Christian Marriage Bed Ethics

[goout]

goout:

phil19034:

goout:

Theology of the body has a lot to say about this issue.
The issue at hand is the using of another person as opposed to the mutual respect and mutual pursuit of good ends by a couple.
The other person should never be a means to an end. A person is never a means. If mere one sided pleasure is the end of an act, it’s not ordered well.

And this article on Catholic Answers says that when people try to argue that Theology of the Body approves of oral sex, they are 100% wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, SO I WILL HAVE TO TALK IN ALL CAPS NOW.
YOU ARE REFERRING TO ORAL SEX PER SE, FOR IT’S OWN SAKE, AS IT’S OWN END.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM FOREPLAY THAT IS ORDERED TO AND PART OF A PROPERLY ORDERED CONJUGAL ACT.

Says who? Please show me one Church document that says oral sex is not sinful. So are you saying that this article on Catholic Answers is wrong?

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

You’re not listening.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

goout:

phil19034:

goout:

Theology of the body has a lot to say about this issue.
The issue at hand is the using of another person as opposed to the mutual respect and mutual pursuit of good ends by a couple.
The other person should never be a means to an end. A person is never a means. If mere one sided pleasure is the end of an act, it’s not ordered well.

And this article on Catholic Answers says that when people try to argue that Theology of the Body approves of oral sex, they are 100% wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, SO I WILL HAVE TO TALK IN ALL CAPS NOW.
YOU ARE REFERRING TO ORAL SEX PER SE, FOR IT’S OWN SAKE, AS IT’S OWN END.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM FOREPLAY THAT IS ORDERED TO AND PART OF A PROPERLY ORDERED CONJUGAL ACT.

Says who? Please show me one Church document that says oral sex is not sinful. So are you saying that this article on Catholic Answers is wrong?

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

You’re not listening.

I am listening. I’m asking you to show a Magisterial document that supports the position that you (and Christopher West) supports.

I have read the arguments from Christopher West and I have read the arguments from Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem. I’ve also read the arguments from St. Alphonsus Liguori.

Furthermore, our definition of “oral sex” might be different.

If you read everything I have stated, I never said oral sex that is foreplay leading towards the properly ordered conjugal act is mortally sinful. However, I do think it’s still at least a venial sin.

Per St. Alphonsus, oral contact is allowed as an organic part of foreplay, ordered towards the properly ordered conjugal act. But full blown oral sex, which one would see in pornography or even a “soft porn” program would be sinful.

My definition of “oral sex” is what would be seen in a porno. I don’t consider kissing or oral touching (even of the sex organs) as oral sex.

 

[Anicette]

Germs in Grizes is actually the last living lay theologian who worked on Humanae Vitae.

Unfortunately, Germain Grisez passed away in 2018.

 

[F_Marturana]

Oh. I’m sorry I didn’t know that. Thank you.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Per St. Alphonsus, oral contact is allowed as an organic part of foreplay, ordered towards the properly ordered conjugal act.

It seems we’ve just been talking past one another, then. I don’t think anyone said you could just do that to completion, I believe it was clear that the act had only one morally licit climax.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Per St. Alphonsus, oral contact is allowed as an organic part of foreplay, ordered towards the properly ordered conjugal act.

It seems we’ve just been talking past one another, then. I don’t think anyone said you could just do that to completion, I believe it was clear that the act had only one morally licit climax.

Well, I also think we might have different definitions of “oral sex” too. The things one might see in a porno movie (or even soft porn) are what I consider “oral sex” and those acts would be considered sinful.

It’s obvious that one cannot do that to completion. But my argument is that some acts that people call “oral sex” are sinful in nature (because they are sodomy), while other acts that some might call “oral sex” are not really oral sex because they are really just oral touching and kissing.

The border between sinful oral sex (sodomy) and spontaneous kissing and oral touching might be a little blurry, but there are oral acts that are inherently sinful.

This is why St. Alphonsus says it’s best to avoid it all together.

 

[Rau]

Procreation is not required of a marriage nor even the potential, for example a marriage of the infertile does does not invalidate it. What is required is to have the will to grant the proper marital act necessary to produce children.

I’ve no argument with that. But that is not what was asserted earlier.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Procreation is not required of a marriage nor even the potential, for example a marriage of the infertile does does not invalidate it. What is required is to have the will to grant the proper marital act necessary to produce children.

I’ve no argument with that. But that is not what was asserted earlier.

What did you object to?

 

[whatistrue]

You can still use someone even if it is technically following the “correct method”.

And if you do, that would be sinful also. At least IMHO.

 

[Orthodox_T]

I started a similar thread a while back on some of these issues and felt the need to weigh in.

1. There’s a theme here I noticed that says manual stimulation in the context of marital intercourse is a sin: it most assuredly is not a sin.

Orthodox Catholics such as Fr. Hugh Barbour, George A. Kelly, Bishop Kenrick, Thomas Slater, Fr. Hardon, Ford and Kelly, John Kippley, etc.; all permit it. Even in pre-VII moral manuals, it was permitted because it was considered part of the marriage act in preparation for intercourse.

The much-quoted Hugh Barbour CA article against oral stimulation especially permits manual stimulation (even within Alphonsus’s moral theology framework) to assist the wife to ‘completion’ within the context of intercourse, if she so desires.

1. And while there’s no part of the human body inherently unkissable within marriage (this would incorrectly mean God created some parts of the human body inherently sinful or bad), the warning against oral stimulation is to prevent the spouses developing an affinity to it over normal intercourse, and also avoiding pollution (orgasm) outside of intercourse.

Oral kisses in passing, or out of reverence, like Fr. Barbour says, are not sinful.