Author Topic: Heribert Jone and denzinger on spousal sodomy - Warning (Read 3721 times)

PG · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2015, 04:14:33 PM »

Matto - brilliant. I think you just nailed it. If spousal sodomy is not a sin, then the spouse theoretically could not refuse. She would have to render this marriage debt.

I think the next step is to brush up on the subject of degrees of marital sin, obedience, and the marriage debt.

PG · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2015, 12:11:08 AM »

Well, I am disappointed in myself. I stated that this heribert jone theology manual was from the 18th century. I knew that seemed wrong. My eyes played a trick on me. I cannot even remember now where I read that, but I do remember reading that. So, Hoffman is actually just quoting from the 18th and last edition. The book first appeared in 1930 and underwent 18 editions until 1961 or 64. So, I sincerely apologize. But, on the bright side, this is good news. It means that this may not be a subject that the clergy as a whole are aware of, and silent about. In fact, perhaps this teaching didn't make its way into the teaching manual until the 50s or 60s. I know that the denzinger footnote was of a 1917 book, but that may not have been made a footnote until my edition 1957 or one close to it. And, that footnote was not explicit. But, that is still nothing really to feel good about.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2015, 06:49:03 AM »

Quote from: Matto

If it is not a sin to commit acts of sodomy then it if the husband demands that his wife commit sodomy with him wouldn't she sin if she refused because the wife has a duty to obey her husband? So if it was not a sin then we would have the absurdity of women going to hell because they refused to be sodomites.

No, the marriage debt does not refer to any specific types of acts; there's no obligation to do something specific just because the spouse wants to do it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2015, 04:46:37 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

What do you think are some examples of "artificial means" spoken of here by pius xii? Because, the more I read this passage, the more it sounds as if he is speaking about things of this nature. Because, he talks about completing the act in a natural way. "By these words we do not necessarily forbid the use of artificial means, which are destined only either to render the natural act easier or to bring it about that the completed act attain its end in a natural way.

I don't necessarily think this passage has any reference to sodomy. So, for instance, this would not rule out the use of Viagra for instance.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2015, 04:57:34 PM »

Sodomy between two men would certainly be against nature. Sodomy which is completed would certainly be against nature. But would sodomy during activities which are completed in natural intercourse be contrary to nature? In other words, is it the "Onanistic" aspect which would render it inherently contrary to nature? Are there then other activities which normally considered contrary to nature but would not be contrary to nature if not completed in Onanism? I for one do think that there's something inherently contrary to nature in the act itself in the fact that the excretory system was clearly not designed by God for this purpose. Whether it's a mortal sin if not complete? Not sure.

But I think that it's probably a waste of time for non-professional lay people like us to dwell on this.

Since many approved reputable theologians seem to hold this position, that it's not grave sin per se so long as the marital act reaches its completion in a natural way, a Catholic who does so while following the position of these theologians would certainly not be committing a grave sin (cf. St. Alphonsus' "probabilism" vis-à-vis moral theology). That's not to say that such Catholics would not sin at least venially (and perhaps even with relatively-serious venial sin) due to excessive indulgence in pleasure. That's not to say that such a thing would please God or would be compatible with seeking perfection. But it's only to say that it wouldn't constitute grave sin.