Help!

[frogman80]

This is a repeat post because I was not paying attention and posted this originally in the wrong thread. Opps…
Before this thread splits the argument into a hundred different directions let me restate the original issue. I hold, even still, that oral sex is sinful. How do I base this? 1) Oral sex is not part of the conjugal act because 2) the conjugal as defined by the Church is to always be unitive and procreative. 3) Oral sex is not procreative in and of itself and therefore becomes a separate action all together.

By this definition, any foreplay is not part of the conjugal act because things like kissing, touching and hugging are not procreative in nature.

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.

This is very true. A husband and wife cannot look at the marriage act as something only unitive. Those who practice contraception (artificial or natural) use the argument that the purpose of sex is just to unite husband and wife. This argument makes procreation out to be some mechanical act of reproduction, by separating it from the fact that it is unitive by its nature. Those who look at the act is merely procreative, fail so recognize the unitive, and loving aspect of it. The act is again reduced to biological mechanics. JPII talks a lot about this in “Love and Responsibility.”

jegow:

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.

“Depriving it of its meaning and purpose”… again this goes to regarding or treating the act as only unitive, or only procreative. Again, please read “Love and Responsibility.”

As for the rest of your post…

1. The act has two natures… unitive and procreative. You are focusing only on the procreative aspect saying that it is absent from the particular act, therfore it is not allowed. To seperate the unitive aspect one would have to do something like in-vetro fertilization, or completely and selfishly objectify their spouse.

jegow:

1. Oral sex then can compared to mutual masturbation, which I also hold as sinful, because while it is unitive it is most certainly not procreative.

Mutual masturbation is spouses causing each other to climax outside of the licit place. Any action that purposely causes a man to spill his seed is not unitive or procreative… it is actually an objectification of spouse. This is why homosexual sex is never unitive or procreative. Stimulation alone (without male climax) can be unitive.

3 and 4) Your argument basically says, sex organs can only be stimulated with male in female. Is this correct?

 

[jegow]

1.Your argument seems to be changing with every post.

Is that so? Would you bother to show me how? My argument has always been - oral sex is sinful. Other things have entered into this discussion because of others not understanding my point and so I have had to respond to them. But I remain, as from the beginning, that oral is sinful. Besides, I am still waiting for people to show me where the Church teaches that it is not sinful.

 

[frogman80]

Eireann:

He was talking about genital oral sex.

Again… that does not tell me if he means an act that causes male climax (which is morally wrong), or one that just involves stimulation. In this thread, I think everyone agrees that the first one is always wrong. We are discussing weather or not oral stimulation (without male climax) is wrong.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

frogman80:

By this definition, any foreplay is not part of the conjugal act because things like kissing, touching and hugging are not procreative in nature.

Too bad, maybe if we could be responsible in this area, we would be in a better situation to be more chaste in situations that are more serious.

ALan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

frogman80:

Again… that does not tell me if he means an act that causes male climax (which is morally wrong), or one that just involves stimulation. In this thread, I think everyone agrees that the first one is always wrong. We are discussing weather or not oral stimulation (without male climax) is wrong.

I think it is wrong enough that I am not particularly interested in knowing the sins of my neighbors in this matter…

Alan

 

[jegow]

1)The act has two natures… unitive and procreative. You are focusing only on the procreative aspect saying that it is absent from the particular act, therfore it is not allowed. To seperate the unitive aspect one would have to do something like in-vetro fertilization, or completely and selfishly objectify their spouse.

The act has two natures? In the definition it is said that the act has two significances, not natures. Just how beings can only have one nature so too with acts. I see the “significances” being called elements, to be easier. In fact, one could say that the nature of the act contains the two elements. To take an element out would end up making that act “unnatural”.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The end does not justify the means.” Are we talking about two different things? It sounds as if you are saying that the marital embrace ends with the conjugal act and I am simply arguing that oral sex is sinful. For the reasons why see my earlier post.

Which I never said in anyway to prove my point! So don’t try and prove me wrong by saying that this was my opinion.

As I explained in 4), that these are by nature an act that is only unitive. You are seriously missing the point. Would you consider saying that an infant who is breastfeeding is actually having oral sex with its mother? If you want to speak of twisting what people say, look at how you are twisting my points around. These natural acts of affection (kissing, massaging) could never be procreative by the fact that the genitals are not involved. In oral sex they are. There is a distinction being made.

NO, and that is not my point. The point is that in whatever they do in bed, oral sex should not one of them. It is a disordered action and it is sinful.

I hope that everyone admits I have been pretty patient here but I must say something. Perhaps some of will already know what that is. If indeed the Church teaches that this is an acceptable act between a husband and wife; that the Church says, “it’s ok”, “that’s really what unitive and procreative referred to” or that the Church says that it’s not sinful; I would like to see where you are getting this. Sure, maybe theologians have never said that oral sex is wrong in the marital embrace, but have they have ever said that it was ok, not sinful. If you find somewhere where this has been said I invite you all again to show me where – like what document or book, give me a page number. In other words, if this is accepted by the Church; that the Church says it’s ok; that the proof is in JPII’s TOtB then…….

SHOW ME!
THE INVITATION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR AGAIN

Please review this post by vluvski

Quote:
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.

My invitation to you is to SHOW ME where it SPECIFICALLY says that oral sex is wrong WITHIN THE ACT OF THE MARITAL EMBRACE.

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

The act has two natures? In the definition it is said that the act has two significances, not natures. Just how beings can only have one nature so too with acts. I see the “significances” being called elements, to be easier. In fact, one could say that the nature of the act contains the two elements. To take an element out would end up making that act “unnatural”.

“Nature” can be defined as the essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing. The marital act has a unitive and procreative nature. Now… I hope you are going on to spend time on the rest of my post. I asked you a specific question or two. It is in my nature to want you to reply to them.

 

[jegow]

frogman80:

By this definition, any foreplay [that] is not part of the conjugal act because things like kissing, touching and hugging are not procreative in nature.

Well, yeah. I address in 4). There are 1) things like kissing, toucing, hugging; that when they happen are not always going to lead into sexual intercourse. However, sometimes they might. 2) Either way these are different because they are always unitive no matter if done separate from the conjugal act or as foreplay which happens before the conjugal act. To call these acts foreplay all the time is wrong because it implies that whenever you kiss your wife, you’re going to have sex with her. My agruement is that oral sex is wrong, and because this, it’s not moral foreplay either.

 

[vluvski]

frogman80:

3 and 4) Your argument basically says, sex organs can only be stimulated with male in female. Is this correct?

I asked the very same thing of Latin_Catholic here:

vluvski:

According to your statement, oral sex is wrong because it involves the genitalia. If a spouse is prohibited from genitally stimulating his wife with his mouth, what about his mouth makes that body part immoral to use on his wife in that location? Many other non-genital body parts are also used for stimulation- leg, hip, abdomen, hands, etc… so what makes the mouth different? I can’t think of anything.

Here are the arguments that have been posted in favor of OS as being always immoral:

1. because it is a separate act
   When we show using CCC quotes that actS make up the “marital embrace,” the argument becomes
   2a. It is not included in this unpublished list of licit acts because it involves the genitals
   No one has answered my or frogman’s points in regard to this.
   2b. because it inevitably leads to climax, one way or another
   We show with logic that “leading to climax” is relative to each couple.
   3b. now we’re back to the “separate act” argument
   At which point we challenge why other separate acts are not immoral (the same ones that allegedly do not lead to climax, or cannot by their nature lead to illicit climax- refer to jegow’s post that any climax acheived by non-genital stimulation is accidental)
   4b, same as 2a. The new claim is that OS is set apart because it involves the genitals.

4b/2a has again been ignored, and we’re back to 2b again!

So the question begging to be answered is why the mouth cannot be used to stimulate the genitals, but presumably other body parts can.

 

[jegow]

Mirror Mirror:

Please review this post by vluvski

My invitation to you is to SHOW ME where it SPECIFICALLY says that oral sex is wrong WITHIN THE ACT OF THE MARITAL EMBRACE.

First of all, I had already read this. It does not answer the question. I am not going to sit down and interpret the whole thing for you, sorry. I will accept your invitation when and only when you can actually show me that Church stands in favor oral sex. You yourself said that it did. If your so certain you must know where it says this. Your really twisting the words of the CCC if you think that this was sufficient.

Keep trying!

 

[jegow]

3 and 4) Your argument basically says, sex organs can only be stimulated with male in female. Is this correct?

No.

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

Well, yeah. I address in 4). There are 1) things like kissing, toucing, hugging; that when they happen are not always going to lead into sexual intercourse. However, sometimes they might. 2) Either way these are different because they are always unitive no matter if done separate from the conjugal act or as foreplay which happens before the conjugal act. To call these acts foreplay all the time is wrong because it implies that whenever you kiss your wife, you’re going to have sex with her. My agruement is that oral sex is wrong, and because this, it’s not moral foreplay either.

I am not exactly sure what you post is all in reply to. It is hard for me to follow. I will repeat again, that: To separate the unitive aspect from the procreative one would have to do something like in-vetro fertilization, or completely and selfishly objectify their spouse. Another way to separate the unitive aspect from sex is to do it outside of marriage.

AlanFromWichita:

I think it is wrong enough that I am not particularly interested in knowing the sins of my neighbors in this matter…

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am attempting to point out that in this thread we are talking about Oral Stimulation… not Oral Sex where a man climaxes.

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

Originally Posted by frogman80
3 and 4) Your argument basically says, sex organs can only be stimulated with male in female. Is this correct?

No.

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

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

First of all, I had already read this. It does not answer the question. I am not going to sit down and interpret the whole thing for you, sorry. I will accept your invitation when and only when you can actually show me that Church stands in favor oral sex. You yourself said that it did. If your so certain you must know where it says this. Your really twisting the words of the CCC if you think that this was sufficient.

Keep trying!

What do you need exactly ? I gave you quotes of theologians yesterday… did you not read them? There is no piece of dogma the speaks of oral sex directly… just as there is no dogma on French kissing .

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

Here are the arguments that have been posted in favor of OS as being always immoral:

1. because it is a separate act

TRUE

vluvski:

When we show using CCC quotes that actS make up the “marital embrace,” the argument becomes

Already commented on that.

vluvski:

2a. It is not included in this unpublished list of licit acts because it involves the genitals

TRUE, it is seperate from other actions which are considered licit.

vluvski:

3b. now we’re back to the “separate act” argument. At which point we challenge why other separate acts are not immoral (the same ones that allegedly do not lead to climax, or cannot by their nature lead to illicit climax- refer to jegow’s post that any climax acheived by non-genital stimulation is accidental.

jegow (what i really said):

1. I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident.

Pretty good how you misquote me. I was talking about if a woman climaxed from a kiss - if there was no intention on the husband to cause that (I’m sure there wasn’t) then yes it was an accident. But if the husband is giving his wife a backrub and he notices that she getting turned on by it to point of climax and he does not stop then it is not an accident. I never said ‘any’ so maybe you should reread what I have or posted or take a break because that is what I am going to do. We shall continue this later.

 

[jegow]

frogman80:

What do you need exactly ? I gave you quotes of theologians yesterday… did you not read them? There is no piece of dogma the speaks of oral sex directly… just as there is no dogma on French kissing .

No, I never saw those quotes. Can you tell what post it was? I am not asking for a Dogma, I am asking for any Church teaching. Not all Church teaching is Dogma. I never said french kissing was a sin - stop grouping these together with oral sex. I have defined the heck out it - some things are naturally acceptable (kissing, hugging, massaging) but others are not! You know which one I am talking about.

 

[frogman80]

jegow:

No, I never saw those quotes. Can you tell what post it was? I am not asking for a Dogma, I am asking for any Church teaching. Not all Church teaching is Dogma.

From the article:
nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm

Christopher West:

“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”

Vincent Genovesi:

According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration… On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.

Vincent Genovesi:

…[In] this situation, I would suggest that a wife’s regular or habitual failure to achieve a desired orgasm through sexual intercourse would seem to highlight the need for better, more open, and honest communication between spouses concerning their sexual expressions of love. Given a woman’s generally slower response to sexual stimulation, it may be necessary for a husband to prolong the period of foreplay out of concern for his wife and her sexual fulfillment. At the same time, a wife should freely tell her husband what actions please her, and she should better inform him as to whether or not she is ready for the initiation of vaginal intercourse.

This last one is added to help explain how women slightly differ than men in arousal. There is also a quote in the article from JPII TotB…

Edit The article also points out the difference between Oral Sex and Oral Stimulation. I think for sake of clarity, we should all use “Oral Stimulation” throughout the rest of this thread.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

frogman80:

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am attempting to point out that in this thread we are talking about Oral Stimulation… not Oral Sex where a man climaxes.

I’m sorry. I get very confused and often answer questions I wasn’t asked.

I’ll just watch a while and see if I can understand better before posting on this particular thread again!

Alan

 

[jegow]

I really appreciate you putting those back up, seriously, however I’m pretty sure I am not going to be taking into full consideration the words of Fr. Vincent Genovesi regarding sexual morality if he is really attributed to this:

RAINBOW WEEK AT ST. JOSEPH’S U.
A Mass was celebrated at St. Joseph’s University on October 10 to kick off Rainbow Week, a celebration of gay rights. Events included a panel discussion on “Perspectives on Gay Marriage: Personal, Legal and Religious” featuring a homosexual couple and two “civil rights” advocates. Also participating was Rev. Vincent Genovesi, S.J., a theology professor and director of Pre-Cana programs on campus.

cardinalnewmansociety.org/Publications/CHEA/CHEA_2004_11_01.htm