trouble.

And someone else I know, who will remain anonymous!
I wonder if the OP is a troll wanting to make fun of Catholics.

But this same book contains this, which greatly confuses me:
"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 actionis posited without danger of pollution. - Positive cooperation 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."
Also this:
"Wives who do not obtain complete satisfaction may procure it by touches imediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation. Some authors believe she may do so also when the husband withdraws in an onanistic manner. The same cannot be said of the husband should the wife withdraw since the seed would thus be wasted."

The first passage is the most problematical thing about Jone's book (at least of which I'm aware, I haven't read the entire book --- it's meant to be used as a reference work).  Where in the world did he come up with such a thing?  Jone does not use footnotes nor cite sources, at least not in the main --- his book is just a distillation of majority opinions on various points of morality.  Why anyone would do the act he cites, and contend with the hygenic issues involved, is beyond me.  I have heard of irreligious and secular people singing the praises of this act within a heterosɛҳuąƖ relationship --- a very crude female coworker of mine in the business world, who had no filter, boasted of providing this favor to her husband (miserere nobis, Domine!) --- but it is either an abomination, or something very close to it.  I have to wonder if this was some kind of clumsy translation from the original German.


I can't see the problem with the second passage.  There is anecdotal evidence that the woman bringing herself to climax manually as part of the marital act, or allowing her husband to do this for her, is helpful in attaining pregnancy.  That may just be an old wives' tale.