Help!

[Mirror_Mirror]

This is a spinoff from another thread…can anyone list the specific Church teachings that support this comment:

“Oral sex is accepted by the Church as long as it is an act performed by a husband and wife within the marital embrace.”

The discussion is whether or not oral sex is wrong in the eyes of the Church. Please know that we are talking about oral sex between a husband and wife within the marital embrace.

If you can provide specifics, please do.

 

[mosher]

It is a matter of objective morality. The moral imperative here is that all sexual acts must have fucundity. Oral sex even between spouses lacks this fucundity and is thus a deviation from the objective moral norm.

 

[NotWorthy]

I was surprised to hear from Fr. Larry Richards that anything is acceptable between a husband and wife as long as it leads up to the ultimate act. I think the way he put it was, “As long as something leads to the ultimate act, and does not prevent it, it is acceptable between husband and wife.”

Notworthy

 

[jegow]

NotWorthy:

I was surprised to hear from Fr. Larry Richards that anything is acceptable between a husband and wife as long as it leads up to the ultimate act. I think the way he put it was, “As long as something leads to the ultimate act, and does not prevent it, it is acceptable between husband and wife.”

Notworthy

Can you remember what his basis was for saying that. Was it his opinion or did he get it from Church teaching?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

NotWorthy:

I was surprised to hear from Fr. Larry Richards that anything is acceptable between a husband and wife as long as it leads up to the ultimate act. I think the way he put it was, “As long as something leads to the ultimate act, and does not prevent it, it is acceptable between husband and wife.”

Notworthy

I love Fr. Larry. Maybe I will email him and find out what he has to say about this. I was fortunate to meet him 2 weekends ago at a mission here locally, what a great passionate man.

I agree with your statement, by the way.

 

[Marauder]

Basically the Catholic Church’s stance is that all sexual acts are supposed to be

1. Between a validly married couple.
2. procreative
3. unitive
4. Also no acts should devalue either participant.

So as long as a oral stimulation is leading up to normal intercourse it is allowed and fits the above situations. If either partner feels that oral stimulation devalues them it should not be used. If the intent is to climax before moving onto more then it is not within church teaching.

 

[jc411]

mosher:

It is a matter of objective morality. The moral imperative here is that all sexual acts must have fucundity. Oral sex even between spouses lacks this fucundity and is thus a deviation from the objective moral norm.

But ponder this - there’s (hopefully) lots of kissing in marital relations. Kissing (in sex) is uising the mouth to arouse the other. And kissing lacks fecundity, so I think the “objective moral norm” applies to the completion of the act, where fecundity is measured, not in foreplay. There are many ways the mouth is used sensuously, and I don’t even agree there’s an objective definition of oral sex, unless perhaps to mean to the point of completion of the male, which is where we would/should all agree. That has been my understanding of the line that the Chruch draws.

To place the mouth (and tongue) entirely outside the limits of marital intimacy is unreasonably beyond what the Church asks or wishes. And most spouses will insist on at least getting a kiss to get warmed up.

 

[jegow]

Marauder:

Basically the Catholic Church’s stance is that all sexual acts are supposed to be

1. Between a validly married couple.
2. procreative
3. unitive
4. Also no acts should devalue either participant.

So as long as a oral stimulation is leading up to normal intercourse it is allowed and fits the above situations. If either partner feels that oral stimulation devalues them it should not be used. If the intent is to climax before moving onto more then it is not within church teaching.

Here is a question then - How can oral sex be a seperate act leading up to to the conjugal act? Is it considered abnormal intercourse. If it is a seperate act it is certainly not procreative - then it becomes a no, no.



So are you saying that it is wrong to do it. You yourself said that ’all sexual acts’ have to be unitative and procreative. Since oral sex, which happens to be sexual, is not procreative then it is wrong.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

Here is a question then - How can oral sex be a seperate act leading up to to the conjugal act? Is it considered abnormal intercourse. If it is a seperate act it is certainly not procreative - then it becomes a no, no.

I never thought I would say this, but we do agree on something. If oral sex is a seperate act, seperate from the conjugal act, it is a sin. Yes, yes, we agree on this. However, oral sex is used in its simplest form as a means to arouse your husband/wife in preparation for sexual intercourse. Then it is acceptable. As is kissing, caressing, massaging, oral stimulations, etc. These are all act of foreplay, BEFORE, the act of sexual intercourse. They are ways that we express our love before the ultimate act of love, the ultimate act of giving ourselves to our spouse in sexual intercourse.

 

[Marauder]

jegow:

Here is a question then - How can oral sex be a seperate act leading up to to the conjugal act? Is it considered abnormal intercourse. If it is a seperate act it is certainly not procreative - then it becomes a no, no.

Wow this is hard to talk about without going into a PG rating. If you are talking about oral stimulation before a normal conjugal act then it is permitted.

If you are talking about what is normally referred to when talking about oral sex as oral stimulation that results in a release without a conjugal act then it is not permitted within the typical understanding of Catholic theology since it removes the procreative aspect of the event. Now if the intent was to end it in a normal conjugal act but something happened then there isn’t a problem as long as the original intent was to end it that way.

I have done a lot of study on this and other aspects of Theology of the Body and there is some debate but most things agree that an act has to be procreative and unitive. Debat does occur in issues where say normally the couple does normal conjugal activities but just for one night decides differently. Whether things like that are allowed.

 

[vluvski]

jegow:

So are you saying that it is wrong to do it. You yourself said that ’all sexual acts’ have to be unitative and procreative. Since oral sex, which happens to be sexual, is not procreative then it is wrong.

By this logic, the only thing a couple can do in regard to sex is actually have sex, meaning Man inserts Penis into Wife’s Vagina and Ejaculates.
How clinical!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

vluvski:

By this logic, the only thing a couple can do in regard to sex is actually have sex, meaning Man inserts Penis into Wife’s Vagina and Ejaculates.
How clinical!

ROTFLMBO

 

[jc411]

vluvski:

By this logic, the only thing a couple can do in regard to sex is actually have sex, meaning Man inserts Penis into Wife’s Vagina and Ejaculates.
How clinical!

I think this vluvski hit it out of the park with this one. Kind of sad if it were distilled down to just this one fecund act. I hope nobody’s life is like this!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

Here is a question then - How can oral sex be a seperate act leading up to to the conjugal act? Is it considered abnormal intercourse. If it is a seperate act it is certainly not procreative - then it becomes a no, no.



So are you saying that it is wrong to do it. You yourself said that ’all sexual acts’ have to be unitative and procreative. Since oral sex, which happens to be sexual, is not procreative then it is wrong.

Here is what is being said:

Husband and wife decide to be intimate for the evening. Husband and wife practice NFP, follow the Church, and are open to life. They are going to participate in unitative and procreative love. They are going to selflessly give themselves to one another. This evening will include a dinner and end in their bedroom. Before engaging in the marital act (sexual intercourse) they kiss, they caress, etc, etc. Within this is oral sex. Now after this (oral sex) they proceed to have sexual intercourse with the desired result. This is NOT wrong.

If you say that “Since oral sex, which happens to be sexual, is not procreative then it is wrong” one must conclude that passionate kissing (which can be sexual) is wrong. Caressing your wife’s breasts (which can be sexual) is wrong. A massage (which can be sexual) is wrong. Do you see where I am going with this?

The misuse of oral sex is wrong, to use it for you own selfish pleasure is wrong. That is the exact opposite of what the marital embrace is all about - selfgiving love to your spouse.

 

[frogman80]

Mirror Mirror:

This is a spinoff from another thread…can anyone list the specific Church teachings that support this comment:

“Oral sex is accepted by the Church as long as it is an act performed by a husband and wife within the marital embrace.”

The discussion is whether or not oral sex is wrong in the eyes of the Church. Please know that we are talking about oral sex between a husband and wife within the marital embrace.

If you can provide specifics, please do.

I wrote this in the other thread:

frogman80:

Here the problem with finding some church document on OS… It probably does not exist. I am pretty sure JPII does not mention OS in TOtB… I have never seen it in the summa. I am telling you [jeglow] that pretty much all you are going to find is… a man must finish in a woman, and the act must strive to be giving. The only sources you will find on OS are going to be the theologians… using REASON to define what it permissible. Example… this article has a few quotes in it:
nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm

 

[vluvski]

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. **It is realized in a truly human way only *if it is an integral part of the love *** by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

Notice, first, that each time the CCC says actS, plural, meaning multiple actS take place during the marital embrace.

Another point is that “Sexuality is ordered to conjugal love” but is expanded to generally include “physical intimacy.” If sexual intercourse was the only acceptable “sexual act,” the CCC would have specified such.

Finally, refer to the bolded and underlined sentence from paragraph 2361. “It” refers to sexuality. “An integral part of the love…” refers to sexual intercourse. Thus, sexuality is good if and only if it is exercised *as part of * sexual intercourse. It follows, then, that an application of sexuality that can be and is exercised only as part of sexual intercourse, is morally good. Oral sex that precedes or procedes male climax within his wife’s vagina is therefore morally good.

 

[deb1]

Just a thought but would it be inappropriate to use the terms fellatio or cunninglings.(I can’t spell, sorry) that might erase some of the confusion when discussing kissing-which is oral-as opposed to other types of oral sex.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

vluvski:

Notice, first, that each time the CCC says actS, plural, meaning multiple actS take place during the marital embrace.

Another point is that “Sexuality is ordered to conjugal love” but is expanded to generally include “physical intimacy.” If sexual intercourse was the only acceptable “sexual act,” the CCC would have specified such.

Finally, refer to the bolded and underlined sentence from paragraph 2361. “It” refers to sexuality. “An integral part of the love…” refers to sexual intercourse. Thus, sexuality is good if and only if it is exercised *as part of * sexual intercourse. It follows, then, that an application of sexuality that can be and is exercised only as part of sexual intercourse, is morally good. Oral sex that precedes or procedes male climax within his wife’s vagina is therefore morally good.

:clapping: :dancing: :clapping: :dancing:

You have found what I have been searching for!! Thank you for posting that. I knew that there was something out there and this was it. Thanks. The only other thing that I had (aside from this) was from Christopher West:

“Oral copulation (that is, to the point of ejaculation) is simply not marital. It effects no communion of persons between the spouses. It’s the consumation of nothing. It involves a severance of the pleasure of an orgasm for 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 fruitful love of God. It does not and cannot symbolize the marriage bond or renew a couple’s vows.”
“Furthermore, while there is nothing wrong per se with oral stimulation of the genitals as foreplay to intercourse, such expressions require the greatest degree of purity and reverence so as never to degrade the goodness of marital intimacy.”

So that I do not have to type it all out, throughout Christopher’s study of Theology of the Body (which has been extensive) he says that there is nothing wrong with oral sex (oral stimulation) as long as it is within the marital act and is a mutual act of love. (One that does not cause the husband to climax).

 

[jegow]

Mirror Mirror:

I never thought I would say this, but we do agree on something. If oral sex is a seperate act, seperate from the conjugal act, it is a sin. Yes, yes, we agree on this. However, oral sex is used in its simplest form as a means to arouse your husband/wife in preparation for sexual intercourse. Then it is acceptable. As is kissing, caressing, massaging, oral stimulations, etc. These are all act of foreplay, BEFORE, the act of sexual intercourse. They are ways that we express our love before the ultimate act of love, the ultimate act of giving ourselves to our spouse in sexual intercourse.

And I agree with you!! I also agree that IF and ONLY IF your husband/wife has a difficult time getting aroused then certains means can be taken to do that. But then and only then. Let me post part of what I posted in the last thread since the frog guy said I should move.

It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation. It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it. A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act. They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”. Anyways - I am signing off for the day. Peace!

 

[frogman80]

Have you read the quotes form this article yet:
nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm

jegow:

But see that’s what I am trying to show; that oral sex is “not an entire act” and that it is an entirely different act all together. It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation.

What is your view on kissing, or caressing? What about touching of the sexual organs? You seem to ignore these questions from myself and others. Are you arguing a point here, or are you really trying to find out what the truth is?

jegow:

It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it.

Experience will show that there are many actions that can cause climax for many different reasons. A women… can climax with no attention to her sexual organ at all. In my marriage prep course, we were warned… some couples when newly married… can climax at first site of their spouse, or on attempt of penetration. (The priest gave that warning, because he said he didn’t want to see any one of us in the confessional the next morning because of it!)

jegow:

A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act.

Experience will show that there are many acts of foreplay that need to be halted or stopped in order for intercourse to take place.

jegow:

They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”.

You are not twisting… you are just not using Church teaching to understand them. AGAIN I ask you… what documents have you read, or what classes have you taken that help you to understand in the way the church intends you to understand them.

This article contains some quotes from theologians:
nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm