Journal: June 16, 2009

I don't know about the painting I'm working on - sometimes I think, "Why bother?" you know?
.
Why blog? Sometimes certain Catholics disgust me.
.
Whatever. I was thinking about the martyrs during meditation this morning. Today we remember Blessed Brother Thomas Redying, one of the Carthusians martyred for refusing to take Henry VIII's anti-papal oath of supremacy. Thomas was one of 10 monks (out of 30) who resisted apostasy, choosing to die rather than compromise the faith as had most of the remaining 20; these later were exiled from the Charterhouse which they had surrendered to the crown. The Carthusians were martyred in batches - if I remember correctly, the last group of 20 was not killed, although I don't know what happened to them.
.
That isn't my point however. The martyrs who suffered during the reformation, during the French revolution, as well as those killed under Communism, Nazism, the Spanish martyrs, the Mexican martyrs, and so on - they died because of stuff the world considers foolish. Even fellow Christians thought as much. They could have pretended they went along with the State - but they didn't. They believed in the Gospel without compromise.
.
Imagine how alone some of them felt. My reflections caused me to remember Fr. MacRae then.
.
Moving on.
.
Remember Lot's wife, who turned to look at those perishing amid much clamour.
.
So anyway.
.
A friend sends me news links she finds interesting - I get many of my post this way. The latest that struck me was the Christopher West Theology of the Body saga. Another blogger had a good post discussing the issue - lots of comments - it was all about common sense regarding the defense of AP - okay, I'll say it once, Anal Penetration as foreplay in heterosexual marriage. (BTW - if Catholics do this crap - oh, and some people call guys who do it fudge packers, then I was right about the slut/pimp thing I referred to in Sunday's post on modesty.)
.
As St. Paul says - "this stuff should not even be mentioned amongst you, your sanctification forbids it". But sex sells and this culture is sex saturated beyond belief, and rather than correcting that, some people seem to be condoning immoral acts, which they insist lead to the greater good. That's wrong.
.
Read this...
.
"In Chapter Five of his book Good News About Sex & Marriage – Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teachings (First Edition), in response to a question on the morality of anal sex for married couples, West states “There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” This is a false teaching and a serious moral error.
.
Based on my 17 years of research for The Rite of Sodomy – Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church, which included a study of all of the Church Fathers, including Saint Peter Damian and Saint Bernardino of Siena, on the vice of sodomy, I can categorically state that the Catholic Church has always defined sodomy to include anal penetration, with or without ejaculation.
.
The act of sodomy, whether carried by homosexuals or by spouses, is intrinsically evil and a perversion. A married couple who engages in anal penetration and then goes on to normal coitus has engaged in two separate acts - the first, sodomy, is a grave sin, whether or not ejaculation has occurred. Further, the physiology of anal copulation is such that it would be most difficult to prevent ejaculation.
.
Now, alas, we have Janet Smith, claiming that: Certainly there isn’t any “Church teaching” about this action at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible…." - Randy Engel, Sodomy and Theology of the Body, Les Femmes - The Truth
.
Of course, none of the stuff these folks teach is dogma - but it certainly is popular. This type of thinking does indeed lead to greater permissiveness and certainly can be used to justify other behaviors, entertainments, fashions, and the like.
.
Oh well.
.
Once I was out to dinner with some gay friends and one friend told me, "Aristotle Onassis liked anal sex - he used to do it with Maria Callas all the time, but Jackie refused to do it." He laughed and I said "Ick! Good for Jackie!" He looked at me so surprised.
.
I think it is disgusting - gay or straight - and the practice degrading to any human being, as well as a mockery of the marital act.
.
"Today there arises the risk of a serpentine secularization even within the Church". - Pope Benedict XVI