D
DVIN_CKS
Guest
Who here holds to the idea that oral sex is a disordered sexual tendancy? What does the church teach about this?
- Status
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)
“ ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.’ ” (Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, n. 55, quoting St. Augustine).
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Casti Connubii, n. 56)
“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Casti Connubii, n. 61)
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 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. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).
“ ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil” (Catechism, n. 2370; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).
“Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951; citing Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI; cited by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).
“ ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.’ ” (Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, n. 55, quoting St. Augustine).
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Casti Connubii, n. 56)
“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Casti Connubii, n. 61)
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. 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. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).
“ ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil” (Catechism, n. 2370; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).
“Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951; citing Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI; cited by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).
K
kage_ar
Guest
Pick up a copy of Christopher West “Good News About Sex and Marriage” and/or Popcak “Holy Sex!”.
S
SteveGC
Guest
My understanding is that, within sacramental marriage, it is an acceptable activity so long as it does not exist solely for the sake of itself, but rather leads to the conjugal act…and that no seed is spilled before the conjugal act. There may be some other qualifiers, but this is my understanding of it on a basic level.
M
manualman
Guest
In other words, as long as it is the warm up leading to the ‘final act’ rather than a sustitute for it (which would be a form of contraception), AND neither spouse finds it belitting or offensive, no harm.
Some try to apply an over-rigorous definition of “individual act” to the above, essentially concluding that only vaginal sex is acceptable since serious foreplay constitutes separate acts. Such arguments rarely go to their logical conclusion and allow only a single thrust!
As you can probably tell, I’m not a fan of this reasoning. It seems ridiculous NOT to think God wants the wife to enjoy it too…
Some try to apply an over-rigorous definition of “individual act” to the above, essentially concluding that only vaginal sex is acceptable since serious foreplay constitutes separate acts. Such arguments rarely go to their logical conclusion and allow only a single thrust!
As you can probably tell, I’m not a fan of this reasoning. It seems ridiculous NOT to think God wants the wife to enjoy it too…
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Especially if the husband is an older gent, he might need a little help to, ah, warm up a little, before proceeding to the unitative part of the marital embrace…
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
As far as I know it’s acceptable so long as it’s not used to substitute procreative sex.
Although a question this raises is what about men who are capable of…well going several times in sucession. Would is be wrong to finish oral out with the male orgasm, then get him going again and proceed immediately to the marital act? Does this constitute 2 actions, one ending sinfully the other ending non-sinfully, or is it still considered “foreplay” since sex is immediately to follow and maybe the wife likes it and it gets her going for the marital act?
Although a question this raises is what about men who are capable of…well going several times in sucession. Would is be wrong to finish oral out with the male orgasm, then get him going again and proceed immediately to the marital act? Does this constitute 2 actions, one ending sinfully the other ending non-sinfully, or is it still considered “foreplay” since sex is immediately to follow and maybe the wife likes it and it gets her going for the marital act?
G
Godfollower
Guest
In other words, if oral sex is sinful, then it’s sinful.
But that doesn’t help very much.
The correct answer to the OP is that oral sex – if it is part of the foreplay leading to the marital act and not pursued for its own sake – is perfectly permissible. But it is not to be followed to culmination, because that would deprive the act of its procreative nature.
M
manualman
Guest
I wouldn’t know for sure, but I’d guess the answer is no. From my (rather primitive) understanding of biology, I think I recall that a rapid ‘second round’ is pretty likely to be, um, firing blanks, so to speak. The boys don’t make bullets THAT fast, even if there is still some gunpowder…
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
HAHA!! I love the analogy, thanks!
That makes sense. I just figured in the discussion I had with my friend about this that there had to be “leftovers” or something…LOL
S
Seatuck
Guest
Each and every time the husband must finish inside his wife. At least there must be the intention to do so. If a true accident happens then that is not sinful. Although a couple should be on the watch for activities or patterns which lead to accidents such as that. They should take steps to avoid the problem or it may indeed become sinful.
R
rusty20
Guest
This. Although Christopher West argues that in some cases, oral sex may present a situation where one partner (usually the man) is objectifying the other. So, assuming there is no objectification or ‘lust’ involved, then I think its ok. However, ejaculation must occur within the marital embrace EVERY TIME.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
2 great books to pick up and read on this subject.
The marital act must always be unitive and procreative. It is a renewal of the wedding vows, giving of yourself fully, faithfully, and fruitfully. You must be open to life with each and every act.
Oral sex (better to say stimulation) can be a part of this process and is (in many cases) the foreplay before the marital embrace. Even at times it can be after as the husband may bring his wife to climax after sexual intercourse. This was even talked about by the late Pope John Paul II
I think that this has been answered, but each time a husband has an orgasm he must be inside of his wife. No exceptions, aside from an honest accident.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
I’ve heard the opposite argument (and this was in a Catholic book on marriage, published in the 1950s, no less), that the first ejaculation is likely to contain older, less motile sperm and a second is likely to contain newer, more active sperm.
W
Whitacre_Girl
Guest
So the catholic solution? Double the pleasure, double the fun? XD!!!
- Status