Just How Authoritative Is Christopher West on Matters of Sexual Morality?

[rlg94086]

His “Theology of the Body Explained” carries both (the bishop is Chaput). That’s the only one I own, so I can’t answer about any other books of his.

That makes sense, since Christopher West used to work in the Denver Archdiocese. BTW…for those that don’t know him or his writings, Archbishop Chaput is a fantastic bishop!

 

[Gizmo]

I think his message is 100% faithful to what JPII originally presented and his message is in alignment with Church teachings.

I disagree with you on that. In 1984, August 22: General Audience (Theology of the Body) of John Paul II, the necessity in the maintaining of the unitive and pro-creative aspect of the conjugal act are brought up and how they can not be separated. West, in his book “The Good News About Sex & Marriage” suggests that oral stimulation of the genitals is o.k. for married couples. However, if he held to what the Church teaches about the unitive and pro-creative elements of the conjugal act he would not be saying that oral stimulation is morally permissible. I find this matter highly questionable.

In fact, I was able to meet him and I asked him about this stance of his on oral stimulation and he had no sound argument to back his point. When it came down to it he got frustrated and avoided answering my question. He is a very nice guy, no doubt, but I wish he was more clear about some of the things he teaches.

 

[rlg94086]

I disagree with you on that. In 1984, August 22: General Audience (Theology of the Body) of John Paul II, the necessity in the maintaining of the unitive and pro-creative aspect of the conjugal act are brought up and how they can not be separated. West, in his book “The Good News About Sex & Marriage” suggests that oral stimulation of the genitals is o.k. for married couples. However, if he held to what the Church teaches about the unitive and pro-creative elements of the conjugal act he would not be saying that oral stimulation is morally permissible. I find this matter highly questionable.

In fact, I was able to meet him and I asked him about this stance of his on oral stimulation and he had no sound argument to back his point. When it came down to it he got frustrated and avoided answering my question. He is a very nice guy, no doubt, but I wish he was more clear about some of the things he teaches.

West says that oral stimulation as foreplay is acceptable. How is that different than stimulation by hand as foreplay? How are either contrary to Pope John Paul II’s statement? Or do you believe that couples should not have any contact other than genital/genital during the marital embrace?

BTW…just to be clear, West does teach that if either are done to completion, then they would be immoral acts as they would be separate from the pro-creative element.

 

[Nandarani]

So many threads in this forum cite West’s works on “Theology of the Body.” While I have not real all he has written, my *initial *reaction to what I have read is that he has “pushed” John Paul II’s discourses on marital theology into the moral acceptability of physical acts and physical pleasure that many of us “seniors” were taught were questionable, if not outrightly sinful. I am frankly puzzled at Mr. West’s authority to teach these things, as well as at the following he - and his many websites and books - seem to have garnered.

In researching his CV and the Theology of the Body Foundation, I find the following: He has a MTS from the “John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family,” which on further research is incorporated in D.C.as the “Knights of Columbus Family Life Bureau.” It seems to be authorized by the Holy See to grant degrees, but it also doesn’t seem like a competitor to the Gregorium. He is a certified Catechist in the archdiocese of Denver, and a certified marriage prep instructor in the archdiocese of D.C. American dioceses being what they often are, I am unsure what weight to give these certifications. He is a visiting lecturer at several universities. I cannot determine if he has a Mandatum.

So: with what degree - if any - of Magisterial authority does he teach and write? If he says that “X” is acceptable as part of the marital act, is it? What, if any, “official” Magisterial document that could be cross-checked to validate something’s moral acceptability? Please understand that I am not seeking to discredit or undermine him, but am reacting to the almost “knee-jerk” reference to his works whenever a poster asks a question concerning marital intimacy. I am also not necessarily trying to “disbelieve” him, but his approach to the role of pleasure in marriage and that pleasure is part of the “unitive” aspect of marriage is significantly foreign to the Catholic teachings that shaped me in the 50’s and early 60’s (as some will remember – before everything “broke loose.”)

I am traveling through converting from years of Hare Krishna involvement (and long previous, the Episcopal Church) to Catholicism. Sometime back, found Christopher West somewhere, on the road. My response was: takes a little getting used to. The ideas of CW and the Catholic Church are much more palatable than what I have been exposed to, yet different. Perhaps leaving out a stage that needs a bit more emphasis, or, conscious recognition… Here is what I mean.

In Hindu orientation, the goal is to develop other ways of relating after a certain point in life, which sort of naturally coincides with the reproductive cycle. Unitive sense is spiritual in nature at that point, and no less strong. Ideally. In fact, sex for reproduction only was the strictest take for devotee life. It is supported by all the structure and personalities devotees live among and take guidance from - the ideal which the majority of HK devotees do not follow. Counseling among the devotees exists for this, and other, reasons. Trying to make Westerners fit Eastern paradigms has pitfalls.

As is typical of Eastern orientation grasped by Westerners in Eastern religions, there is a sense of wanting to follow a pattern, even if you don’t succeed. *The pattern in HK is that couples begin to retire from the world. At a certain natural point *and even when the couple is younger, it is likely that what goes on in the marriage is tamer than in the west. But that is only speculation on my part, and I don’t want to debate or discuss - it is just what I understand, through knowing Indian couples of all ages.

 

[blessedtoo]

West says that oral stimulation as foreplay is acceptable. How is that different than stimulation by hand as foreplay? How are either contrary to Pope John Paul II’s statement? Or do you believe that couples should not have any contact other than genital/genital during the marital embrace?

BTW…just to be clear, West does teach that if either are done to completion, then they would be immoral acts as they would be separate from the pro-creative element.

It is different because it would fall under the definition of sodomy. As far as I know, sodomy has not been deemed an acceptable practice for married couples.

In addition, isn’t it true that JPII never specifically cited this practice as a means of achieving this “goal” of mutual fulfillment? Christopher West has extrapolated from the Pope’s writings and esxpressed his own opinion.

 

[Gizmo]

West says that oral stimulation as foreplay is acceptable. How is that different than stimulation by hand as foreplay? How are either contrary to Pope John Paul II’s statement? Or do you believe that couples should not have any contact other than genital/genital during the marital embrace?

BTW…just to be clear, West does teach that if either are done to completion, then they would be immoral acts as they would be separate from the pro-creative element.

I believe that any stimulation that is masturbatory in any marital act is wrong. By masturbatory I mean any act that is done to derive only sexual pleasure while not in itself being procreative. The CCC (2352) says that “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.” One must therefore understand that the sin of masturbation has nothing to do with the orgasm/fulfillment but the stimulation. A similar passage comes from the document Persona Humana which reads - “The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.””

The question that arises from Persona Humana is - what are abnormal conjugal relations? I think the rest of that sentence from the document answers that - any relation that contradicts the finality of the faculty. Things such as masturbation or oral stimulation (which is just like masturbation of one’s spouse but done orally).

and then even JPII in the Theology of the Body says …

*1984, August 22: General Audience (Theology of the Body)
John Paul II
"6. According to the criterion of this truth, which should be expressed in the “language of the body,” the conjugal act “signifies” not only love, but also potential fecundity, and therefore it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate significance by artificial means.

In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act: the one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. This is what the encyclical teaches (cf. HV 12)."*

Even JPII said it was not licit to separate the unitive from the procreative aspect. I agree with him. What West is saying is that oral stimulation is not oral sex. BUT, that is only because it is not done to the point of completion/orgasm. One could ask, according to West’s understanding, if a person begins to masturbate but does not do it to completion, have they committed the sin of masturbation (even if this is done within a conjugal act)? The Church would say that because of the deliberate stimulation of the genitals for sexual pleasure that yes the person has fallen into that sin. It seems that West would say no because the person did not reach completion or fulfillment in the act.

Either way I think the main question here is - who has the authority to define what is morally acceptable or permissible in the conjugal act and those things surrounding it. The obvious answer is the Church. West is alright but he needs to make sure he is teaching 100% Church teaching before he says something like certain forms of foreplay are ok to do.

*1832 (August 15) MIRARI VOS
ON LIBERALISM AND RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE GREGORY XVI

(from §12) Recalling that matrimony is a sacrament and therefore subject to the Church, let them consider and observe the laws of the Church concerning it. Let them take care lest for any reason they permit that which is an obstruction to the teachings of the canons and the decrees of the councils. They should be aware that those marriages will have an unhappy end which are entered upon contrary to the discipline of the Church or without God’s favor or because of concupiscence alone, with no thought of the sacrament and of the mysteries signified by it.
[papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16mirar.htm)*

 

[rlg94086]

I believe that any stimulation that is masturbatory in any marital act is wrong. By masturbatory I mean any act that is done to derive only sexual pleasure while not in itself being procreative.

So all foreplay is out? If the purpose of the stimulation, whether oral or by hand is to arouse either spouse to make the marital embrace possible, then that negates your point. The end purpose is not to “derive only sexual pleasure.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any teaching from the Church that states this. Masturbation is not the same as foreplay. Sodomy is not the same as foreplay. If you can find something definitive, then post it.

Even JPII said it was not licit to separate the unitive from the procreative aspect. I agree with him. What West is saying is that oral stimulation is not oral sex. BUT, that is only because it is not done to the point of completion/orgasm. **One could ask, according to West’s understanding, if a person begins to masturbate but does not do it to completion, have they committed the sin of masturbation (even if this is done within a conjugal act)? **

The Church would say that because of the deliberate stimulation of the genitals for sexual pleasure that yes the person has fallen into that sin. It seems that West would say no because the person did not reach completion or fulfillment in the act.

No, I don’t think the Church would say that. I hate to get graphic, but it depends on the purpose of the act. If his wife is coming back to bed, and he is manipulating himself to hardness for the purpose of the marital embrace? Yes, that would be licit. If he is doing it for personal pleasure? No, that would not be licit.

Either way I think the main question here is - who has the authority to define what is morally acceptable or permissible in the conjugal act and those things surrounding it. The obvious answer is the Church. West is alright but he needs to make sure he is teaching 100% Church teaching before he says something like certain forms of foreplay are ok to do.

Well, you certainly don’t. I think West’s analysis of TOTB is accurate, and therefore his counsel is valid. If you find something difinitive from the Church, I will read it. So far, you haven’t provided anything.

 

[Gizmo]

Well, you certainly don’t. I think West’s analysis of TOTB is accurate, and therefore his counsel is valid. If you find something difinitive from the Church, I will read it. So far, you haven’t provided anything.

I never said I did … did I? I mean … certainly you have no authority to say what is right or wrong either … do you? As members of the Church we look to it to tell us what those right and wrong things are. The Church comes first and C. West comes second (or third or whatever).

If you’re looking for something definitive from the Church that says ‘oral stimulation is wrong or right’ or ‘most forms of foreplay are masturbatory acts that could happen before the conjugal act’ … you won’t find it. BUT, based off of the many things that the Church has said through the years one could deduce that certain things are immoral without having to have it spelled out for them. In the same token there are somethings which I think fall under the category of being gray areas of moral theology - meaning that the definition is not necessarily black and white. I think C. West goes into some of those unclear things and says that they are alright.

The way that I look at it (which could be wrong) is that if I am going to give people advise on this I would rather err in being too cautious about this than not to be cautious at all. A line I heard from someone before “freedom once given is impossible to take back” I think could apply to some of these moral issues that seem to fit into this gray area of moral theology. Once we tell the world that ‘X’ is o.k. to do, it will be next to impossible to tell them that they must not do it anymore because we finally figured out that ‘X’ is immoral. So … I don’t know … I have been watching people debate over this thing for years on the forums and the same conclusions are always reached. One group says it’s wrong while another says it’s right.

I think if anyone is going to get anywhere in discussion about these moral issues of oral stimulation or foreplay, one thing needs to happen first. We all need to agree for once who has the most authority in this matter and then to look and see how this authority has been exercised through time. I am pretty sure that all people in this thread agree that the one with this authority is the Church.

 

[blessedtoo]

I’m sorry, but I don’t see any teaching from the Church that states this. Masturbation is not the same as foreplay. Sodomy is not the same as foreplay. If you can find something definitive, then post it.

As Gizmo stated, the definition of masturbation does not include a requirement for “completion”. Nor do the definitions of sodomy. Aside from the explanations provided in the CCC, you can simply read the definitions on these acts in any dictionary.

No, I don’t think the Church would say that. I hate to get graphic, but it depends on the purpose of the act. If his wife is coming back to bed, and he is manipulating himself to hardness for the purpose of the marital embrace? Yes, that would be licit. If he is doing it for personal pleasure? No, that would not be licit.

My understanding is that self stimulation of any kind would be considered masturbation. If there is a physical problem that would prevent a man from proper function, I would think a visit to the doctor might be in order. In any event, such a delicate detail might be best discussed with a faithful priest.

Well, you certainly don’t. I think West’s analysis of TOTB is accurate, and therefore his counsel is valid. If you find something difinitive from the Church, I will read it. So far, you haven’t provided anything.

Here is a paper with the Bishop’s endorsement.
presentationministries.com/brochures/OralSex.asp

 

[Chancellare]

It is different because it would fall under the definition of sodomy. As far as I know, sodomy has not been deemed an acceptable practice for married couples.

In addition, isn’t it true that JPII never specifically cited this practice as a means of achieving this “goal” of mutual fulfillment? Christopher West has extrapolated from the Pope’s writings and esxpressed his own opinion.

Up until now, I believed that oral stimulation = sodomy is objectively defined as still sodomy even done as foreplay as part of the total marital embrace.

But I found that this reasoning is fatally flawed:
You are judging an act outside of its integral meaning.

This reasoning is like concluding that the act of slicing open a healthy human chest as mutilation even when done as part of an open heart surgery. In this case the integral meaning is the total medical procedure to save the heart.

In the case of oral stimulation, the integral meaning is the total marital embrace that culminates in vaginal intercourse. Getting to the integral meaning is very important in judging the morality of an act. In fact the meaning of integrity (honesty) is based on being “whole”, as opposed to “partial”. On matters of morality, adherence to faith and reason as inseparable virtues is very important. Separating oral stimulation as a stand alone act apart from the total marital embrace results from flawed reasoning, not “integral”.

Pope Benedict’s dictum still rings supreme:

Faith without reason leads to terrorism
Reason without faith leads to relativism

 

[Gizmo]

Up until now, I believed that oral stimulation = sodomy is objectively defined as still sodomy even done as foreplay as part of the total marital embrace.

But I found that this reasoning is fatally flawed:
You are judging an act outside of its integral meaning.

This reasoning is like concluding that the act of slicing open a healthy human chest as mutilation even when done as part of an open heart surgery. In this case the integral meaning is the total medical procedure to save the heart.

In the case of oral stimulation, the integral meaning is the total marital embrace that culminates in vaginal intercourse. Getting to the integral meaning is very important in judging the morality of an act.

Timeout. There is more to judging the morality of something than trying to find the integral meaning. In fact the CCC says, “The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.” and that “the end does not justify the means.”

In fact the meaning of integrity (honesty) is based on being “whole”, as opposed to “partial”. On matters of morality, adherence to faith and reason as inseparable virtues is very important. Separating oral stimulation as a stand alone act apart from the total marital embrace results from flawed reasoning, not “integral”.

Pope Benedict’s dictum still rings supreme:

Faith without reason leads to terrorism
Reason without faith leads to relativism

Chancellare your example does not seem to be without its own flaws. Take the open heart surgery. This act requires access to the heart and thus requires that the person be sliced at the chest offering access to the heart. In this example in order for the open heart surgery to begin there is the requirement of another action which must done prior to the execution of the surgery; the opening of the chest. Rather than looking at the integral meaning of opening the chest, look at the ‘object’, ‘intention’, and ‘circumstances’ because that is how the Church looks at the morality of acts. The object chosen is the opening of the chest. The intention is to do this in order to operate because circumstantially the person will probably die if not operated on.

The issue with oral stimulation is whether or not its ‘object’ is moral. In order for it to moral be the object, intention and circumstances must all be good (i.e. not sinful). The CCC continues “There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

My opinion is that the ‘object’ of oral stimulation is immoral even though the ‘intention’ of the spouses is to eventually consummate what they have started.

Unlike the heart surgery example, where one act required another, vaginal intercourse does not require that the couple perform various different acts involving their genitalia which are not pro-creative before they consummate them in an act that is.

Since vaginal intercourse does not require oral stimulation as a need for heart surgery requires the incision in the chest then they really can’t be compared in the way you have compared them.

 

[rlg94086]

Okay, so someone who is against oral or hand stimulation of the genitals prior to the marital embrace, please explain to me how you believe a Catholic is supposed to prepare. If the woman is dry, what is done? Does the man just force his way in regardless…no physical contact prior to penetration? I’m betting that is not how you do it.

I’m sorry to be so graphic, but everyone seems to dance around this issue. I see absolutely nothing wrong with oral or hand stimulation of either the man or the woman, as foreplay. I see nothing from the Church prohibiting this. If the purpose is for personal sexual pleasure, clearly it is a sin, but not as foreplay.

Since no one can produce anything definitive from the Church, I will go with the what priests and C. West have explained in light of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The rest of you can continue to do whatever you want to do, but I will prayerfully continue proper relations with my wife.

 

[Gizmo]

Since no one can produce anything definitive from the Church, I will go with the what priests and C. West have explained in light of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The rest of you can continue to do whatever you want to do, but I will prayerfully continue proper relations with my wife.

Very well. See you later & God bless.

 

[rlg94086]

Very well. See you later & God bless.

No answer then…that’s what I expected. You don’t know. Thanks for your enlightenment.

Can anyone else out there answer my questions about foreplay? Is none allowed at all? What is allowable for a Catholic? How can couples help each other in the marital embrace with issues of feminine dryness or a slow male erectile response?

 

[blessedtoo]

No answer then…that’s what I expected. You don’t know. Thanks for your enlightenment.

Can anyone else out there answer my questions about foreplay? Is none allowed at all? What is allowable for a Catholic? How can couples help each other in the marital embrace with issues of feminine dryness or a slow male erectile response?

rlg, as I stated in another post, delicate matters like this should be discussed with a doctor and/or a priest. We can all agree that the Church has clearly allowed the faithful a good deal of freedom to exercise their consciences and free will on matters of sexual technique.

I don’t think anyone on this thread is going to provide tips on how to deal with specific issues like those you mentioned. Nor should they. My interest in presenting another view is to offer those Catholics who have questions or conflicts about the morality of certain acts some support. As another poster stated, many of us are converts or reverts who may not have fully considered the objective morality of our marital sexual behavior. But this is a public forum and this topic draws alot of controversial opinion. For more personal attention, spiritual or medical guidance should be sought.

 

[rlg94086]

rlg, as I stated in another post, delicate matters like this should be discussed with a doctor and/or a priest. We can all agree that the Church has clearly allowed the faithful a good deal of freedom to exercise their consciences and free will on matters of sexual technique.

I don’t think anyone on this thread is going to provide tips on how to deal with specific issues like those you mentioned. Nor should they. My interest in presenting another view is to offer those Catholics who have questions or conflicts about the morality of certain acts some support. As another poster stated, many of us are converts or reverts who may not have fully considered the objective morality of our marital sexual behavior. But this is a public forum and this topic draws alot of controversial opinion. For more personal attention, spiritual or medical guidance should be sought.

Thanks, but it isn’t a personal problem for me. I have received guidance from Church sources (priests and a Director of Marriage and Family for the Denver Archdiocese…oh, that would be Christopher West ) on what is proper. The guidance given by some on this thread is that oral stimulation is in itself a sin - challenging C West’s very good explanation of the issue.

My challenge, so far unmet, is that any genital stimulation by hand would also have to be considered a sin. I haven’t heard anyone say that specifically, but it follows logically. Mutual masturbation is definitely a sin. On that I think we all agree. Or do you think genital stimulation of one’s spouse by hand leading up to the marital embrace is okay?

Now, given that some people believe that stimulation orally or by hand is a sin, they end up with some very challenging situations. Genital - genital contact only?? That can be difficult sometimes.

 

[rlg94086]

BTW…in the interest of clarity for some who don’t have any of West’s books and don’t know what he really says, here is an excerpt from *Good News About Sex and Marriage *(Servant, 1977 - *Nihil obstat *and *Imprimatur *April, 2004)

Someone told me the Church teaches that oral sex is wrong even for married couples. Is that true?
…
So, what does the Church teach? You’re not going to find an official Magisterial statement addressing this issue directly…

There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse…

Oral copulation (that is, to the point of ejaculation) is simply *not *marital. It effects no *communion of persons *between the spouses…

Furthermore, while there’s nothing wrong per se with oral-genital contact as foreplay to intercourse, such expressions require the greatest degree of purity and reverence so as never to degrade the goodness of marital intimacy. This kind of purity is possible, but it’s also quite easy (especially for men, I’d say) to cross the line between love and lust, between intimately affirming the goodness of each other’s bodies (and receiving that affirmation) and merely seeking to gratify base desires at each other’s expense.

That last paragraph is very, very important and right on target IMHO. If oral or hand stimulation is briefly used for the purpose of the marital embrace and doesn’t cross over to a lustful, disordered act, then I struggle to see the problem with it. West explains that it is acceptable, but he gives the correct level of caution.

 

[blessedtoo]

BTW…in the interest of clarity for some who don’t have any of West’s books and don’t know what he really says, here is an excerpt from *Good News About Sex and Marriage *(Servant, 1977 - *Nihil obstat *and *Imprimatur *April, 2004)

That last paragraph is very, very important and right on target IMHO. If oral or hand stimulation is briefly used for the purpose of the marital embrace and doesn’t cross over to a lustful, disordered act, then I struggle to see the problem with it. West explains that it is acceptable, but he gives the correct level of caution.

I’m sorry rlg, but I don’t see the logic in his argument. In fact, he doesn’t even present an explanation other than to warn against degradation, impurity and lust.

If I follow his logic, then what would prevent me from using any act I desire as foreplay? Many folks do in fact use clearly disordered acts as a means of preparation for intercourse but that does not neutralize their inherent immorality. I don’t want to get too graphic because these threads keep getting shut down so I will just leave that statement as is and trust you can imagine what I am getting at.

I know you want an answer to your other question and to be honest, I don’t know how to respond. Following the logic I have offered, the answer would be that hand/genital stimulation should fall under the catagory of masturbation. I know that my folks, happily married for 60 years, did not engage in this activity (don’t ask me how I know that )! I know that their generation (and preceeding generations) considered anything other than the “missionary position” gravely immoral. My question continues to be how, why, and when did this understanding change to what we now have which, at times, appears to be carte blanche in the marital bed.

And if one relies on personal conscience in this matter, due to the lack of clear and distinct teaching, than I would have to say that for me, and many of the men and women of my generation, oral/genital activity has always “felt” immoral and wrong. Before the sexual “revolution” of the 60’s and the radical message of feminism, most men seeking this kind of sexual activity would be forced to seek it among professionals because their wives would not be expected (or agreed!) to do this. So again, my question is when did this change and why?

 

[rlg94086]

I’m sorry rlg, but I don’t see the logic in his argument. In fact, he doesn’t even present an explanation other than to warn against degradation, impurity and lust.

If I follow his logic, then what would prevent me from using any act I desire as foreplay? Many folks do in fact use clearly disordered acts as a means of preparation for intercourse but that does not neutralize their inherent immorality. I don’t want to get too graphic because these threads keep getting shut down so I will just leave that statement as is and trust you can imagine what I am getting at.

I know you want an answer to your other question and to be honest, I don’t know how to respond. Following the logic I have offered, the answer would be that hand/genital stimulation should fall under the catagory of masturbation. I know that my folks, happily married for 60 years, did not engage in this activity (don’t ask me how I know that )! I know that their generation (and preceeding generations) considered anything other than the “missionary position” gravely immoral. My question continues to be how, why, and when did this understanding change to what we now have which, at times, appears to be carte blanche in the marital bed.

And if one relies on personal conscience in this matter, due to the lack of clear and distinct teaching, than I would have to say that for me, and many of the men and women of my generation, oral/genital activity has always “felt” immoral and wrong. Before the sexual “revolution” of the 60’s and the radical message of feminism, most men seeking this kind of sexual activity would be forced to seek it among professionals because their wives would not be expected (or agreed!) to do this. So again, my question is when did this change and why?

It’s a good question…I have no idea. Perhaps the previous generations didn’t have a clear understanding of Church teaching on the matter? JPII’s Theology of the Body goes a long way in helping understand much that was probably taboo to even discuss in previous generations.

 

[Gizmo]

No answer then…that’s what I expected. You don’t know. Thanks for your enlightenment.

Can anyone else out there answer my questions about foreplay? Is none allowed at all? What is allowable for a Catholic? How can couples help each other in the marital embrace with issues of feminine dryness or a slow male erectile response?

Sorry rlg, I thought that meant you were leaving when you said …

Since no one can produce anything definitive from the Church, I will go with the what priests and C. West have explained in light of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The rest of you can continue to do whatever you want to do, but I will prayerfully continue proper relations with my wife.

But apparently that was not what you were saying. As to the “that’s what I expected” comment, come on, this is a forum not a contest of who can win over a thread or be the leader of the discussion. Anyways … I am going to Mass, so I’ll check up on this later.

Peace.