Categories
Uncategorized

PENIS INTO VAGINA – EQUALS MARRIAGE ???

I publish this article today in response to yesterday’s comments on the blog about the CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE.

BY TERENCEDC

I’ve got a few posts in the hopper related to the California Supreme Court marriage ruling, but this one moved to the top of the pile as soon as it was brought to my attention. Of all the conservative responses to the California ruling this one takes the cake. I’ve written about the procreative imperative, which the right wing has tried to establish as the basis of marriage. I’ve written an entire (and ongoing) series challenging the rightwing notion that marriage is only for making babies and only for people who can (or possibly could, if miraculously cured of infertility) makes babies. (But not for people who can raise well-rounded, developmentally normal children they didn’t conceive together in loving, safe, supportive homes.)
This, however, makes all of that seem almost logical. Forget about making babies. Forget about raising happy, healthy children. In their increasingly desperate question to narrow marriage down to something two queers can’t possibly accomplish together, they’ve boiled it down to this: in order for a marriage to be valid a penis must go into a vagina.


California’s Supreme Court ruled last week that homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry because to deny them a status afforded heterosexuals was deemed discriminatory.
“Reserving the historic designation of ‘marriage’ exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples … equal dignity and respect,” according to Chief Justice Ronald George.
But in fact, permitting individuals of the same sex to describe their relationships as marriage gives them a right not extended to heterosexuals, for whom “marriage” is very narrowly defined.
Although a man and a woman may legally wed, the law does not consider the marriage valid unless it is consummated. A minister may have declared the couple husband and wife, the state may have issued them a license; they may share a name, a house, a bank account, and wear each other’s rings.
They may have engaged in various intimacies only Bill Clinton would not describe as sex. But unless the relationship includes the one act defining marital union, the marriage can be annulled because it is deemed to have never existed.
Why, then, should there even be a question of whether same-sex couples can marry? Applying existing law, the question is moot; homosexual marriage is physically impossible.


She’s serious, folks. (So much so, in fact, that the was probably too pleased with herself for having worked in the obligatory Clinton reference to remember that he was the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.) Until and unless that penis goes into that vagina you are not married.
I actually read the column all the way to the end, to see if the author had any supporting references for her claim that “the law does not consider the marriage valid unless it is consummated,” but I could find none. That’s because she did what a lot of conservatives do: the decide that whatever they believe makes so much sense that it doesn’t require support. “It’s just common sense.” After all. Unfortunately, saying it’s so doesn’t make it so.
There is one respect in which the author is right on consummation. Near as I can tell, a non-cosummated Catholic marriage is voidable, though not actually void until the Pope says so.

Catholic theology teaches that a validly contracted marriage is accompanied by divine ratification, creating a virtually indissoluble union until consummation, after which the marriage is completely indissoluble. An unconsummated marriage can be dispensed by the Pope, as Vicar of Christ.[2] Once the marriage is consummated, only a separation is possible; the marriage bond cannot be dissolved. Therefore, the term “divorce” has no meaning in the context of Catholic marriage.


That creates a bit of a problem depending upon how you look at it. Again, as near as I can tell (not being a scholar in Catholic theology), some Catholic theologians have asserted that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was never consummated.

Thomas Aquinas, decided that a virginal marriage could be a real marriage, they legitimated Joseph’s unconsummated union with Mary and initiated increasing interest in Joseph as a saint. Although many medieval writings on fatherhood viewed the role as one of power and discipline, some writers used Joseph as an example of the kind of father who parented “by love and service,” in the words of a 12th-century monk.


My guess that was necessitated by the belief that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life and died a virgin, thus never consummating her marriage to Joseph.

Where Gratian tried to conciliate between coital and consensual theories of marriage formation, Hugh of St. Victor and Peter Lombard took the consensual theory of marriage formation to its logical extreme. With good support from Augustine, Hugh developed his theory in two works composed in the 1130s. The first was a polemical treatise on the virginity of Mary, in which he rebutted an unnamed adversary who held views similar to Gratian’s.21 He later incorporated the theory of marriage developed there into his comprehensive treatment of marriage in the De sacramentis Christianae fidei, the first of the great theological summae.22 Hugh maintained, on the one hand, that Mary and Joseph were truly married, and on the other hand, that Mary was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, which is to say that she made her marriage vows while intending not to consummate her marriage (a problematic position under medieval canon law).


(An aside: I couldn’t help thinking how this might work for, day, a devoutly Catholic heterosexual couple who happened to be infertile. Would they be allowed to have sex, seeing as how it’s highly unlikely to include the possibility of procreation? If they can’t have sex, can they consummate their marriage? Can their marriage ever be valid? My guess is that there’s a biblical reference take care of this, in which  some deity implanted life into the would of a three-hundred-year-old woman or something. So it could happen for our theoretical couple. But what if one of them – the man or the woman – are unable to engage in sexual intercourse with penetration?)
But medeival canon law is not today’s law, and church law is not civil law. Not yet, anyway, though the author of the column would probably like it to be. I only did a cursory check online, and not only did I find nothing to support her … um … theory, but quite a bit that would tend to undermine her thesis.
First there’s her apparent definition of intercourse, which to her clearly means penis-in-vagina only. That’s typical of people who tend to ask, “How can two men/two women even have sex anyway? How is that even possible?” Again, sexual intercourse means penis-in-vagina. Period. Except when it doesn’t. The author of the piece above doesn’t cite any supporting references for her assertion that sexual intercourse is exclusively penis-in-vagina. But I found a couple of sources suggesting that it used to be that way, but times have changed and that definition has changed with them.


And, if you want a source bit more authoritative than Wikipedia, try Merriam-Wesbter.
Main Entry: sexual intercourse
Function: noun
Date: 1799
1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus 2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis


Not only that, but nothing I can find says that civil law requires a marriage be consummated – and that the consummation must consist of a penis going into  vagina – before it can be considered valid. The legal section of the Free Dictionary defines Consummation of marriage but indicates that civil law does nt not require consummation.

CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE. The first time that the husband and wife cohabit together, after the ceremony of marriage has been performed, is thus called.
2. The marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without this; for it is a maxim of law, borrowed from the civil, law, that consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias. Co. Litt. 33; Dig. 50, 17, 30; 1 Black. Com. 434.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.


Another source says that only a few states require consummation for a marriage to be valid. I looked up that Latin phrase, by the way, and it translates as: “Consent, not consummation, makes the marriage.” But that can’t be right, because even gay people can consent.
Speaking of consent, there is one aspect of marriage in which the author may be correct about consummation, if not about sexual intercourse. While in most states consummation of marriage, or proof of ability to consummate, is not a prerequisite to receive a marriage license, in many – if not most – states it looks like inability to consummate (impotence, unknown prior to marriage), failure to consummate, or intention to refuse to consummate are grounds for civil annulment.
Annulment happens after the fact, that is, after the marriage has taken place, and the process requires at least one party in the marriage to file a petition for annulment. A hearing follows, and if the petitioner proves his/her case the marriage may be annulled. All things being equal – and isn’t that the point? – annulment laws would apply equally to same-sex couples: if one partner turns otu to be impotent, unwilling to, or never intended to consummate the marriage, the other partner would have grounds for annulment.
Those are the facts as near as I can tell them. But what to make of the bizarre reductionism the radical right has resorted to in an attempt to deny marriage equality to same-sex couples. First, there was the rather strange argument that same-sex couples are guilty of gender discrimination, because same-sex marriages “lack gender diversity” (penis/vagina combination). Then there’s the bizarre argument that marriage is based on procreation, so it’s only for people who can (or could) make babies. Now it’s down to this. Marriage is founded on a penis going into a vagina. (How that would apply to a post-op transgender person marrying a partner of the opposite gender is anybody’s guess. But I think the author would amend her “consummation law” to state that the parties must be born with the penis and vagina in question for it to count.)
As crazy as it sounds, they seem to really mean it.
What to make of that? Where do you even begin to address it?

PAT SAYS

I think there are two problems about the traditional question of the consummation of a marriage.

First of all its saying that the only possible way to consummate a marriage is penis into vagina.

That is a very simplistic and flesh bound approach to consummation.

If marriage is primarily about LOVE – the love Jesus had for his pride the church – penis into vagina is laughable as consummation.

In any event these days most couples getting married have been doing the penis into vagina exercise with each other for years. Do we call that PREMATURE CONSUMMATION?

Some years ago, after hearing so much nonsense talked about gays having anal sex I started doing a sensitive survey of how many heterosexual couples practice anal sex.

Every such couple I have talked to so far about this admitted they had at least tried anal sex!

69 replies on “PENIS INTO VAGINA – EQUALS MARRIAGE ???”

You raise an important issue, Pat. Speaking for myself, I have no time for the concept of marriage, having taken on responsibilities and duties in my life which are good in themselves and do not need the enhanced status of marriage to validate them – though I have often thought that the concomitant tax benefits would have been welcome. Marriage in my view is a civil contract which, rather like buying a house or flat rather than renting, might be advantageous. You should decide for yourself, but morality and inherent goodness subsist in what you actually do, rather than what you think you are entitled to. I have known inadequate fathers for example – and I am speaking as a bloke – who dodge their responsibilities but assert their rights owing to marriage when it suits them. If consummation defines a marriage, then any pissed smack head could do it – and sadly they do! Another example of the damage phoney Christian morality has done and the damage it has caused. Perhaps new redeemed Magna would agree with me?

Like

10.57: I am well integrated Pat. You are NOT….You need to work on your spiritual integration: get to know CHRIST. Quickly…..

Like

Who is the Catholic Church to tell anyone what to do? At its core they are a bunch of immoral, cheating, abusing, robbing bastards. Now I know that not all priests are thus but they are part of the system and seek to uphold the system that carries out these acts. Are they then equally as guilty by association? Not for me to say yeh or neh. My point is that the RCC has lost the right( if indeed it ever had it) to pontificate to anyone. Society is governed by civil law and one would hope, in a Christian country, this is compatible with Gods law. However, in order for the rule of law to function, civil law must come first. Part of that law is equality. Who are a bunch of men to dictate to any couple how they should live their married life and what they should get up to sexually with each other in order for their marriage to be “ratified”. This borders on perversion. Why is the RCC so interested in what goes on in the bedroom? (As an aside, when we had to attend “marriage preparation ” as young adults, a very well known priest, who has recorded tapes on sex education for young adults, told all the girls to go out and buy a negligee for their honeymoon night !). It is not for the RCC to tell anyone what to do nor what constitutes marriage when quite a lot of them do the complete opposite. If we take the logic above, does that mean the priest ( I refuse to say Fr) who got the woman in divis pregnant, before running out to have dinner whilst she miscarried, consummated his relationship?

Like

Good point! The RCc needs to stay Well away from anything to do with the bedroom – or a school classroom/sexual education. These bastards will pollute a growing person’s mind. Thank God younger people are a bit more wiser to the likes of the RCc these days.
Bishop Pat’s blog is a vital tool in today’s society as it allows everybody to see the reality of the situation within the RCc.
Bishop Pat, I wish I had read your blog before going off to seminary as I would have been a lot wiser, maybe I would have been protected from the abuse, maybe I would have taken a safer path. Still, this blog allows people to share their experiences and it is OUR right do do so! It takes just one good person so do nothing which in turn allows evil to flourish. Not on Our watch!!
Thank you Bishop Pat x

Like

Pat I can’t resist the quote from Eric Gill about ‘joining the church is like being f*cked by Christ, and either we bear children to him or we don’t’.
Incidentally if people think Magna Carta is an enfant terrible, Gill would quickly have disabused them of that idea.
Obviously if you think marriage is solely for having children you will see penis into vagina as being essential. But if you don’t, you won’t.
The preamble to the C of E marriage service gives three reasons for God instituting marriage. After procreation and the avoidance of sin it gives
‘Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.’
Which to me seems the only sensible reason to go into marriage.
I would be interested to hear what any canon lawyers would say about the status of a married couple where, say, the husband had had an accident and lost his penis so they could never have sex. What then?

Like

11.08

The Church teaches both the procreative and the unitive aspects of sacramental marriage. The second of these corresponds semantically to the third stipulation of marriage in the Anglican Communion.

Like

Penetratio of itself isn’t sufficient, canonically. It must be followed by ejaculatio and semenatio, which as our Maynooth Canon Law professor remarked, doesn’t require a great deal of Latin in order to be understood.

Like

11.39
Did he, er, say anything of the woman having to orgasm? Or didn’t her pleasure matter?
If the answer to both is ‘no’, it would echo medieval Church teaching on marriage, and its patriarchal view that women should almost be statuesque during sex.
O the enlightened times they/we lived in. 😕

Like

Mary needed a get out of jail card to keep the auld philosophers happy because earth and sex is bad and heaven and purification is good. But hi how come the basic command in Genesis is be fruitful and multiply. Also homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom where species are reflexive rather than reflective hi A fekit I’m goin sleep 😴 Night yall hi

Like

you have a good point about couples having sex before marriage. The church welcomes them with open arms when they decide to get married and yet treat gay couples with contempt.

Like

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63
I do like the idea of falling in love and caring for that person, making them feel happy, whole and generally just loved, really. When we love another on a deep personal level, we, too, become whole ourselves; when we love another we tend not to be as focused on ‘ourselves’ – our ego.
The Christian Godhead is unique and is the perfect expression of true love. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one – united in essence – hypostasis…
The Father loves Son, the Father’s love is constantly focused on the Son; likewise, the Son loves both the Father and the Holy Spirit and so on. This is called Perichoresis and is the name given to the interpersonal, interpenetrative, eternal and constantly active and alive loving relationship between the three persons of the Trinity – the Christian Godhead.
‘’If, as is properly understood, the Father is he who kisses, the Son he who is kissed, then it cannot be wrong to see in the kiss the Holy Spirit, for he is the imperturbable peace of the Father and the Son, their unshakable bond, their undivided love, their indivisible unity.’’ – St. Bernard of Clairvaux, in Sermon 8, Sermons on the Song of Songs[11].
A simple kiss and a few loving words can lift a person higher than the clouds.
A peck on the cheek and a few kind words will do, if you please! 😘 x

Like

4.25

Man thon’s quare stuff. An’ here wuz me thinking it was all celestial choirs, cherubim and seraphim, an’ gynormous heavenly thrones, with heavenly seats upon them, along with their stern-faced owners.

But if you caught the, er, incestuous sensuality of that holy bit of fantasising, you should read some of the medieval texts about the holy virgins, the nuns-to-be, preparing to become brides of Christ. I mean…I’ve never read such romantic and erotic scenes in a good Mills and Boon.

Young wimmin’ peeling off, standing before enormous high-hung crucifixes, offering themselves to Jesus in…in EVERY way.😨

It’s enough to make a good Catholic boy turn Onan.

Like

Magna, there is nothing incestuous about the love between Father and Son. Love transcends all that is sensual. Why does everything have to come down to S.E.X. Magna, you seem like a knowledgeable guy (or gal lol) I therefore assume you have heard of Agape, Eros and Storge? Agape is God’s love, a perfect love that requires nothing in return. Eros is the love between two adults who express their love for one another in a physical way (Eros – which became known as Erotic under Freud). Storage is familial love; the love you have for your family and friends. Love has many dimensions, that is why we are made in the image of the Triune God.

Like

2.30
You’ re a teenaged student, aren’t you? A young woman studying RE, perhaps?
Good post, by the way. Well argued. But not totally convincing to me.
Incestuous relationships, like marriage in the RCC, hinge for legal and moral validity on copulation and ejaculation. But, as today’s blog is discovering, not everyone agrees with sex-focused definitions of such relationships. In my opinion a brother and sister, for example, do not have to proceed to penetrative sex, or even to any OVERT sexual activity, for incestuousness to have occurred.
Similarly, with that heavenly pair. But if you insist on some sort of sexual validation definitively, then look no further than what (harumph) issued from their love. The Holy Spirit.
What did Bernard of Clairvaux say of this love? That it was indivisible. Now where have we heard that, or a similar word or phrase, before? In Genesis, of course. Because this book, like sex, takes us back to human basics: to beginnings; to conceptions. At Genesis 2: 24, we read of man’s and woman’s leaving everything behind just to be with each other, so that the two can become one flesh. Sure, this speaks of corporeality, at least on the face of it. However, the sexual act, in this circumstance, is only the visible manifestation of what has already taken place interiorly: a spiritual and indivisible bonding. Well, that’s the Hollywood theory, at any rate. But it is important not to be ontologically dualistic about the sexual act: to try to separate the physical from the spiritual here is to make a false dichotomy that is not borne out by the reality of at least some couples lives. And it would fall into the trap into which fell the RCC many centuries ago. (And consider the holistic harm done by it ever since. 😕)
If the Father and Son do not fit legal definitions of incest (and their issuing the Holy Spirit from their love does, in fact, suggest the femine in God’s nature, along with the masculine), then it is only because their love, already incestuous spiritually, does not take a physically sexual form.

Like

Actually penetration etc are not necessary for incestuous relationships to be abusive. For example a parent showing a child porn is considered sexual abuse.
Things have progressed remarkably in recent years, and a lot of actions would now be considered legally sexually abusive which fall well short of intercourse.

Like

I endorse the post @7:55 pm on the absurdity of attempting to categorize love – I think the ancient Greeks seriously slipped up there. Moreover trying to present fancying a boy in the sixth form as love between friends has been the undoing of many a schoolmaster, not to say clergyman. Love is endlessly complex, and I would say better understood as an attempt at connectedness without the bull-shit.

Like

7.03

Cruel? I do hope not; that wasn’t my intention.

I did congratulate the poster on a good, well-argued comment.

I encourage the person to keep posting.

Like

You are quite right, Magna, and in this case at least you are a better man than I. Better to encourage the poster in the hope she will get away from the influence of the ghastly Professor Stephen Bullivant.

Like

This is only my opinion and not intended to discourage and of course I understand that the terms used above have technical meanings, but I have found the words for different sorts of love to have limited application in the real world. This is simply because we don’t call all of those things love in English but we do have shades of meaning for love. I love my mother and love my wife but they are different sorts of love. I don’t love my friends and if I were to say ‘I love Magna Carta’ you would need further details to know what I mean because you can’t see me, such as gender….

Like

Apparently, the celebrity priest, Fr Sugar Ray Kelly, says he believes the option should be there for priests to marry.

Like

He also added: “I love dancing with Kylie every week and having a woman in my life, but we’re both very professional, she has her husband and Kylie respects my role as a priest.”
The old queen doesn’t half flatter himself, Bp Pat.

Like

Father Ray – Perichoresis 💃 Aww, he does have a lovely voice. I watched a video of him singing at a wedding and it was beautiful. Try not be too bitchy with him, guys, if you were not allowed to fall in love or was bored shitless and loved to dance, then why not! At least he is not going round damaging people!!!!
Leave off x

Like

1.51

I, too, watched that video; the groom was flush with embarassment. I doubt, very much, whether ‘Fr’ Ray was invited to sing on that occasion; I believe he invited himself.

I think Ray loves an audience, and just wants stardom. And in the round, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this, but then, go off and seek it…and cease all this priesthood-first guff.

Please. 😕

Like

Our Brian thinks Ray has been brave. Bless. I wonder if our Brian will be motoring down to the Graan this week for the big novena. He doesn’t seem to go back there very much although they still have some of his books on sale.

Like

2.30: Magna the Jealous. You are probably the most infantile cracked shitheads ever to appear on this blog. Utter garbage.

Like

I think that the shock of discovering that such things existed would be too much for most seminarians – requiring immediate resuscitation with intravenously administered gin. As one famous Anglo-Catholic cleric of days gone by is said to have remarked of the fairer sex: I knew of course that such creatures existed but had never thought I would encounter one in my own church.

Like

I agree at 12:07, though at least this one didn’t get himself ordained in the Westminster lavender mob, and is now something in gents’ outfitting.

Like

11:57am 😂😂😂 that has just made me howl. Have you seen them pods that open up containing the aliens in the film Alien! Well that’s what they look like to me. I thank the good Lord he made me just the way I am!

Like

Oooh, horrible just looking the things! I couldn’t go near one! Just the very thought makes me come all over a little queer!

Like

My own view is that I would have preferred the state of marriage to have been reserved for heterosexual couples, as the natural place for the family to be formed, although I do recognise that many people create for themselves a relationship for family and do not marry. I understand the argument from he same sex lobby about equality of status etc., but I do not think it unreasonable that certain states are reserved for certain groups of people. It does not diminish anybody if it is well understood why that is the case. As a gay man, I never did feel diminished or discriminated against because I was not able to marry. What was much more important to me was protection of real and practical rights, which were satisfied by the introduction of same sex civil partnerships. Equality does to mean identical in every respect. Indeed, there are many things that both men and women cannot be simply because they are either a man or a woman, for example I am not able to conceive and give birth to a child because I do not have a womb. That does not make me unequal, it just means that I am different from a woman.
The Church, in my view, is perfectly entitled to reserve sacramental marriage for opposite sex couples, and to imbue it with whatever sacramentality it wishes. It’s not something for me, but I accept their right to do it. They simply need to designate it sacramental Christian marriage in order to differentiate it from other understandings and forms of marriage.
The Church, and so often society, tends to view the value and importance of things, both practically and morally, through the microscope of sex, the loins, the genitals and what a person does with them. This whole debate about consummation, insertion, vaginal, anal sex, is completely irrelevant to the matter of marriage, I think. What is important for marriage is commitment and intentionality, and if two people wish to vow themselves together then that makes a marriage. We get in to all sorts of twists and tangles when we start to look forensically at the sexual, physical aspects of what makes a marriage. That tendency on the part of the Church and priests is an indication of their inordinate interest in the sexual as the primary decider in the moral and ethical value of a person or situation. I do wish we could find other parameters to use when we feel the need to make those judgements.
People will find ways of creating, celebrating and solidifying their relationships with others. We should rejoice whenever couples do this and establish a faithful, loving and generous relationship, no matter what it is called – be they unmarried, partnered, legally partnered, married, sacramentally married. I think God is able to get in amongst any of these relationships and act for good through the parties concerned. So, I look for goodness, love and the quiet presence of God in any relationship, rather than worrying about its status, or what the parties are doing with their sexual bits. Ubi caritas et amor deus ibi est.

Like

9.18am: Thank you for a very balanced, intelligent and informed essay. I like it for its thoughtfulness, fairness, emotional integrity and intelligence, written without any vindictiveness or rage and written with great reflectiveness. As a priest I value your calm honesty and insights. Wish others would imitate your approach on serious issues!

Like

Talking of penises – and by association the item of wear that most gentlemen use to contain it in daily use – what has happened to Little UnderPanties Prior ? That’s all gone quiet. More obfuscation, coverup, denial, hoping it will all go away, duplicity, lying, head in the sand, it’s none of the laity’s business, it’s a priestly issue……? It will be interesting if he pops up celebrating Mass and ministering somewhere. What will their excuse / story be ? I bet you there is a lot of underhand skullduggery going on over this man and his issues, as there usually is with priests who have extra curricular interests and activities. Look after your own, is the name of the game for the Church.

Like

Where’s Magna today ? I thought he would be wading in to this one with full force. Or are you blocking him / editing him out, + Pat ?

Like

I spoke yesterday of the high irony of the Church’s traditional neurotic suspicion of human sex and its requiring this very act to validate marriage sacramentally. All in all, the sexual act rather than the sacramental ritual was the conduit for grace…which actually invalidated the need for any liturgical sacramental sign at all. This was the clear implication of Church teaching vis a vis consummation of marriage.

I mention again the Church’s requirement for sexual consummation because, in the Middle Ages, the Church drew up a checklist for men ready for marital sex. The list decided when, where, how, and how often couples could indulge themselves in fleshly pleasure. It asked such questions as:

Is your wife pregnant?

Is she menstruating? I

Is she nursing a child?

Are you both naked?

Are you in church?

Is it Saturday?

Is it Lent?

Is it a Feastday?

If the man (the man, not the woman, since she was meant to be passive in the act) could answer ‘no’ to each of these intrusive questions, then his way was canonically cleared for sex with his wife. But only once. And only in what is known today as the Missionary Position.

All things considered, the Church permitted marital sex, on average, just once a week.

Some hope.

Like

Are you seriously telling me leaving your socks on if you get cold feet (not even for kinky reasons) is not OK?
Apart from anything else that is an open invitation to do it on a sheepskin rug in front of a roaring fire in the solar!

Like

7.50

Oh, dearie me, no. And again, no! That would never do: socks on, sheepskin rugs in front of roaring fires. Don’t you know that this would make an act meant merely as perfunctory and mechanical something romantic and (I can scarcely bring myself to say it) ENJOYABLE?

This isn’t sex a la Caananites, y’ know. This is sex courtesy of Rome. And Rome would not have been pleased at the scene you sketched.

Nakedness was disallowed, as were roaring fires, and romance. Preferably, the act should occur while your eyes were closed, and with your reciting some Psalm or other.

There were penances prescribed for breaches of the confessional manuals with which priests were routinely issued. These included a rising scale of penitential tarrifs for ‘sin’. Adultery once, for example, two years penance. Adultery twice, five years penance. And so on.

Like

Today’s Telegraph reports that Elsie has been accused of behaving like the Stasi in the management of Westminster Cathedral Choir. Sounds par for the course with Elsie, but I am not sure where moral right lies in this particular case. There are certainly a great many pushy parents in London who manipulate Catholic schools to suit themselves. Whoever benefits from the Choir School, I doubt it will be the children of the Catholic poor who built the cathedral. Not on topic for today , I’m afraid, but it would be interesting to hear if others’ insights more informed than I.

Like

He certainly lost his world recognised choir director, Martin Baker, over this, and no doubt also the quality of the choir, now not able to rely on the presence of the choristers for preparation, will diminish. Nichols took his eye off the ball on this one, and the consequences will be considerable for the reputation and standard of a world renowned choir in the Catholic tradition. There’s a consultation going on at present, but it’s one that is post factum and packed out with people who are going to minimise any criticism of Nichols or Westminster. But the damage is done and will long lasting.

Like

I would say that weekly boarding suits affluent London based parents just fine, whilst kids from poorer families who are dependent on bursaries can get stuffed. If you read the Telegraph article, this would seem to be the reality. Nice one, Elsie!

Like

put ur penis into the vagina
And wiggle it about
Now just do it long enough
Till the semen starts to spout
Try not to enjoy it
Cos it’s such a sacred act
Do it very quietly
With dignity and tact
And when the chore is over
Just lie back and pray
That you have been successful
And a baby is on the way
Another one for our congregation
That we can fill with all our lies
And extort from him or her their money
From they’re born until they die
We don’t care if they live in squalor
Eats jam on toast or honey
For all we’re really looking for
Is to get hold of all their money but the best thing for you in this act
Is you’ll be blessed from up above
Your marriage is now sanctified
And you really are in love
And If you hear about gay sex
Please ignore the fuss
Don’t even try it
Just leave that to us
For we don’t practice what we preach
I know, isn’t it a giggle
But my parting advice to you
Is don’t forget to wiggle
I really must go now
My boyfriend he awaits
Ducky Don’t be telling anyone
Because they think we’re straight

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s