Hello,
I thought I had the issue of sex within marriage understood but I’ve read & heard some things recently that open up some questions on the issue for me again!
Is it wrong to have oral sex and climax with your wife when she is already pregnant?
How much more open to life can one get?
Can someone please answer this from Catholic Church teaching.
Hi, I wouldn’t have thought oral sex is natural and open to life if you’re concerned about that. It clearly isn’t since one can’t conceive through the mouth. Normal sex when your wife is pregnant isn’t being closed to life, any more than a wife who find’s she infertile is closed to life…she can’t get pregnant which isn’t a choice, just a fact…when you wife’s pregnant it’s just not likely to happen at this point that she’'ll get pregnant, being already thus!
Hello Trishie,
I follow your answer up until the end part …
will you please clarify …
I understand oral sex would not be right to climax when the wife is not pregnant for that would not be “open to new life” …
From the point of view of the Catholic Church, is it fine / holy to have oral sex and climax when the wife is already pregnant?
What I basically meant is that normal sex is fine even when you’re wife’s pregnant, as you’re not trying to prevent transmission of life.
Whatever standing oral sex has in the community and in personal lives I don’t see how it fits into the Catholic guidelines regarding transmission of life…but actually I am uncomfortable in areas of Catholic belief and reaction that sometimes seem anxiety driven. However, in this instance I see you’re merely seeking clarification.
Congratulations regarding your baby. I wish you and your wife happiness. God bless you and your family!
I don’t know what you are reading but you should only be reading good Catholic sources. They are mentioned numerous times in the various threads on this subject.
Generally speaking oral sex ,can only be used in foreplay as a preparation for intercourse not as a separate or completion act as far as the man is concerned.The husband needs to climax during intercourse and inside his wife. The woman’s climax is not morally tied to the act of completion itself but must take place within the context of the conjugal act( during a particular lovemaking session in which intercourse is intended and attempted)
See The Good News about Sex and Marriage by Christopher West for more info on that. Or Theology of the Body. Love and Responsibility by Karol Wotyla . Holy Sex… by Greg Popcak.
It’s not so much about whether the wife can become pregnant that governs what can take place in the marital act but the sacramental meaning of the act itself. There is one set of morals not one set for when the wife is pregnant and another set for when she is not.
The Church does not merely teach one must “open to life” in some general way.
Each act of sexual intimacy must be ORDERED to procreation. This means each act must be completed as it is designed.
It may not be altered and no other act may be substituted for it. This is why contraception is wrong-- it alters the act. This is why masterbation (including oral sex to climax), homsexual acts, etc, are all wrong-- they substitute for the act.
The fact that the wife is pregnant is not relevant. One misuses their sexuality when they engage in any act other than completed vaginal intercourse. The sexual faculties are created to be used in that way and no other. So, each act must be unitive and objectively procreative (ordered as God designed it).
So, in order for your intimacy to be as God designed it, it must completed itself in an act of vaginal intercourse.
So it sounds to me like there is one set of morality for women and another for men. If a woman is brought to climax through other means during a “session” in which the male is brought to climax inside the vagina–this is moral. However, the same is not true for a male-am I reading the responses correctly?
So, is it the physical act, the intention, or something else that makes oral sex to climax an inappropriate act? While it is an assumption, it would seem that is contradictory-or at least sexist. If the female is unable to procreate (pregnant, infertile, etc) no act would be procreative-right?
I am sorry in advance if this comment comes across as being flippant in some way, because that is certainly not my intent. It seems to me that there are lots of church conditions for intimacy - i.e. too many things to think about during the act other than your partner who you are wanting to pleasure - resulting in a lot of “performance anxiety” for men, if you know what I mean.
Hello,
The topic / area of sex, I think is by far the most complicated.
I’ve tried to read stuff off the internet and of course passages in the Bible and the Catechism on this subject.
I’ve even asked a number of priests which were difficult and embarrassing for me and maybe for them too!?
In the end, I got so many different answers!
The only one that seemed right was the Catholic position for when I tried to follow other people’s advice, I felt dirty, guilty and separated for God.
I know in some ways this is a matter of conscience and a Catholic conscience has to be formed but I think God forms it quickly if we are open for it is an essential ingredient to living a life pleasing to God.
These days, we try to fight against “guilt” but I do believe it is of God.
Any thoughts?
It’s a clever argument, but then what happens when she ISN’T pregnant anymore and you’ve developed these apetites? Sexual behavior simply doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Each encounter is linked to those before and after. Establishing habits you will just have to break later is just plain not smart.
What is a clever argument? Are you ref. to my statements?
Forming habits is not exactly a moral argument. I abstain at times as well, but I don’t think that is a habit I am going to form. If this is simply a choice, personal and shared with my wife, then it is one we have to make together with a respect for the guidelines of the church of being unitive and procreative. It is natural to please your spouse and this is encouraged in the case of a woman being pleased with something other than penetration. Why is it different with a male? Then why are infertile females not destined for hell? There is never a procreative component to sex when that is involved, in fact- pregnant sex would be missing that same component regardless of the position at climax.
What does ORDERED to procreation mean?
I wish we all would direct answers and comments, by quoting the person and / or mentioning their names or point, that one is responding to, otherwise it feels like a directionless conversation. Just a bunch of points and opinions when we should be seeking absolute Truth.
The male orgasm is intrinsically tied to ejaculation, which needs to occur inside the vagina for the act to be open to life. Obviously, the female orgasm is not absolutely necessary for the completion of the act. This is the source of the differing moral analyses.
There still has to be openness to life. God can (and has) removed the infertility of women and men, even miraculously (see Abraham and Sarah). As regards pregnancy, there is even the occasional phenomenon of superfetation.
I might get a little explicit, but oh well. This is an explicit subject. So children, cover your ears (or eyes).
…
All sex acts have to end in the man having an orgasm inside the woman’s vagina (without any form of birth control). Sterility, infertility, etc. do not affect the “procreative” requirement. The sex act only has to end in that way, it doesn’t have to actually be able to make a baby.
You can still please your partner during the act in various ways (pornography and the likes obviously excluded). As far as I know, oral sex is allowed, so long as the man ends in ejaculating inside the woman’s vagina.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s how I’ve begun to understand the Catholic teaching on the matter. But on a different note, if a woman masturbates during sex (but it doesn’t end just like that) is that off limits? What if it’s “mutual masturbation”?
Question regarding the ‘completion of the act’.
What if the male intends to complete the act, and is normally capable of it, but is unable to do so in a particular instance? To clarify, I’m not talking about impotence, I’m talking about overestimating his stamina, and underestimating the effects of his general fatigue, anxiety, alcohol consumption, etc.
If this is completely unintentional, is this sinful?
No, not sinful if the intent was to complete. Interruptions happen as well as any parent knows. That would not be sinful either.
I would just like to clarafie that there is a difference between Oral Sex and Oral stimulation and it has been talked about several times on this thread. Oral sex is forbidden. Oral stimulation is not. The man can not climax anywhere except in the Vagina.
Antrim
Oral sex is abhorrent to God.
I am too old to play basketball anymore or to have sexual encounters. Looking back, however it is my opinion that some of the best, gentlest, and most satisfying sex occurs during pregnancy for both partners. Unless it is a problem pregnancy normal “Catholic” sex is possible almost up to the day of delivery. Care in choosing positions and no rough stuff allowed. After delivery a period of healing is required for the wife. Only a boor would violate that need. In my opinion people today get too wrapped up in how to physically maximize the pleasure and as a result miss out on some really great sex. The best stuff happens in your head, the one on your shoulders. 