Is this type of sex licit?

[Ron_Conte]

As far as I know, oral sex and bringing your wife to orgasm through “nontraditional means” is acceptable so long as this is part of a full sex act that ends with the man…well, you know.

No, it is not acceptable, because any act that in intrinsically evil cannot be justified in any way. Also, concerning the wife, the acts which are suggested are unnatural sexual acts (i.e. sexual acts other than natural intercourse) and so they cannot be justified in any way. Combining an act which by itself is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral with another act that is moral does not make the former act moral. The Church clearly teaches that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified under any circumstances. The non-traditional means that you suggest are intrinsically disordered by themselves, so they cannot become ordered by combining them with a moral act. Ron

 

[Ron_Conte]

I thought it was well established in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body that the woman may be brought to climax - by herself or her husband - before or after the man’s completion in the natural way, as long as this takes place within the same natural marital act.

No, this is a misinterpretation of John Paul II’s theology. Bringing one’s self to climax is masturbation and the Church teaches that masturbation is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot become moral merely because they were preceded by a natural marital act. Bringing someone else to climax manually is also intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Again, such acts do not become moral by being combined with moral acts. Ron

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

No, it is not acceptable, because any act that in intrinsically evil cannot be justified in any way. Also, concerning the wife, the acts which are suggested are unnatural sexual acts (i.e. sexual acts other than natural intercourse) and so they cannot be justified in any way. Combining an act which by itself is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral with another act that is moral does not make the former act moral. The Church clearly teaches that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified under any circumstances. The non-traditional means that you suggest are intrinsically disordered by themselves, so they cannot become ordered by combining them with a moral act. Ron

Prove it!! I want quotes from the CCC and reliable orthodox theologians. You can make all the arguments your want, but don’t claim that the Church clearly teaches something without backing it up by citing Church teaching.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Which of the following points do you dispute or need proof of?

1. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or end.
2. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral.
3. Each marital act must be open to life.

Ron

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

Which of the following points do you dispute or need proof of?

1. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or end.
2. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral.
3. Each marital act must be open to life.

Ron

Show me references that establish how the acts referenced in points 1 and 2 *as foreplay * are immoral (since that is what the OP was asking about, not whether these acts were carried out until male orgasm, but acts done as foreply where the man attains orgasm in normal intercourse).

Point #3 is a given.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or end.
2. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral.
3. Each marital act must be open to life.

Show me references that establish how the acts referenced in points 1 and 2 *as foreplay * are immoral (since that is what the OP was asking about, not whether these acts were carried out until male orgasm, but acts done as foreply where the man attains orgasm in normal intercourse). Point #3 is a given.

Point 1 does not reference specific acts. It is a general principle to be applied in Catholic ethics. The Church teaches that there are certain acts that are always wrong because these acts are intrinsically disordered.

Since this is a general principle, I will cite a general example:
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. the end does not justify the means. (CCC)

Notice that an intrinsically disordered act cannot be justified by intention or by its end.

Point 2 is a fairly general statement that unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

An example here is found in homosexual acts, which are immoral because they are unnatural:

2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[%between%](file:///C%7C/webplaces/CatholicPlanet2/catechism.htm#$2E4) tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”[%between%](file:///C%7C/webplaces/CatholicPlanet2/catechism.htm#$2E5) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC)

Because unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered, they cannot be justified under any circumstances, even in a marriage between a man and a woman. Nor can they be justified by including in a set of acts some acts that are intrinsically disordered and other acts which are moral.

On the question of using an unnatural sexual act as foreplay, we must apply the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts can never be justified under any circumstances.

lying is always wrong
lying in order to allow a greater truth to be known subsequently is still wrong

unnatural sexual acts are always wrong
performing such acts to facilitate or complete a subsequent or prior act of natural marital relations is still wrong.

Ron

 

[Mattapoisett64]

The following posting from a CA apologist, from earlier this year, seems to have some bearing on this discussion:

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,824

Re: What kind of relations are allowed within marriage?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPIIFan
Is genital stimulation permissible before intercourse?

Yes, so long as it is mutually agreeable to both partners. (As a rule of thumb, with permitted activity, the activity should be both morally permissible and mutually agreed-upon by both partners. Even if an activity is otherwise morally permissible, neither partner should be pressured into something with which he or she is uncomfortable. This applies to the all the permitted activities mentioned below.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPIIFan
Does this include oral stimulation?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPIIFan
Is producing an orgasm in my wife permissible before intercourse?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPIIFan
Is it permissible after?

Yes, so long as the activity is within the overall context of an act of marital relations. With the husband, because his climax is more specifically directed to the generation of life, he cannot deliberately choose to climax outside of intercourse. (In other words, he cannot deliberately choose to spill his semen outside of intercourse. If he accidentally climaxes outside of intercourse, he’s not morally culpable for an accident he did not intend.)

With the wife, since her climax is not specifically directed to the generation of life, she may climax before, during, or after intercourse so long as the climax can be considered to be part of an act of marital relations. (In other words, stimulation should not occur once a specific act of marital relations – which I am using here as a deliberately broader term than intercourse – is complete.)

 

[Catholic90]

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even if completed by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations. All unnatural sexual acts, even if used as foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, or even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral All sexual acts must be open to life. It is not moral to combine an act that is not open to life with an act that is open to life. Similarly, all unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. These acts do not become moral by being combined with a natural act. These acts do not become moral if they are completed by a natural act. Also, it is not true that the woman can be stimulated and brought to completion by any means at all, at any time. Ron

“unnatural sex act” – the OP is talking about relations with his wife, NOT a homosexual affair, for crying out loud! There are no “unnatural” acts going on. It’s called foreplay. Would you call kisses on the cheek unnnatural? mouth? shoulder? etc? Nowhere does a line get drawn on the body that says “you can’t kiss there” between husband and wife. If BOTH are comfortable with it, then it is expressing love.

They obviously ARE open to life - they are Pregnant! Kissing on the mouth isn’t open to life …is that wrong in your eyes?

A woman CAN be brought to climax either before or after the husband’s climax manually during the ‘event’. You seem to have a, “Well, if she didn’t get there while I did, too bad!” mentality. That is wrong (and NOT supported by the church!)

If you have sources to back up your claims, I would love to see them. But I don’t think you will find them.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.

A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

Ron

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Yeah, but you don’t seem to be listing what you think those are.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Please define unnatural. You’re not being clear. Masturbation is immoral because it is solitary and not open to life. However, if you “manually” stimulate your wife during the course of normal marital relations, it is neither solitary or resistant to life.

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Do you know why the Church normally condemns such acts? I think you’re seriously misunderstanding Church teaching on the subject.

The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.

No one ever said a husband could perform oral and “manual sex” on his wife for any reason and anytime. It must be during the course of normal marital relations.

A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

I don’t see how their teaching does. You’ve yet to provide any proof. You’ve only restated your position over and over again. No references to the CCC or any other source has been presented by you.
Ron

 

[Julianna]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.

A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

Ron

First I need to stop laughing. Ok, I’m calm now. How in the world “are YOU” or the Catholic police going to know “who is doing what”?

How the OP has sex with his wife is no one’s business. I am happy for the OP & how lovingly concerned he is for his wife. My advice to the OP, is to stay in touch with her doctor and make love to your wife the way you “both” agree upon. The LIFE is already there…geez louise.

Unfortunately, Mr. Conte still hasn’t left the dinner table at the first Thanksgiving.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.

A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

Ron

I found the following on the EWTN website, complete with citations from moral theology references (and a papal address).

"Between a husband and wife, is oral sex a sin if it is performed as part of foreplay and culminates in intercourse?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 06-08-2006:

The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993). "

 

[Catholic90]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.
Yes, apparently anything that resembles fun is disordered in your world.
Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.
Like what?? Anything except lying there enduring ‘the act’?
A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.
Untrue.
The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.
Untrue.
A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

Your wife must really have fun contemplating the ceiling colors!
Ron

 

[Julianna]

Your wife must really have fun contemplating the ceiling colors!

Here are two of the famous:

Victorian mom’s advice to her daughters wedding night:
“Just lie back and think of England”

Here’s another along the same line as to what you were going with.

“Beige…hmmm…beige, I think I’ll paint the ceiling beige.”

The OP and his wife (who is with child, saints be praised) seems to be a compassionate loving husband. His wife is blessed to have such a man. How he makes love to his wife is up to the two people involved. As for being “open” to life…it’s already there! Go for it!

 

[psteichen]

Hmmmm…still waiting for Ron to come up with some proof. Sorry Ron, your opinion doesn’t count for much around here unless you can back it up with Church teaching. Or you could just admit that it is your opinion, in which case we will take it for what it is worth.

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

The idea that a husband can perform an unnatural sexual act on his wife at any time for any reason is contrary to the teaching that unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral.

A number of theologians, priests, and lay leaders have taught otherwise. But their teaching contradicts the principle of moral theology that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.

Ron

Ron,

Your argument is logically valid, but it is nonethless untrue because this proposition

A married couple cannot perform unnatural sexual acts on one another (such as oral sex or manual sex) because such acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral.

is not true. This has been demonstrated by those above who have quoted authoritative Church teaching to that effect.

Unless and until you can show me, based upon actual Church teaching (documents, CCC, etc.) and not arguments based upon moral principles alone, that your posts represent the teaching of the Church. I will regard your posts as your opinion alone with all the Magisterial Authority that that implies.

Thank you and good day.

ExMotuAquinas

 

[mosher]

First I need to stop laughing. Ok, I’m calm now. How in the world “are YOU” or the Catholic police going to know “who is doing what”?

How the OP has sex with his wife is no one’s business. I am happy for the OP & how lovingly concerned he is for his wife. My advice to the OP, is to stay in touch with her doctor and make love to your wife the way you “both” agree upon. The LIFE is already there…geez louise.

Unfortunately, Mr. Conte still hasn’t left the dinner table at the first Thanksgiving.

God knows. While at times these discussions tend to seem like a type of moral voyerism. However, objective morality cannot be seperated from any place or any time and that includes the bedroom. It is for the care of souls that the Church and Her theologians have discussed what is licit and what is not licit concerning human sexuality over the last circa 2000 years.

To all including Ron Corte:

We have moved away from the question of the OP and deleved into sexual ethics. This specific topic of oral sex etc has been discussed at length. Most recently in the following thread. It will be unnecessary to rehash all of the citations and reasoning if we take a moment to read the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=109002