Do I have this right?

[TLM08]

Let me clarify a bit more. The hypothetical couple do not wish to contracept. But they wish to enjoy oral sex.
It is possible that a couple who is open to life could also wish to enjoy oral sex. This insistence that every ejaculation must be in the vagina of his wife is, well, weird. I am not aware of any Protestant, Orthedox, or Jewish rules in this specific matter. Would like to find out if it is unique to Catholicism.

I don’t know if it’s unique to catholicism, but the Bible is stunningly silent when it comes to sex rules for married couples.

 

[Newbie2]

Still wrong if ejaculation is outside the vagina on purpose.

For what reason? The procreation aspect has already been completed. Adding another million swimmers or so won’t affect the open-ness to life.

 

[Ella]

I don’t know if it’s unique to catholicism, but the Bible is stunningly silent when it comes to sex rules for married couples.

**
Yes you are right. ** Does anyone know if the Orthedox have this rule?

 

[chris_molter]

I don’t know if it’s unique to catholicism, but the Bible is stunningly silent when it comes to sex rules for married couples.

It’s stunningly silent on a lot of things, but you’re smart enough to know that the argument from silence is a lousy one.

 

[Spirithound]

Which ones still hold to it? What about the Orthedox? Or Jews?

And to be a bit clearer, I am referring to a situation between a married couple.

Orthodox, probably. Jews, might depend on which sect. Protestants, really couldn’t tell you.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I don’t know if it’s unique to catholicism, but the Bible is stunningly silent when it comes to sex rules for married couples.

It is silent on a lot of details. That is probably why Jesus didn’t say [Matthew 16:19]

19* I will give to the* Bible the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever it* binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever* it* looses on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[chevalier]

For what reason? The procreation aspect has already been completed. Adding another million swimmers or so won’t affect the open-ness to life.

New ejaculation makes new intercourse. The second intercourse is not completed if the ejaculation is elsewhere than the vagina.

 

[Ella]

New ejaculation makes new intercourse. The second intercourse is not completed if the ejaculation is elsewhere than the vagina.

ANYONE know if this is a belief unique to Catholicism?

Because it is BIZARRE.

 

[chris_molter]

ANYONE know if this is a belief unique to Catholicism?

Because it is BIZARRE.

More bizarre than a Jewish carpenter rising from the dead?

 

[bilop]

ANYONE know if this is a belief unique to Catholicism?

Because it is BIZARRE.

So, if you’ve already eaten enough to be full, but want to eat more for pleasure w/o gaining weight, is it OK for you to stuff yourself and then purge?

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

ANYONE know if this is a belief unique to Catholicism?

Because it is BIZARRE.

Not bizarre, but certainly unusual. It is an unusual belief, because it is rooted in the belief that sexuality is a profoundly significant gift from God, rather than a pleasant diversion with the occasional reproductive side effect. That God allows us to cooperate in His creation of human beings should inspire awe and great humility.

The Church teaching pays proper respect to the magnificence of human life and human sexuality. It does not waver in the face of changing cultural mores or indignation stemming from inconvenience, because it observes an important way in which we touch the eternal during our temporal lives.

If the teaching is unusual, the problematic thinking is not with the Church, but with those who fail to appreciate the full magnitude of this precious gift.

 

[Seatuck]

For what reason? The procreation aspect has already been completed. Adding another million swimmers or so won’t affect the open-ness to life.

Each and every marital act must stay true to it’s meaning. It must be both procreative and unitive in nature for it to be a marital act.

 

[Tezza]

Is this belief unique to the RCC?

I went to a strict Fundamentalist Christian church (very anti-Catholic, btw) a few times and they taught all oral sex was wrong…period. They quoted some verse from the OT, but I couldn’t tell you what it was. I do remember thinking, how does THAT verse say oral sex is wrong??

 

[Tezza]

"There’s nothing that singles out the genitals as being ‘unkissable’ as part of a husband and wife’s foreplay to intercourse. The term ‘oral sex,’ however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such beharior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples…It’s not objectively wrong if the wife acheves climax as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context of a complete act of intercourse.

Oral copulation is simply not* marital. It effects no communion of persons between the spouses. Its the consummation of nothing. It involves a severance of the pleasure of orgasm from the responsibility of fertility. It fosters a husband’s tendency to objectify his wife. For these reasons, it does not and cannot symbolize and participate in the free, total, faithful and fruitful love of God. It does not and cannot symbolize the marriage bond or renew a couple’s vows."
The Good News About Sex and Marriage, pg 92-93

Avail yourselves to the teachings of JPII’s Theology of the Body. You won’t regret it.

“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church.” Ephesians 5*

 

[bilop]

Not bizarre, but certainly unusual. It is an unusual belief, because it is rooted in the belief that sexuality is a profoundly significant gift from God, rather than a pleasant diversion with the occasional reproductive side effect. That God allows us to cooperate in His creation of human beings should inspire awe and great humility.

The Church teaching pays proper respect to the magnificence of human life and human sexuality. It does not waver in the face of changing cultural mores or indignation stemming from inconvenience, because it observes an important way in which we touch the eternal during our temporal lives.

If the teaching is unusual, the problematic thinking is not with the Church, but with those who fail to appreciate the full magnitude of this precious gift.

Wonderful post!

God Bless

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Not bizarre, but certainly unusual. It is an unusual belief, because it is rooted in the belief that sexuality is a profoundly significant gift from God, rather than a pleasant diversion with the occasional reproductive side effect. That God allows us to cooperate in His creation of human beings should inspire awe and great humility.

The Church teaching pays proper respect to the magnificence of human life and human sexuality. It does not waver in the face of changing cultural mores or indignation stemming from inconvenience, because it observes an important way in which we touch the eternal during our temporal lives.

If the teaching is unusual, the problematic thinking is not with the Church, but with those who fail to appreciate the full magnitude of this precious gift.

Well stated

 

[Spirithound]

ANYONE know if this is a belief unique to Catholicism?

Because it is BIZARRE.

Let me give you an analogy: If you go for a walk, then you come home, then some time later, you go out again, again on foot, you’d say you’re going for another walk, right?
Similarly, each marital act counts towards your daily exercise, but each act is separate.

 

[TLM08]

This rule got a lot of support from the early church fathers due to their primitive understanding of human reproduction and biology. They believed that the male seed was limited in number. In those days it was also believed that the entire living human being was contained in the male ejaculate. Understandably, their motivation to ban this activity was as passionate as the pro-life movement is today. The church has never been quick to update her theology based upon current scientific knowledge.

 

[LJN21]

This rule got a lot of support from the early church fathers due to their primitive understanding of human reproduction and biology. They believed that the male seed was limited in number. In those days it was also believed that the entire living human being was contained in the male ejaculate. Understandably, their motivation to ban this activity was as passionate as the pro-life movement is today. The church has never been quick to update her theology based upon current scientific knowledge.

Masturbation, pulling out ect. is biblically forbidden. You saying God did not understand what sperm was?

 

[TLM08]

Masturbation, pulling out ect. is biblically forbidden. You saying God did not understand what sperm was?

God knows everything. However, the early theologians of the Church are not God. Go back and read it again. Furthermore, the Bible is completely silent on the topic of masturbation, which has absolutely nothing to do with the original post.