Is a married couple allowed to engage in certain sexual practices?

[LongingSoul]

My point is, NO HUMAN BEING on this earth has any business telling, lecturing, using scare tactics, hell in a handbasket theocracy, or any other such thing to any other human married couple.

I mentioned on another thread my 10 volunteer experience with a Catholic org. that offers pre marriage ed. and marriage and general counselling. Although I’ve been trained in both those areas by them, I know that I’m not up to taking on that role… but do administrative processing and offer my presence in comfort and support when it’s called for.

People in marriage breakdown are some of the most harrowed and pained people I’ve come across in my life. It is so, so, so, common for one of the spouses to be taken completely by surprise considering the ‘good’ bedroom life they have, that the marriage is such a mess.

At this end of marital life, it becomes evident how important a healthy bedroom life is. Among the counsellors and marriage ed teachers I know well… none go about lecturing, telling and using scar tactics when addressing bedroom life with couples. But it does matter to know what really is the difference between lustful behaviours and loving behaviours and how they impact the whole marriage and the family by extension.

People deserve to know all the truths there is to know about a wholesome marriage and not be left to the guidance of secular hedonism which is so infused throughout all aspects of our culture.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I hope I’m not repeating stuff, but I don’t have time to read the whole thread.
The Church does not forbid sexual foreplay that leads to completion of the marital act. Ron Conte’s “theology” is just wrong on this.

Anal sex is un-natural so that seems to be an obvious one.

Oral sex in preparation for is not addressed specifically by the Church. Does it violate the human dignity of the spouse performing it? I would think that for a woman to perform it, that might be very possible due to the inherent physical nature of it. If a spouse demands -anything-, that is out of bounds, including the demand for intercourse.
Oral sex on a woman maybe not so much ( I know a woman who would say my human dignity is just fine if it prepares her for intercourse).
Since there are no specific prohibitions for some of this, I trust the love of two people to figure this out before God’s eyes.

And just for the sake of being real. A spouse, a woman especially, has to prepare for intercourse physically and emotionally. This is where I think folks like Conte are living in a dream world. It just doesn’t work that way, it’s unnatural to expect a woman to be ready without foreplay. And it is pleasureable, and should be pleasurable. Foreplay should be enjoyed as a preparation for intercourse.

Amen!

How about this, “What goes on in your bedroom, is none of anyone’s business.” Simple and to the point!

LOL!

 

[aemcpa]

How about this, “What goes on in your bedroom, is none of anyone’s business.” Simple and to the point!

Except that it’s God’s business. Couples still need to obey the moral law even in private. This conversation is for the benefit of those Catholic couples who wish to respect that truth; if you’re not among them, feel free to unsubscribe from this thread.

 

[The_Bucket]

aemcpa, I think the point Julianna was making was that a bunch of armchair theologians shouldn’t be making calls on what other people are doing. Nor should they even know about what other people are doing. Intimate lives are just that. Intimate. Folks don’t need to be broadcasting every part of their lives to everyone.

Again, where the Church is silent a well-formed conscience should be one’s guide. If one is still unsure, talk to a priest. Even then, however, a priest is not necessarily going to provide the best advice. Everyone’s advice on this subject is going to be tainted by his or her relative taste or distaste for certain practices.

I’m the kind of guy that’s going to be pretty much cool with whatever my wife is into, obviously within the bounds of the Church’s doctrine. But I’m not going to ascribe my personal boundaries to anyone else. If another person was turned off or disgusted by something, I’d be the first one to say that such a feeling is perfectly valid and that person’s spouse should never coerce him or her into doing something he or she finds distasteful.

 

[fpt]

In the context of marital act:

the massages in human fashion, the caresses in human fashion, the kisses in human fashion, the suctions in human fashion, the touchings in human fashion, the licks in human fashion, all stimulations **(in the human fashion) **on all the body of the other, even on sexual exterior parts of the other, are morally permissible, by nature and by essence;

all her body, her erogenous parts and even her external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and** with tenderness by her husband; **
all his body, his erogenous parts and even his external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked **with love and with tenderness by his wife.
**

Per se, those conjugal sexual touchings are not immoral and thus they are not sinful. The fact of saying the contrary is not very normal, is not natural and thus is not very catholic, in my humble opinion. Those acts are natural. The moral view of Ronald Conte jr seems to be very wrong and unfair.

**
Definition of each sin is the key??? When catholic church is talking about the moderation, that means that the act is morally permissible, per se, only the lack of moderation can be immoral. The debate is on the constitutive element of the moderation, the debate is not on the nature of act. **

 

[clem456]

In the context of marital act:

the massages in human fashion, the caresses in human fashion, the kisses in human fashion, the suctions in human fashion, the touchings in human fashion, the licks in human fashion, all stimulations **(in the human fashion) **on all the body of the other, even on sexual exterior parts of the other, are morally permissible, by nature and by essence;

all her body, her erogenous parts and even her external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and** with tenderness by her husband; **
all his body, his erogenous parts and even his external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked **with love and with tenderness by his wife.
**

Per se, those conjugal sexual touchings are not immoral and thus they are not sinful. The fact of saying the contrary is not very normal, is not natural and thus is not very catholic, in my humble opinion. Those acts are natural. The moral view of Ronald Conte jr seems to be very wrong and unfair.

**
Definition of each sin is the key??? When catholic church is talking about the moderation, that means that the act is morally permissible, per se, only the lack of moderation can be immoral. The debate is on the constitutive element of the moderation, the debate is not on the nature of act. **

As always FPT, a concise, thorough and despcriptive post.

 

[Mickey]

And these people are wrong.

No…they are not. Period and full stop.

As has been noted, the Church takes no position on these issues.

You do not need an infallible teaching or encyclical from the Roman Catholic Church for every issue in life. Some things are written on the heart by a properly formed conscience. The Church knows this. Oral stimulation (genitals in the mouth) are the same thing as oral sex…except there is no orgasm. It should be very clear to all Christians that it is an unnatural act.

Period and full stop.

 

[clem456]

No…they are not. Period and full stop.
You do not need an infallible teaching or encyclical from the Roman Catholic Church for every issue in life. **Some things are written on the heart by a properly formed conscience. ** The Church knows this. Oral stimulation (genitals in the mouth) are the same thing as oral sex…except there is no orgasm. It should be very clear to all Christians that it is an unnatural act.

Period and full stop.

Well, truthfully, yes they are wrong to make a definitive statement on oral foreplay (that is what we are discussing here, not completed oral sex acts). It is difficult to make a definitive statement either way. Those who say oral foreplay is forbidden by the Church or that oral sex is sodomy are expressing a taste or preference and stretching theology to match a viewpoint. Theology of the Body can also be used to condone appropriate foreplay in the marital context. If I had the time I would do that, but I would suggest reading the original document if you don’t trust West, as you won’t find any more exhaustive study of human sexuality anywhere. You will find a hard time getting support for your argument against oral foreplay, from a realtively current document, written by one of the greatest Christian moral philosphers ever to live.

And pointing to the bold in your post, this says quite a bit.

 

[Mickey]

If I had the time I would do that, but I would suggest reading the original document if you don’t trust West, as you won’t find any more exhaustive study of human sexuality anywhere. You will find a hard time getting support for your argument against oral foreplay, from a realtively current document, written by one of the greatest Christian moral philosphers ever to live.

Actually…you will have a hard time finding confirmation that “genital to mouth” contact is permissible according to that document. Christopher West’s teaching is troublesome and I believe it is a modern day innovation. Our conscience tells us that such a teaching would not be condoned by Christ, the apostles, the holy virgin Mary, the holy fathers and saints of the Church. Tradition has never condoned such a thing. And it never will.

But each one will act according to their conscience.

 

[The_Bucket]

Those who say oral foreplay is forbidden by the Church or that oral sex is sodomy are expressing a taste or preference and stretching theology to match a viewpoint.

It’s more than a viewpoint. It’s taste. The teaching of the Church is being stretched beyond what it says it match personal taste.

Theology of the Body can also be used to condone appropriate foreplay in the marital context. If I had the time I would do that, but I would suggest reading the original document if you don’t trust West, as you won’t find any more exhaustive study of human sexuality anywhere. You will find a hard time getting support for your argument against oral foreplay, from a relatively current document, written by one of the greatest Christian moral philosophers ever to live.

Quite right. If the Church meant to definitively say oral stimulation, dressing up, using certain language or positions were wrong, she’d say it! She definitively states what adultery and fornication are and that they are wrong. She definitively prohibits contraception. She definitively states that homosexual acts are wrong. Heck, She definitively states where completion of the marital act must occur! If She meant to make definitive teachings beyond these matters, She would.

Mickey, your personal taste tells you that Christ and the Blessed Virgin would not approve. That’s fine. You are free to follow that notion and it is not immoral to NOT engage in oral foreplay. But that it is morally wrong is not what the Church teaches.

 

[fpt]

**orthodoxy is not catholicism.

The logics are not the same. Catholic standards.**

 

[The_Bucket]

A few honest and real questions Mickey. Why is oral/genital contact any different than manual contact with the genitals? What makes the use of the mouth unnatural and therefore morally impermissible in terms of natural law?

I mean, our mouths were not made with the expressed purpose for kissing, were they? Sexual organs are indeed for sexual purposes, but the mouth is for eating. Hands are for grasping objects or being put to other working utility such as typing on this keyboard here.

Why is a kiss to another’s mouth unobjectionable? Is oral contact to other erogenous zones permissible? If so, why can one arouse a spouse with oral contact to the breast or neck or thigh but not the sexual organ? Strict natural law would dictate that mouths, which were made for eating, were not made for the purpose of arousing a mate, would it not?

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, I’m simply noting that there is absolutely no consistent theology that could possibly separate the difference between an arousing kiss to a spouse’s mouth or neck or breast or anywhere else compared to oral contact to the sexual organs. None. It’s taste. You’re defining this on taste. And that’s fine for you! But it’s not doctrine.

 

[clem456]

Actually…you will have a hard time finding confirmation that “genital to mouth” contact is permissible according to that document. Christopher West’s teaching is troublesome and I believe it is a modern day innovation. Our conscience tells us that such a teaching would not be condoned by Christ, the apostles, the holy virgin Mary, the holy fathers and saints of the Church. Tradition has never condoned such a thing. And it never will.

But each one will act according to their conscience.

Does the Church specifically condemn runnning down an old woman with a car? No. The rule is thou shalt not kill. That is conscience using common sense interpretation.

I find it interesting that acts between couples that have been practiced for centuries, and the morality of these acts which has been agonized over for centuries, have still no official ruling from the Church. That should tell you something.

 

[fpt]

A few honest and real questions Mickey. Why is oral/genital contact any different than manual contact with the genitals? What makes the use of the mouth unnatural and therefore morally impermissible in terms of natural law?

I mean, our mouths were not made with the expressed purpose for kissing, were they? Sexual organs are indeed for sexual purposes, but the mouth is for eating. Hands are for grasping objects or being put to other working utility such as typing on this keyboard here.

Why is a kiss to another’s mouth unobjectionable? Is oral contact to other erogenous zones permissible? If so, why can one arouse a spouse with oral contact to the breast or neck or thigh but not the sexual organ? Strict natural law would dictate that mouths, which were made for eating, were not made for the purpose of arousing a mate, would it not?

I’m not trying to be a jerk here, I’m simply noting that there is absolutely no consistent theology that could possibly separate the difference between an arousing kiss to a spouse’s mouth or neck or breast or anywhere else compared to oral contact to the sexual organs. None. It’s taste. You’re defining this on taste. And that’s fine for you! But it’s not doctrine.

For Ronald Conte and friends, the manual stimulations of genitals in the context of the marital act are constitutive elements of the sin of masturbation. That is very crazy. I am so sad of reading that.

 

[The_Bucket]

I find it interesting that acts between couples that have been practiced for centuries, and the morality of these acts which has been agonized over for centuries, have still no official ruling from the Church. That should tell you something.

Indeed. Especially since she has ruled on the morality of onanism, masturbation, homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, pornography, rape, etc. All of these have also been around for millennia.

The idea that she needs to definitively state “oral foreplay is OK” is ludicrous. That’s like having to tell me that it’s OK to put strawberry jam on my toast AND it’s also OK if I choose marmalade instead AND it’s OK to do both.

 

[clem456]

If I may be personal for a moment…

My wife does not enjoy performing this -in the context of a simulated sex act-, even if not taken to completion. She finds it too agressive and not intimate. There are however similar other less invasive and tame acts that are not distasteful to her,maybe classified as oral touching. I do not ask for anything along those lines. so she does this -if-, and only if, it is naturally pleasing to her at that time.

I do however perform this for her regularly.
Research indicates that women are more likely to conceive when an orgasm is part of the mix. This is how God has made us. For my wife to reach orgasm during intercourse some of these practices are necessary, to make the engine run a little hotter.
Honestly, it seems to me that it could be immoral to -not- be considerate enough to please her in this way. Why would a husband deny his wife this consideration? Or vice versa? It is common consideration between a married couple to prepare each other in the way that God made us, while respecting the preferences and diginity of each other.

 

[Mickey]

What makes the use of the mouth unnatural and therefore morally impermissible in terms of natural law?

Many definitions of sodomy include genital to mouth contact. It is the method in which homosexuals have relations since natural contact is not possible for them.

I mean, our mouths were not made with the expressed purpose for kissing, were they?

Red herring. You asked about genital to mouth contact.

You’re defining this on taste.

There is absolutely zero references in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition which condones “genital to mouth” contact. There is a good reason for that.

 

[Mickey]

That should tell you something.

It tells you that the Church never felt the need to have to tell the sheep that these unnatural acts were prohibited.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed. Especially since she has ruled on the morality of onanism, masturbation, homosexual acts, fornication, adultery, pornography, rape, etc. All of these have also been around for millennia.

Exactly! The Church was confident that we would get the jist of this thing by now.

I will post no longer on this subject. Let each act according to their conscience. It is always wise to speak to our spiritual father/ confessor about such things.

 

[clem456]

It tells you that the Church never felt the need to have to tell the sheep that these unnatural acts were prohibited.

It stretches believability that the Church would not make a prounouncement on this, when as another poster noted, all sorts of practices are -specifically- rejected. There is a glaring hole in this argument.
The thing to remember when comparing the various practices is that we are discussing practices between married couples who act in a mutual expression of spousal love, not out of lust or domination or abuse. Lust changes everything. In fact, intercourse done out of lust, and not spousal love, can be part of the sin of lust, even when married! Lust does not respect the dignity of your spouse, whether it involves oral sex, manual sex, kissing, or intercourse.