Author Topic: Heribert Jone and denzinger on spousal sodomy - Warning (Read 3914 times)

PG · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2015, 04:46:49 PM »

I believe denzinger 2303 concerning artificial fertilization is applicable. DZ 2303 # 4 states "... it goes without saying that the active element is always procured illicitly by acts which are contrary to nature".

The context is:

"As for the morality of artificial fertilization within marriage, let it suffice for the present for us to call to mind the principles of the natural law; the mere fact that the end which is intended is actually achieved in this way does not make the use of this means lawful; and the desire of spouses of having offspring does not yet prove sufficiently that the use of artificial fertilization, by which this desire is fulfilled, is licit.
It is an erroneous opinion which holds that marriage between persons incapable of contracting marriage because of the impediment of impotence can be rendered valid by the use of this means.
On the other hand it goes without saying that the active element is always procured illicitly by acts which are contrary to nature."

PG · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2015, 05:00:00 PM »

It doesn't hurt to post the rest of dz2303 #4. I put bold on the part that some may use to argue to my contrary.

"although a priori new methods cannot be excluded merely because they are new, nevertheless, as far as artificial fertilization is concerned, not only is there need of the greatest circuмspection, but it simply must be avoided. 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.

Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of new life, which takes place according to the will and order of the creator, obtains to a truly perfect degree the ends intended by it. Such procreation corresponds at once to the corporal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the spouses and to the normal and happy development of the infant. "

Now, if someone could please provide a papal teaching/quote saying that sodomy is contrary to nature, then we can close this case and move on.

PG · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2015, 01:25:27 PM »

Folks, let not this scandalous subject become in itself an occasion of scandal by being silent. I have been wanting to discuss this for a long time, and I am pleased that matto's comment received two up thumbs. But, I am disappointed that more are not commenting. This is coming from an 18th century moral theology manual. I mean, we reject sr. faustina for the pious errors found in her book. But, this is permissible? This can be "taught with confidence" as denzinger often responds. There is no way that bishops and cardinals are unaware of this teaching. Yet, the manual is in use. It is quoted by traditional clerics. Was it not our lady of la salette who said that the church has problems of sins of the flesh?

Here is st. peter damian commenting on sodomy - "Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.

PG · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2015, 02:22:21 PM »

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.

Matto · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2015, 03:23:01 PM »

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.