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

[clem456]

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.

That is something we can agree on 100%.
Thanks

 

[Skye_Ariel]

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. **

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.

Why do you think it’s unnatural? What makes it unnatural?

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.

Exactly!

 

[Skye_Ariel]

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

Homosexuals also kiss each other on the mouth so should kissing on the mouth be a sin just because homosexuals do it?? Your reasoning is in error. If you don’t like things like that, that’s fine but you can’t say it’s wrong for others.

 

[The_Bucket]

Homosexuals also kiss each other on the mouth so should kissing on the mouth be a sin just because homosexuals do it?? Your reasoning is in error. If you don’t like things like that, that’s fine but you can’t say it’s wrong for others.

Homosexuals also stimulate one another manually. Homosexuals also hold hands. Homosexuals also eat. Homosexuals also play sports. Should we not engage in the same morally acceptable actions as them because they commit certain sin? Ridiculous.

The acts themselves are not what makes them sinful. It’s the surrounding situation. Choosing strawberry jam for my toast is perfectly acceptable. What’s not is stealing the bread and jam to make that meal.

Do you think, Mickey, that St. Elizabeth Ann Seton or St. Thomas Moore just had intercourse with no touching, no preparation, no caressing? To think otherwise is to take an almost gnostic approach to our bodies. There is nothing disgusting about the human body. It is a marvelous work of the Lord and touching certain areas in certain ways is not unnatural.

What is, however, unnatural, is frustrating the procreative nature of the sexual act. That is why masturbation and mutual manual stimulation or oral sex to completion even between married couples is wrong. Because it frustrates the procreative nature of sexuality.

Mere touching, even with the mouth, does not frustrate this end. And it is no more unnatural than kissing.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

She definitively calls for conjugal chastity and against the “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure” (lust) also. Because every variance of lust is not listed in the CCC, doesn’t mean that every unlisted act is permissible. Oral and anal intercourse were not what you could say were culturally acceptable until recent times. I was a teen in the 80’s and I know that back then it was considered depraved for a teen boy to require it from his date or girlfriend. Now amongst teens it’s pretty much a standard requirement for the sexually active teen. I feel more responsibility than ever to my daughter and sons generation, to be a voice for Catholic chastity. Why should young women especially, be forced to accept that oral and anal intercourse (even without the orgasm) are only a ‘taste’ issue? Society may call her prudish for her distaste but as a Catholic parent, I will affirm someone’s natural objections to it as the true call of chastity and not the sign of a prude.

 

[clem456]

She definitively calls for conjugal chastity and against the “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure” (lust) also. Because every variance of lust is not listed in the CCC, doesn’t mean that every unlisted act is permissible. Oral and anal intercourse were not what you could say were culturally acceptable until recent times. I was a teen in the 80’s and I know that back then it was considered depraved for a teen boy to require it from his date or girlfriend. Now amongst teens it’s pretty much a standard requirement for the sexually active teen. I feel more responsibility than ever to my daughter and sons generation, to be a voice for Catholic chastity. Why should young women especially, be forced to accept that oral and anal intercourse (even without the orgasm) are only a ‘taste’ issue? Society may call her prudish for her distaste but as a Catholic parent, I will affirm someone’s natural objections to it as the true call of chastity and not the sign of a prude.

Wait a second. We’re mixing culture, human behavior, and Church teaching.
I am going to make the assumption that people have been engaging in oral sex long before the 80’s. I think I’m pretty safe there. The culture freely talks about it now. It was not freely talked about in the past, but then neither was straight up intercourse.

I will also affirm someone’s objections, absolutely. I will affirm their objection against regular sex once a month, if they object to it for whatever valid reason. Society should not call anyone prudish for not liking this or that.

There are a couple of things mixed together there.

 

[The_Bucket]

She definitively calls for conjugal chastity and against the “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure” (lust) also. Because every variance of lust is not listed in the CCC, doesn’t mean that every unlisted act is permissible.

I concur with clem, you’re conflating multiple issues.

Lust is defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia as “the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure.” You could have an inordinate/excessive desire for sexual intercourse in the missionary position with your spouse. It has nothing to do with specific acts.

Oral and anal intercourse were not what you could say were culturally acceptable until recent times. I was a teen in the 80’s and I know that back then it was considered depraved for a teen boy to require it from his date or girlfriend.

As clem said, let’s not play games here. Just because it was not talked about doesn’t mean people didn’t do it.

Now amongst teens it’s pretty much a standard requirement for the sexually active teen. I feel more responsibility than ever to my daughter and sons generation, to be a voice for Catholic chastity.

Good! You should! And Catholic chastity requires that all sexual contact take place within the confines of marriage. She’s quite right about that. We should all support things like saving sex for marriage, fighting against pornography, noting standards for modesty and battling horrible evils like sex trafficking. These are all areas of agreement.

Why should young women especially, be forced to accept that oral and anal intercourse (even without the orgasm) are only a ‘taste’ issue? Society may call her prudish for her distaste but as a Catholic parent, I will affirm someone’s natural objections to it as the true call of chastity and not the sign of a prude.

Why should young men or women be called disgusting perverts if they personally desire such acts within the context of marriage and with a fully consenting spouse?! Leaving aside the already established fact that sex outside of marriage is immoral, coercion within a marriage is also immoral. Gravely so.

I commented in another thread some time ago on this matter regarding a woman who did not want to participate in acts her husband wanted and felt degraded; I repeatedly noted that her husband was being a bully and his coercive tactics were appalling.

But look, what if a wife likes to perform oral stimulation on her husband because of the pleasure it gives him or simply because she likes doing it? What if she likes said stimulation to be performed on her? Is she somehow now disgusting? Is she committing evil? I don’t really understand how one can argue that since there’s no violation of the unitive or procreative aspect of marital intimacy and everyone’s copacetic with what’s going on. Because this just in: Women like sex too. And women like to please their spouses just as much as men like to please theirs. I don’t find it “icky” in the least, but my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. What’s relevant is Church doctrine. And the doctrine makes no specific reference to these kinds of things except “don’t be lustful,” meaning, don’t desire sex and specific acts for the sake of selfish carnal pleasure.

It really is a matter of taste. Some people thing doing such things are degrading. Others do not. Those who think it is degrading should never be forced, coerced, bullied or otherwise pushed by their spouses to perform those acts. Those who are fine with it or even enjoy it should go ahead and enjoy it without fear of armchair theologians making ex cathedra pronouncements based on what they personally do or don’t like since the doctrine itself is silent.

 

[Julianna]

It is no one’s business, period. Geez louise…it is so simple.

 

[aemcpa]

“Women like sex too” is neither an argument for nor an argument against the morality of anything being discussed in this thread.

 

[aemcpa]

It is no one’s business, period. Geez louise…it is so simple.

This point is not relevant to this thread. You repeating it doesn’t make it relevant to this thread.

 

[Julianna]

This point is not relevant to this thread. You repeating it doesn’t make it relevant to this thread.

the answer is yes, behind their bedroom door is the couples business…no other human on this earth has a say. So why continue the debate?

 

[The_Bucket]

“Women like sex too” is neither an argument for nor an argument against the morality of anything being discussed in this thread.

Well apparently “forcing” women into distasteful acts was an issue to one poster. The problem is with the forcing, not the act itself (provided again that we’re speaking within the context of a marriage)

 

[aemcpa]

the answer is yes, behind their bedroom door is the couples business…no other human on this earth has a say. So why continue the debate?

Because those acts that happen behind closed doors are still either moral or immoral, even if nobody else knows about them.

 

[fpt]

In the marriage, there are rules, if you do not agree with, you do not enter into this contractual institution.

Each spouse has ** some sexual rights, some sexual obligations and some sexual duties.** **The right of body, the right to the body, the right on the body **mean some sexual privileges for each member of couple.

The refusal of sexual rights, of sexual obligations and of sexual duties of institution of marriage can be an issue, under special conditions.

 

[LongingSoul]

Wait a second. We’re mixing culture, human behavior, and Church teaching.
I am going to make the assumption that people have been engaging in oral sex long before the 80’s. I think I’m pretty safe there. The culture freely talks about it now. It was not freely talked about in the past, but then neither was straight up intercourse.

I will also affirm someone’s objections, absolutely. I will affirm their objection against regular sex once a month, if they object to it for whatever valid reason. Society should not call anyone prudish for not liking this or that.

There are a couple of things mixed together there.

The point I’m making here is that cultural attitudes and norms are fickle but they have just as much or more influence on the cultures sense of morality as does the Christian perspective. Richard Dawkins theory of memetics gives credence to that phenomenon also. There are many who say that people should keep their Catholic beliefs to themselves and not express them in the public arena (which is supposedly generic). But that simply isn’t true. Agendas that oppose the Catholic view are busily at work to break down peoples consciences and obscure the natural law that is written on each man’s heart.

When I was a teen in the 70’s and 80’s, no one ever used the term ‘oral sex’ when talking of the practice. It was referred to as ‘blow job’ or ‘felacio’ and had the aura of deviation from the chaste around it. There were even more unpleasant terms for sodomy and nobody ever distinguished between foreplay and the 60 seconds of ejaculation as the distinction between sodomy and chaste foreplay. As these acts gained legitimacy in the culture, the terms changed to sanitise them. Christopher West himself contributes to this legitimacy in saying “There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” ‘Anal penetration’? Here it seems that the word sodomy has been reduced to the single 60 odd seconds when an ejaculation or orgasm happens. We simply can’t be comfortable with this when the Church teaches us that sodomy is one of the 4 sins crying out to heaven for vengeance.

Being a Catholic isn’t a matter of just following lists of rules, it involves a whole way of looking at life that means a lot of the time being counter cultural on many things that have pretty universal legitimacy. It means knowing in what ways cultural norms have suppressed my human and spiritual sensitivities and teased my appetite for the unnatural. (lust)

 

[Abu]

Julianna Thursday 18/4/13, #90
behind their bedroom door is the couples business

Since every action is either good or evil, determined by our Creator who sees even our inmost thoughts and who gave us His Church to teach us what is good and what is evil, to which our conscience needs to be formed correctly, the statement above is nonsense if it means disregarding Her teaching.

 

[Aaron_Creagh]

I would say this.

As a non Catholic.

The practices mentioned, seem borderline sinful!!!

 

[clem456]

Since every action is either good or evil, determined **by our Creator **who sees even our inmost thoughts and who gave us His Church to teach us what is good and what is evil, to which our conscience needs to be formed correctly, the statement above is nonsense if it means disregarding Her teaching.

Key word Creator. I don’t believe the poster is advocating moral relativism, but making an observation about people taking the place of the Creator, and where the limits of their business is. Poster please correct me if I am wrong.
The Church teaches what it teaches, and when there is a huge grey area so subject to emotions and personal interpretations, it really shouldn’t be the business of one individual to force his interpretations on another individual.

 

[The_Bucket]

The Church teaches what it teaches, and when there is a huge grey area so subject to emotions and personal interpretations, it really shouldn’t be the business of one individual to force his interpretations on another individual.

This is right, at least insofar as to what I was saying.

If the Holy Father or the Magesterium were to make additional binding statements, you’re darn right I’d follow them. I really doubt they’re forthcoming though.

 

[Julianna]

Key word Creator. I don’t believe the poster is advocating moral relativism, but making an observation about people taking the place of the Creator, and where the limits of their business is. Poster please correct me if I am wrong.
The Church teaches what it teaches, and when there is a huge grey area so subject to emotions and personal interpretations, it really shouldn’t be the business of one individual to force his interpretations on another individual.

exactly…

methinks there is a lot of voyeurism on threads such as this.