NFP and Abstinence - How far is too far?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathew_George
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jegow:
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.

SHOW ME!

The invitation was clear.
Click to expand...
Again, I will be looking for documentation, however, the documentation that you have provided does not state that oral sex is wrong. If you can get that out of the information that you have posted, you are one of the greatest scholars of our time. You have provided information about the act of sexual intercourse being unitive and procreative, not about oral sex. Nothing has been specifically sited saying that a husband and wife (according to the Church) are not allowed to have oral sex during the marital embrace.

I am not sure I understand why you are taking such a strong stance against this? Have you asked your priest? Or is the only answer that you are searching for is documents from the Church? It seems that you are putting a lot into the discussion trying to say that the Church is against oral sex within marriage, why is that? Again, you do not have specifics that say this.
 
You have shown nothing that contradicts oral sex, jegow.

The role of the church is not to put her stamp of approval or disapproval on each and every action we may or may not choose in our lives. Just because no one has written, “It is inappropriate to lay naked on the altar during Mass,” doesn’t mean it is highly irreverent and inappropriate, let alone sinfully immodest and likely sacriligious. Conversely, just because the church has not infallibly claimed “Oral sex is permissible as long as the husband climaxes inside his wife’s vagina” does not mean such an act is forbidden. Instead, the Church gives us general guidelines to discern for ourselves, with the assistance of priests and theologians who are loyal to the magisterium, what specifically falls within safe moral grounds.

As described, oral sex (that excludes male climax) meets the criteria for morally permissible sex acts between a husband and wife. Furthermore, countless priests and theologians who are loyal to the magisterium (including CAF’s own Fr. Vincent Serpa, among many others) have spoken on oral sex to explain the situations in which it is acceptable.

As the need arises, as with Humanae Vitae and contraceptives, the Church will occasionally provide more specific direction on a particular topic that has not been exhaustively explained. In the absence of such direction, it is our right and responsibility to explore reliable resources from those people who have knowledge and wisdom on the subject at hand, despite their lack of infallibility.

It wouldn’t surprise me if recent events (thank you, Mr. Former President, for such thrills as rainbow parties and the definition of IS) would lead the Church to clarify teachings on oral sex directly from Rome, but in the meantime we are getting a very consistent message from vicars around the world.

I am quite confident you will lead a full and happy life despite never having engaged in oral sex with your spouse, if you are indeed married.
 
Mirror Mirror:
Again, I will be looking for documentation, however, the documentation that you have provided does not state that oral sex is wrong. If you can get that out of the information that you have posted, you are one of the greatest scholars of our time. You have provided information about the act of sexual intercourse being unitive and procreative, not about oral sex. Nothing has been specifically sited saying that a husband and wife (according to the Church) are not allowed to have oral sex during the marital embrace.

I am not sure I understand why you are taking such a strong stance against this? Have you asked your priest? Or is the only answer that you are searching for is documents from the Church? It seems that you are putting a lot into the discussion trying to say that the Church is against oral sex within marriage, why is that? Again, you do not have specifics that say this.
Click to expand...
I mentioned your name in there becasue I knew you were looking for me already - I did not mean to shout out at you. Sorry you took it that way. You’re safe, I know you’re looking.
 
40.png
vluvski:
You have shown nothing that contradicts oral sex, jegow.
Click to expand...
Yeah, looks like I did. And you have not shown anything to support it like I asked.
40.png
vluvski:
I am quite confident you will lead a full and happy life despite never having engaged in oral sex with your spouse, if you are indeed married.
Click to expand...
As for this, grow up. As if that’s all I need to be happy and have a full life. I thought I was dealing with adults.

Again the invitation was clear.
 
40.png
jegow:
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.

SHOW ME!

The invitation was clear.
Click to expand...
I don’t like to speculate either… but you seem to have no problem speculating on the meaning of the documents you posted. I am not asking you to do any speculation. I am asking you to realize that church has reasons for rules of this nature, and those reasons are pretty easy to discern.

Here the problem with finding some church document on OS… It probably does not exist. I am pretty sure JPII does not mention OS in TOtB… I have never seen it in the summa. I am telling you that pretty much all you are going to find is… a man must finish in a woman, and the act must strive to be giving. The only sources you will find on OS are going to be the theologians… using REASON to define what it permissible. Example… this article has a few quotes in it:
nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm
 
40.png
jegow:
Yeah, looks like I did. And you have not shown anything to support it like I asked.
As for this, grow up. As if that’s all I need to be happy and have a full life. I thought I was dealing with adults.

Again the invitation was clear.
Click to expand...
The mutual charity among men has, indeed, cooled.
 
40.png
jegow:
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.

SHOW ME!

The invitation was clear.
Click to expand...
Come on now, jegow. Where is the Church document that says it is morally permissible for a wife to touch her husband’s genitalia? Where is the Church document that says it is ok for a husband to caress his wife’s naked body? Where is the Church document that says it is morally permissible for us to eat an Egg McMuffin? Does the absence of a specific Church pronouncement on such matters mean that such things are, de facto, forbidden? In the absence of an outright prohibition, we do have some moral latitude to form our own consciences within the parameters of what the Church has specifically taught.

You have not “shown to this thread through Church doctrine” that oral sex/oral stimulation within the context of a completed marital intercourse is wrong. That is merely your interpretation. You may follow your own conscience, just as the other contributors to this thread may follow theirs.
 
40.png
CatholicSam:
My NFP teacher told us that while we are trying to avoid pregnancy, everything is OK except climax. And she got this information from a priest who we highly respect and who is very holy.
Click to expand...
Well, I know many other holy very well informed priests that do not agree with this.
Even JPII talked about how difficult abstinence within marriage is. If everything except climax was ok, I don’t think abstinence would be that difficult. In fact, following that logic any act reserved for foreplay or any sexual act would be ok as long as climax isn’t reached (oral, masturbation until right before climax, etc).
 
40.png
jegow:
As for this, grow up. As if that’s all I need to be happy and have a full life. I thought I was dealing with adults.
Click to expand...
This is uncalled for… all she was saying is that you do not have to do it… You and your spouse are free to choose not to. Lets all take a deep breath here… geez we really hijacked this thread didn’t we !!! 😃
 
40.png
frogman80:
This is uncalled for… all she was saying is that you do not have to do it… You and your spouse are free to choose not to. Lets all take a deep breath here… geez we really hijacked this thread didn’t we !!! 😃
Click to expand...
We have done a good job of it 👍
 
40.png
CatholicSam:
My NFP teacher told us that while we are trying to avoid pregnancy, everything is OK except climax. And she got this information from a priest who we highly respect and who is very holy.
Click to expand...
Sam,

Please talk to your NFP teacher about this, it is not true. Every sexual act is to end in the marital embrace. You must give yourself freely to your husband/wife. Engaging in this type of activity is denying why sex was created. You would only be performing this act for selfish pleasure because this is not self giving love. This is what you are going to “pass the time.” Please look into this further as this is not what the Church teaches.

12345678, well put!
 
40.png
frogman80:
This is uncalled for… all she was saying is that you do not have to do it… You and your spouse are free to choose not to. Lets all take a deep breath here… geez we really hijacked this thread didn’t we !!! 😃
Click to expand...
Sure didn’t sound like it.
 
First, you are making a disconnect with the original question that I have posed or statement that I made in post #20. That is; oral sex is a sin.
40.png
antonius:
Is it morally permissible for a wife to touch her husband’s genitalia?
Click to expand...
Where is the Church document that says it is ok for a husband to caress his wife’s naked body? Where is the Church document that says it is morally permissible for us to eat an Egg McMuffin?

I suppose what I am trying to get at is that the Church, on certain sexual matters, has left us with a definition of what the marital act is. Within this definition one would hope that people would see what it is not.
 
From: PERSONA HUMANA
***EXPLAINED A BIT ***
IX

In forming a declaration that masturbation is wrong they give a reason why. In this reason is one definition of the conjugal act. It goes like this. “… 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.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.

vatican.va/roman_curia/c…-humana_en.html

In other words, all deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to that relationship. What relationship? 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.” So I leave with a question. How can the deliberate exercise of sexuality which is not procreative still be in the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love? Oral sex does not fit that description.
 
40.png
jegow:
From: PERSONA HUMANA
***EXPLAINED A BIT ***
IX

In forming a declaration that masturbation is wrong they give a reason why. In this reason is one definition of the conjugal act. It goes like this. “… 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."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.

vatican.va/roman_curia/c…-humana_en.html

In other words, all deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to that relationship. What relationship? 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.” So I leave with a question. How can the deliberate exercise of sexuality which is not procreative still be in the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love? Oral sex does not fit that description.
Click to expand...
Masturbation and oral sex are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in this discussion. Therefore bringing up this teaching is not 100% relative to what we are talking about. However, there are a few important things that have come from this. The first being
"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.
Click to expand...
Now this is correct. If a husband and a wife are performing oral sex on each other and it is not ending in the “normal conjugal relations” then you are correct, oral sex is wrong. (A point of clarification…when I am talking about oral sex, I am referring to oral stimulation with the hands or the mouth NOT to the point of climax for the husband) However if oral sex (stimulation) occurs during the normal course of the conjugal act then (based upon what is written above) it does not contradict the finality of the faculty.

I just do not understand why you are so against this? You are taking these passages and twisting them around to fit your view. This in no way, shape or form supports what you have been trying to say.
namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” So I leave with a question. How can the deliberate exercise of sexuality which is not procreative still be in the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love? Oral sex does not fit that description.
Click to expand...
Oral sex is a means to an end. Oral sex is not the entire act. A play is not completed until every scene of every act is performed. A football game is not concluded until every second of every minute of every quarter had been played. The marital embrace is not completed until the husband climaxes inside the vagina (unless he performs oral sex on his wife to orgasm in the same marital act which is permitted) and the kissing, caressing, stimulation that leads up to this is seen in the eyes of the Catholic as acceptable.

Just having oral sex and nothing else is NOT acceptable. If that is the point that you are trying to make, then yes, you are correct. However, if your point is that oral sex (stimulation) withing the marital act is wrong, then you are the one that is wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top