Once again, when JP II speaks of “the inseperable connection of the two significances of the conjugal act” (cf. HV 12), he is speaking of the **unitive and procreative ** significances. An act of sexual intercourse may not be deprived of either significance. This teaching does not refer to the licitness or morality of different methods of foreplay that intend to enable the spouses to complete the act of marital intercourse.
jegow said:
I agree that the excerpt from Humanae Vitae if read in isolation does seem to cast doubts on the permissibility of any sexual play at all that is not intended to and does not end in sexual climax open to procreation. Having said this, the whole encyclical is about the illicit nature of contraception, and it could safely be assumed that its reference to sex and marital act is only from the view point of consummated intercourse. Therefore, my guess is that Humanae Vitae may not be a good guide to sexual contacts that are not intended to proceed to climax.
that justifies what seems to be at the center of this; oral stimulation or oral sex. I also supplied the links so that I would not have to post the whole thing; these are not taken out of context. Maybe you’re misreading Christopher West.
Mirror Mirror:Mirror Mirror said:
Where does the Church talk about this - show me please.
Where does the Church talk about this - show me please.
Please be careful when saying “if your wonderings are in regard to the foreplay or playfulness mentioned in the other other posts that I am responding to, then yes the Church forbids that too”
No I have not read Christopher West, but I have heard enough to know that only a misunderstanding of his writings would contradict Theology of the Body. I am also sure he is a bit easier to understand than TOtB!
But all that Aside, Mr. West’s authority could easily be questioned since his writings are a bit contrary to Jegow’s current understanding of the topic at hand. 
HAH HAH! That’s my point! Such things as oral sex (stimulation) are contacts or acts that literally break the inseparable connection between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
Touché Well, I’ll be sitting here waiting for proof of that.
Where does the Church talk about this - show me please.
Ok, I have to ask…
Please see my previous post. BTW, how long have you been married?
Thank you for responding to my request. That’s all I wanted. I will seriously be looking forward to what you find.
jegow 
What are you talking about? Oral sex within the marital embrace is accepted by the Catholic Church. Oral sex to climax for a husband is a sin. Oral sex to climax for the wife is accepted as long as it is within the marital act that culminates with the husbands climax inside his wife’s vagina.
Frogman,
Sorry, my bad. I was trying to distinguish (very ineffectively!) oral sex (male climax) from oral stimulation (no male climax, possible female climax).
Now this is simply a retort to the accusation that what I have posted is wrong. If it is – I invite anyone who can find some form of Magisterial teaching that is in its favor. Include the Title, Author, Section or Page Number.
Ok, I have to ask…
Understandable, I thought that is where you were going, I was just wanting clarification.
I am not going to speculate over this all day with you or anyone; I have other things to do today. I have shown this to this thread through Church documents that it is wrong and so I ask that any intellectual argument made against it be based off of that. After all, it has been said by others that the Church teaches that. So I say it again to all.