Help!

[Dmitri451]

jegow,

When teaching in matters of moral theology, the Church almost always proposes a principle to follow, and leaves it up to the individual to apply that principle. This is only appropriate, as we are adults.

Occasionally, it is necessary for the Church to indicate how the general principle applies in a particular case.

With regard to the question at hand, the Church as clearly, repeatedly, forcefully, and authoritatively proposed the general principle that direct and intentional stimulation of your spouse’s genitals for the purpose of preparing him/her for sexual intercourse is not only permissible, but a positive act of charity toward one’s spouse, and should be done. In fact, JPII has clearly stated that intentionally not doing this, at least habitually, is wrong.

Those of us who believe it is permissible to use one’s mouth for this purpose assert that it naturally follows from the general principle proposed by the Church.

You assert that it does not naturally follow from the general principle.

So, if you claim that using your lips or tongue to do this is a sin, then you should be able to support your claim either by demonstrating why it is qualitatively different from using other parts of your body to do so, and therefore does not fall under the general principle proposed by the Church, or by producing an equally authoritative document that says the mouth may not be used for this purpose.

 

[vluvski]

jegow:

Sorry I meant any one; as in the word ‘any’ and the word ‘one’ - that was a typo. And you did misquote me.

See post 104 for an explanation of my interpretation of your statement. I apologize for taking your words out of context and adding my own emphasis.

 

[vluvski]

I think we need to take a second to examine the arguments that are being traded back and forth. A lot of important questions are being left unanswered because there is so much interest in this topic.
Perhaps it would be helpful to try a more structured debate by addressing only one point at a time before moving on to the next. If people like this idea, I’ll come up with some ground rules and we can go from there… if not, just keep debating.

 

[vluvski]

Here is the reference jegow uses to support his argument (his emphasis doesn’t show up though):
Humanae Vitae:

12.This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

1. …. they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

jegow makes these assertions (please jump in if I misconstrue this in any way, but these are your exact words from post 71)
jegow (edited for clarity):

FACT: the conjugal act as defined by the Church is to always be unitive and procreative.

ARGUMENT: Oral sex is not procreative in and of itself and therefore becomes a separate action altogether.

Someone please post a counterargument. jegow, I’m really trying to understand where you’re coming from, so I will do my best to browse back through the thread to use what you have already said to defend your arguments or counter the new ones. I won’t take liberties with emphasis this time .

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

I think we need to take a second to examine the arguments that are being traded back and forth. A lot of important questions are being left unanswered because there is so much interest in this topic.
Perhaps it would be helpful to try a more structured debate by addressing only one point at a time before moving on to the next. If people like this idea, I’ll come up with some ground rules and we can go from there… if not, just keep debating.

I’ll second this. How about first going through all the posts and find out what we agree on, cause I am even getting a headache trying to get it all straight.

You have my vote.

 

[frogman80]

Vluvski,

I would be all for a structured debate, but I do not think one in a public forum such as this is possible.

Peace Jegow ,

I have repeatedly asked you questions that you either miss, or ignore. I have provided information on how you misinterpreted the church documents you have provided… again, I know you have a lot of people posting, but you ignored it. People have provided “Ask an Apologist” links on this. Are they wrong? I have also provided you with a quote from a legitimate theologian. I want to help you to understand, but I am starting to wonder if it it worth the time and effort we are all putting in to help you. Are you more interested in being right, or knowing the truth? At the very least, are you even bothering to ask yourself: “Could it be that I am wrong?”

So what forms of genital stimulation are allowed, and how are they different from using a mouth?

Your post here does not answer this question:

jegow:

Oral sex is not the same as intentional stimulation which has many licit forms that it can take place under. Yes, intentional stimulation will happen in oral sex - the argument is that oral sex, unlike the other licit forms, is sinful.

Why do you consider Oral Stimulation of the genitals sinful… why are other form of genital stimulation licit? If you have already answered this, please do me the favor of reposting it.

jegow:

No. The burden is on those who have repeatedly misunderstood my examples, have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said and asked for, accused me repeatedly of going against Church teaching.

Most of us are having a hard time understating your posts. You give answers with out appropriate explanation. What we do understand, we disagree with.

jegow:

If I am going against Church teaching would it surprise you that no one has been able to show me anything from any Magisterial document that tells me that I am.

You want a document… a quote is not good enough? What if a document does not exist to your liking. Does that without doubt prove that you are right? Please be honest.

jegow:

Hey, if you find one why don’t you post it hear so I can read it. This is a thread forum and no burden. In fact you have just received an invitation from your’s truly too. If the Church definitively said oral sex is ok, then ……

The Church does. The Church just does not find need to document it to your liking. If you do not trust Theologians, or those who have studied moral theology, you will have to use reason to get your answer.

Again…
So what forms of genital stimulation are allowed, and how are they different from using a mouth?

Why can’t you answer this question. PLease use “quote” - reply format… so that your reply is clear.

 

[Dmitri451]

jegow:

I’ll second this. How about first going through all the posts and find out what we agree on, cause I am even getting a headache trying to get it all straight.

You have my vote.

I agree that we ought to find the points of agreement before exploring the points on which we disagree.

I think some of the points of agreement are:

1. Direct, intentional stimulation of the spouse’s genitals, using one’s hand, in immediate preparation for and anticipation of non-contraceptive sexual intercourse that is open to life, is both permissible and an act of charity toward one’s spouse.
2. Oral stimulation of the husband’s genitals is always and everywhere a sin if its intent is to bring the husband to climax outside the wife’s vagina.
3. It is permissible for either the husband, or the wife herself, to manually (i.e., with his/her hand) stimulate her genitals immediately after sexual intercourse, with the intention of bringing her to orgasm, if she did not acheive orgasm through sexual intercourse.

If I got some of these wrong, let’s not argue them yet. Instead, let’s rephrase them so that we can all agree.

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

Here is the reference jegow uses to support his argument (his emphasis doesn’t show up though):

jegow makes these assertions (please jump in if I misconstrue this in any way, but these are your exact words from post 71)

Originally Posted by jegow (edited for clarity)

FACT: the conjugal act as defined by the Church is to always be unitive and procreative.

ARGUMENT: Oral sex is not procreative in and of itself and therefore becomes a separate action altogether.

Someone please post a counterargument. jegow, I’m really trying to understand where you’re coming from, so I will do my best to browse back through the thread to use what you have already said to defend your arguments or counter the new ones. I won’t take liberties with emphasis this time .

See my post 81:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1152510&postcount=81

Jegow misunderstands how the unitive aspect can be withdrawn from the marriage act. Sex is not unitive when:
-It is done outside of marriage
-Cases of in vitro fertilization
-Cases of complete objectification of spouse. (example: Rape)
-Cases where a man climaxes purposely outside of his wife.

His argument (OS is not unitive) is flawed because he fails to state how OS, is different from other forms of genital stimulation.

 

[vluvski]

Let’s agree on some definitions first. Some of these may be changes from the convention previously used, so please take note. Also note that the discussion is limited to a married man and woman preparing for or engaged in the marital embrace.

sexual intercourse- penetration and ejaculation.

marital embrace- the events/actions that take place leading up to and following sexual intercourse.

conjugal act- jegow, please clarify how you distinguish conjugal act, marital embrace, and sexual intercourse. Thanks.

oral sex-stimulation of the genitals using the mouth, lips, and/or tongue to the point of climax. We all agree that oral sex, as defined, is immoral to perform on the male. Group M (for moral) holds that it is moral to perform on the female; Group I (for immoral) says it is immoral.

oral stimulation- same as oral sex, but without climax. Group M holds that this is moral to perform on husband or wife. Group I says it is immoral, right?

non-genital physical affection- includes kissing and body to body contact that does not involve male or female genitalia, examples being lips to neck, hand to leg, etc… (not trying to be graphic here, just clear). Group M says this is OK. Group I agrees (I think!)

genital physical affection- body to body contact that includes the genitals, but excludes the mouth. Group M says OK, Group I- I can’t tell.

Please clarify also whether the male or female breasts fall under genital or non-genital.

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

Let’s agree on some definitions first. Some of these may be changes from the convention previously used, so please take note. Also note that the discussion is limited to a married man and woman preparing for or engaged in the marital embrace.

sexual intercourse- penetration and ejaculation.

marital embrace- the events/actions that take place leading up to and following sexual intercourse.

conjugal act- jegow, please clarify how you distinguish conjugal act, marital embrace, and sexual intercourse. Thanks.

oral sex-stimulation of the genitals using the mouth, lips, and/or tongue to the point of climax. We all agree that oral sex, as defined, is immoral to perform on the male. Group M (for moral) holds that it is moral to perform on the female; Group I (for immoral) says it is immoral.

oral stimulation- same as oral sex, but without climax. Group M holds that this is moral to perform on husband or wife. Group I says it is immoral, right?

non-genital physical affection- includes kissing and body to body contact that does not involve male or female genitalia, examples being lips to neck, hand to leg, etc… (not trying to be graphic here, just clear). Group M says this is OK. Group I agrees (I think!)

genital physical affection- body to body contact that includes the genitals, but excludes the mouth. Group M says OK, Group I- I can’t tell.

Please clarify also whether the male or female breasts fall under genital or non-genital.

I would not group female climax in the “oral sex” group… I would put it with oral stimulation. Breasts are non-genital.

 

[vluvski]

frogman80:

His argument (OS is not unitive) is flawed because he fails to state how OS, is different from other forms of genital stimulation.

I think he is arguing that, while it MIGHT be unitive, it is not procreative.

 

[vluvski]

frogman80:

I would not group female climax in the “oral sex” group… I would put it with oral stimulation. Breasts are non-genital.

This change will probably make the discussion simpler. Anyone want to argue that breasts should fall under genital? (not because they are actually genitalia, but because the sensation can be more intense/sexual than other touches)

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

I think he is arguing that, while it MIGHT be unitive, it is not procreative.

The procreative aspect is:
A couple open to life, ending up with the man ejaculating in the woman. Anything that prohibits this is against the procreative aspect. (Example: Birth Control… artificial or natural.)

His argument (OS is not procreative) is flawed because he fails to state how OS, is different from other forms of genital stimulation.

edit (He also fails to show how OS prohibits procreation.)

 

[jegow]

frogman80:

Are you more interested in being right, or knowing the truth?

I am concerned with knowing the truth. As an answer to you second question, yes, I do bother to ask myself if I am wrong.

frogman80:

So what forms of genital stimulation are allowed, and how are they different from using a mouth?

If I was not clear I am sorry. I referred to ‘certain means’ in the case of inability for arousal which I did not get too specific because I didn’t want to loose our PG-13 rating. What I meant by these was the use of means such as the hands or thighs (i.e. rubbing, caressing or stroking) in order to cause arousal; in which case I attributed them to only if the lack of arousal occurs with the other partner. I have also said that other forms of stimulation are acceptable by their very nature. What I was trying to get at, which I may not have done, was that between kissing, touching, massaging, caressing and etc. that oral sex appears unnatural. I had chosen to call it unnatural because it seems to against the nature of the sexual faculties (mainly, being in the mouth of another). The other point that I have made was that it is a lot like mutual masturbation. Let me explain. In mutual masturbation the husband or wife lets the other spouse sexually stimulate them as if they were having sex but, for the example, the hand of the spouse is used instead of the proper union of the partners’ genitalia. And I am sure that there would be some that say that that act is ok as long as they finish in the conjugal act. Here is where I get hung up; in CCC 2352 masturbation is defined as the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs to derive sexual pleasure. Now if the sinfulness of masturbation is not based on whether or not the person climaxed but merely on the deliberate stimulation of the genitals then mutual masturbation would be wrong based off this just by beginning it no matter if it finished in climax or not the deliberate stimulation of the genitals was done. If you agree so far then here is my question. If mutual masturbation is wrong as mentioned above then how is oral sex any different? To me oral sex is mutual masturbation that is done with the mouth instead of the hand.

frogman80:

Most of us are having a hard time understating your posts. You give answers with out appropriate explanation. What we do understand, we disagree with.

And trust me I know that I have this problem of not being able to express what I am trying to get at. So I again thank everyone for their patience. To your last question, “if a document does not exist to my liking then what?” The main reason for the whole document thing started when I told in the old thread that I was going against Church teaching. So, I went on that, forming my famous SHOW ME invitation because I have a pretty good idea that oral sex is not in a Magisterial document. My reasoning was that I had been accused of going against Church teaching when the teaching I was accused of going against could not be found. I look to your responses as help to understanding more about this matter, as well as consulting the works of moral theologians. I hope that I didn’t leave anything out and that my responses were much clearer.

 

[frogman80]

frogman80:

The procreative aspect is:
A couple open to life, ending up with the man ejaculating in the woman. Anything that prohibits this is against the procreative aspect. (Example: Birth Control… artificial or natural.)

His argument (OS is not procreative) is flawed because he fails to state how OS, is different from other forms of genital stimulation.

edit (He also fails to show how OS prohibits procreation.)

Quotes from JPII “Love and Responsibility” on the meaning of “procreative”:

Both procreation and love are based on the conscious choice of persons. When a man and a woman **consciously and of their own free **will choose to marry and have sexual relations they **choose **at the same time the possibility of procreation, choose to participate in creation (for that is the meaning of the word procreation)."

Sex, throughout the natural world, is connected with reproduction. The conjugal relationship makes a man and a woman intermediaries in the transmission of life to a new human being. Because they are persons, they take part consciously in the work of creation, and from this point of view are “participes Creatories”.

Procreation is about being open to life… being open to creation. How does OS contradict this definition?

 

[jegow]

Before I go over definitions like asked I seriously think I am done for the day. We have been at this awhile. So if you do not mind I would like to adjourn until tomorrow.

 

[vluvski]

FACT: Many sexual and nonsexual acts that take place prior to and immediately following sexual intercourse are, like oral stimulation, not procreative.

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: In order to argue that oral stimulation is immoral on the grounds of being non-procreative, Group I must show how oral stimulation differs from genital stimulation, which is equally non-procreative yet explicitly or implicitly praised by JPII and others.

Note: It will be necessary to first clarify our understanding of procreative and come to an agreement. Frogman80 has already made some points in this regard.

 

[vluvski]

Sure, jegow, take a break! We won’t get too far since the other handful of posters who agree with you haven’t been following the thread. We’d be pretty bored arguing amongst ourselves for the rest of the day.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

Sure, jegow, take a break! We won’t get too far since the other handful of posters who agree with you haven’t been following the thread. We’d be pretty bored arguing amongst ourselves for the rest of the day.

Thank you, I appreciate your understanding so much.

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

…that oral sex appears unnatural…

Yes, it may very well appear that way to you. We hope by this discussion to show you that it is not

jegow:

I had chosen to call it unnatural because it seems to against the nature of the sexual faculties (mainly, being in the mouth of another). The other point that I have made was that it is a lot like mutual masturbation. Let me explain. In mutual masturbation the husband or wife lets the other spouse sexually stimulate them as if they were having sex but, for the example, the hand of the spouse is used instead of the proper union of the partners’ genitalia. And I am sure that there would be some that say that that act is ok as long as they finish in the conjugal act. Here is where I get hung up; in CCC 2352 masturbation is defined as the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs to derive sexual pleasure.

I am aware of this confusing area. To deliberately cause sexual stimulation by manipulation is wrong outside of marriage (Climax or not). Inside of marriage, it is permitted to physically stimulate your spouse. It is even permitted to stimulate a woman to climax. Mutual masturbation in marriage is not just about the pleasure being wrong or illicit… it is about an act that replaces intercourse between husband and wife. MM involves intent, and the climax of the man outside of the wife. Fondling one another is not MM… it is a form of foreplay. What I have writing in no way contradicts the CCC.

jegow:

Now if the sinfulness of masturbation is not based on whether or not the person climaxed but merely on the deliberate stimulation of the genitals then mutual masturbation would be wrong based off this just by beginning it no matter if it finished in climax or not the deliberate stimulation of the genitals was done.

Again outside of marriage… not stimulation period… with or without climax. Inside of marriage stimulation of spouse is permitted, and is not considered MM.

Thank you for your replies… I look for to your next post!