The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage
With all due respect to the priest that wrote this, this is an absolute crock of you-know-what. Trying to deduce the motivation behind certain actions is precisely what we’re
not supposed to do when explaining what is and is not
objectively evil. When it comes to determining morality of certain actions, motivation only comes into play with things like self-defense and double-effect. Fornication is objectively evil even if the intent is to express love. IVF is objectively evil even if the intent, to bring a child into this world, is good. Theft is objectively wrong even if a thief is stealing bread to feed his family. His culpability may be less, but he’s still committing an objective wrong.
The point being made by all the people who plainly believe that JPII’s TOB is wrong and only quote Pope Pius XII when it’s convenient for them, is that oral stimulation is objectively wrong because it’s contrary to natural low. But the example being used in this case undermines this very case! The assertion is made that oral sex is unnatural and then there’s a comparison to homosexual fornication that makes little sense.
The author tries to tie the two together when they could not be further apart. Homosexual acts are immoral because they can
never be ordered towards unity and procreation no matter how they are completed. They’re not immoral because the actions themselves are “unnatural.” The same goes for copulation with animals, and you can include the point that there’s also a complete lack of conscious acquiescence on the part of an animal in such an action. It’s basically akin to rape.
So now that point one is tossed aside for lack of logical congruence, we can move on to point two. The second point is basically this author asserting that he knows the motivations behind every single sexual act. That’s insane and un-Christian. Quite frankly you could be committing serious sexual sin by having straightforward no-touching anything before intercourse sex if the mindset is to simply receive release. And honestly, I think that kind of sex probably opens oneself more to that kind of mindset than anything else because it’s robotic, impractical and out and out weird.
Look, the advice against going too far and indulging one’s lusts is good. To ascribe motivations to certain acts based on them simply being certain acts is ridiculous.
If one spouse likes something but the other spouse is uncomfortable… but then is more or less coerced into performing those acts, then you have a serious problem. But if both parties are on board and the act is completed in a way that’s procreative and unitive, you’re in good shape. One should always remain on guard against making marital relations about himself as opposed to making it about the other and the unity between both. This is very true. Definitively stating that certain actions are always motivated by disordered lust is absolutely and completely wrong.
I should also note that ahs is exactly right about the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat in this case. There is nothing wrong with someone saying that he is uncomfortable with oral stimulation and would recommend against it because it might be lustful. There is also nothing wrong with someone saying that it’s fine and an expression of love. The Church is silent on the matter as I’ve noted over and over again. That’s probably because for some people these acts
can lead to a slippery slope but for others, it’s not a big deal. There’s no objective evil present at all and the author of the piece never tries to assert one. Trying to ascribe motivations in every case, however, is indeed wrong.
