NFP and Abstinence - How far is too far?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mathew_George
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mirror Mirror:
Masturbation and oral sex are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in this discussion.

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… 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.
Click to expand...
But see that’s what I am trying to show; that oral sex is “not an entire act” and that it is an entirely different act all together. It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation. It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it. A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act. They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”.
 
40.png
vluvski:
Frogman,
After reading your post, it seems we’ve been on the same page all along, for the most part (or at least I think so), and your definition of lust cleared up the last part of any discrepancy (thanks!).
I’m not in a position to quote the West line I was thinking of regarding a man lusting after his wife and perfection in marriage, but you’re right, it does not deny the propriety and goodness of carnal desire.
As I explained in another thread, while lust IS certainly possible within a marriage, it is probably MORE detrimental to the marriage to be hung up on “am I being lustful?” than to simply do your best to love your spouse fully to the best of your imperfect ability.
How’s that for a single gal? 😉
Click to expand...
That is right on 😃 👍

One thing for people to remember about Period Continence (NFP is a technique of P.C.) … If a couple makes the decision to abstain, and strong urges seem call a couple to the marriage act… those urges can be followed. Many times it take the virtue of Continence to reveal true desires and intentions!
 
40.png
jegow:
But see that’s what I am trying to show; that oral sex is “not an entire act” and that it is an entirely different act all together. It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation. It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it. A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act. They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”.
Click to expand...
Please continue this topic in the new thread that was created for it:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88402
 
40.png
jegow:
but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t require a couple to hug or kiss either, are you against those things aswell? although, personally I think oral stimulation is gross.

I’m curiouse about the morality of sexual thoughts, one view, as frogman has stated, is that as long as the acts thought about are licit, then the fantasy is not sinful.

Another is that all thoughts outside of the actual act,or possibly all thoughts at all, are lustfull, regardless of their nature, because they turn the person in to an object for ones own pleasure.

which is it?
 
40.png
jegow:
But see that’s what I am trying to show; that oral sex is “not an entire act” and that it is an entirely different act all together. It should not be seen as a scene of an entire play or a play that was made during a football game. Sure, oral sex is sexual; I don’t doubt that, what I doubt is that it falls under the term conjugal act. Oral sex is not a forerunner of consummation. It is not a part of a play to be played out because the conjugal act can be done without it. A football game still needs plays to be played by the teams, the play stills needs its scenes and acts played out but, the conjugal act does not require oral sex in order to be complete. So this view that oral sex is ok as long one finishes the deed is still not making sense. Is this true or not; that the couple would have to stop the act of OS in order to perform the conjugal act. They are two different acts. I am not twisting the words of these documents around, all the information is there. No one can say that OS transforms into the conjugal act because “it’s time”.
Click to expand...
Huh?:ehh:

I have been married 15 years and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that oral sex as foreplay is most defiantely part of the same sexual act.

If you are not comfortable with with it that is perfectly fine. What is not fine is trying to justify your feelings by trying to saying it is against church teaching. I have spoken with many holy priests very loyal to the church and all have said it is perfectly acceptable as long as the man’s climax is within the woman.

I would venture to guess this is not something you experienced (not that that is any of my business) and so you can say they are two separate acts. There is a definate continuety between oral sex as foreplay and sexual intercourse. Sex is so much more then just ejaculating in you wife for pete’s sake. The unitive doesn’t just come from the physical act of intercourse but from the emotional, loving, tender giving to one another. Certainly oral sex can be abused if a spouse is selfish about it, but that can happen with intercourse alone as well.
 
40.png
cynic:
It doesn’t require a couple to hug or kiss either, are you against those things aswell? although, personally I think oral stimulation is gross.

I’m curiouse about the morality of sexual thoughts, one view, as frogman has stated, is that as long as the acts thought about are licit, then the fantasy is not sinful.

Another is that all thoughts outside of the actual act,or possibly all thoughts at all, are lustfull, regardless of their nature, because they turn the person in to an object for ones own pleasure.

which is it?
Click to expand...
Just to be clear…
Lusting thoughts or impure thoughts are never allowed… weather that is inside or outside of marriage.

A thought is impure when it is used to purposely picture something (sexually) which your are not licitly entitled to do for real. As an unmarried person, if you purposely imagine an unchaste act, it is impure. The same goes for a married person.

In marriage, it is wrong to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. To purposely imagine this would be wrong. Fantasizing about “self gratification,” a man finishing outside of his wife… etc… would be a couple examples of impure thoughts.

In marriage sexual thoughts of licit acts can become sinful if they become an end to themselves… ie… a person could be satisfied with fantasy alone. This is how a person could objectify their spouse with sexual thoughts.
 
I will be sure to be very careful in the future to never kiss or hug my wife (or think any thoughts about the marital act with her) ever again, unless of course immediately prior to intercourse!

I think that this discussion has careened out of control. I believe what the Church teaches but I think that many here are advocating and referring to Puritanical taboos about minutiae that are confusing and somewhat scrupulous.
 
Will somebody get back to the original focus of the post, please?!

The original question was, does the Church prohibit passionate kissing and necking between spouses that do not end in sexual intercourse? (Oral stimulation, even when not intended for orgasm, is high-voltage stuff that would push the spouses so precariously close to the edge, and it is not included in the sexual play covered in the question).

To ask it differently, does the Church teach that all sexual expressions between spouses are illicit unless they end in intercourse open to life?

One opinion seen from the answers is that, passionate sexual expressions are not sinful per se, but are a near occassion to sin because, the spouses might lose control and end up in contrecepted sex.

Another opinion expressed is that, the spirit of Humanae Vitae and other papal teachings does prohibit sexual expressions that do not consummate in the total giving of the spouses, meaning: intercourse open to life.

Critics of the second argument said that the papal teachings essentially are about contraception and sexual union in marriage, and are focused on how the sexual act ends, and not about other lesser forms to sexual expressions.

I guess this is the summary. I will appreciate if somebody has something to add or debate.
 
Mathew George:
The original question was, does the Church prohibit passionate kissing and necking between spouses that do not end in sexual intercourse?
Click to expand...
The Church allows passionate kissing and necking between spouses even if it does not end in sexual intercourse.
Mathew George:
To ask it differently, does the Church teach that all sexual expressions between spouses are illicit unless they end in intercourse open to life?
Click to expand...
Not at all… expression between spouses promotes desire, and helps to ready each spouse for the marital act.
Mathew George:
One opinion seen from the answers is that, passionate sexual expressions are not sinful per se, but are a near occasion to sin because, the spouses might lose control and end up in contrecepted sex.
Click to expand...
Spouses with contraceptive mentality may have this issue. Loving spouses who do not have a contraceptive mentality, need to be open to life always… even when they are abstaining (for serious reason) to avoid pregnancy. If desire to have relations becomes strong, spouses have the right to stop abstaining and follow them.
Mathew George:
Another opinion expressed is that, the spirit of Humanae Vitae and other papal teachings does prohibit sexual expressions that do not consummate in the total giving of the spouses, meaning: intercourse open to life.

Critics of the second argument said that the papal teachings essentially are about contraception and sexual union in marriage, and are focused on how the sexual act ends, and not about other lesser forms to sexual expressions.
Click to expand...
Yeah… I am a critic!
 
40.png
BARREL:
I will be sure to be very careful in the future to never kiss or hug my wife (or think any thoughts about the marital act with her) ever again, unless of course immediately prior to intercourse!
Click to expand...
but isn’t that essentially what your church teaches?
 
40.png
cynic:
but isn’t that essentially what your church teaches?
Click to expand...
No cynic… there has been another thread on Moral Theology started about this… please continue there.
 
40.png
Latin_Catholic:
I’m taking a practical approach here:

Is it possible that “oral sex” is not fornication if used only to lead to intercourse?

Maybe, technically speaking, yes.

The question is: why taking chances with technicalities?

Can you be 100% sure you’ll never end up using it not as a means but rather as an end?

I believe that when it comes to sin, you shouldn’t be taking chances.
Click to expand...
I’ve reposted this response because it deals with near occasion of sin, and I intend to address near occasion of sin generally as it relates to any sexual encounter, not just oral sex.

Morals are not relative, meaning they do not change from person to person or case to case. A near occasion of sin is not a matter of morals, so it is subject to a degree of relativity.

For example, the sight of my own body does not tempt me to any immoral action. Therefore, it is not an occasion of sin for me to view my own body in the mirror. It would, however, be rather problematic for my fiance (at least I hope it is! :rolleyes: ), so it would be a near occasion of sin for him.

Therefore, it is between the couple and God to discern for themselves what for them constitutes near occasion of sin, and what level of affection can be enjoyed without crossing into the gray areas. It may even vary from day to day, minute to minute.
It takes continual discernment to know how to purely and chastely show physical affection to your spouse, particularly during times of mutually self-imposed abstinence.
 
Before this thread splits the argument into a hundred different directions let me restate the original issue. I hold, even still, that oral sex is sinful. How do I base this? 1) Oral sex is not part of the conjugal act because 2) the conjugal as defined by the Church is to always be unitive and procreative. 3) Oral sex is not procreative in and of itself and therefore becomes a separate action all together.

Where do I get this?

From: Humanae Vitae

12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break**, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance**** which are both inherent to the marriage act.**

13. …. they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws*, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life*. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it***, even if only partially*, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God**** and His holy will.** See the link for the full text
vatican.va/holy_father/p…e-vitae_en.html

Where I am finding my point in the documents themselves?
  • There is an inseparable connection which man may not break between the unitive and procreative significances.
  • That to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God.
  • Couples must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage.
  1. Code: 
      Oral sex does not make a connection between the unitive and procreative significances. Even if the couple finishes in the coming together of the unitive and procreative, the connection was not there prior to. So when people say that oral sex is a part of the conjugal act they are wrong because the two significances, unitive and procreative, are not there together; only the unitive. By finishing in the conjugal act the couple, who didn’t start that way, then unites the two significances and only then is there a potentiality to conceive.
  2. Code: 
      Oral sex then can compared to mutual masturbation, which I also hold as sinful, because while it is unitive it is most certainly not procreative.
  3. Code: 
      Many have argued that oral sex is part of the conjugal act. I disagree with this. The Church, even though not giving a full detailed description of the conjugal act, has maintained that it be unitive and procreative inseparably. My argument is that since oral sex and the conjugal act are different just based off of their nature, (oral sex only being unitive while the conjugal act has both unitive and procreative) that they do not have the same ‘end’. By this distinction therefore oral sex should not called a part of the conjugal act. It is in this way that it is sinful.
To Be Continued …
 
  1. I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. Kissing, touching and etc. are what I would call natural forms of foreplay because by their nature they are only unitive. Oral sex however is what I would consider unnatural because it uses faculties that are meant for unitive and procreative purposes i.e. in the conjugal act, in an act that is only unitive. By the fact that this act lacks that inseparable connection is unnatural and wrong. Hence it is not part of the conjugal act either.
 
Did you mean to post all of that on the other thread, jegow?

We’re trying to stay on topic. This thread is not about oral sex. The other one is. Thanks.
 
40.png
vluvski:
Did you mean to post all of that on the other thread, jegow?

We’re trying to stay on topic. This thread is not about oral sex. The other one is. Thanks.
Click to expand...
you’re right, I did intend to do that.
 
jegow said:
4) I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. Kissing, touching and etc. are what I would call natural forms of foreplay because by their nature they are only unitive. Oral sex however is what I would consider unnatural because it uses faculties that are meant for unitive and procreative purposes i.e. in the conjugal act, in an act that is only unitive. By the fact that this act lacks that inseparable connection is unnatural and wrong. Hence it is not part of the conjugal act either.
Click to expand...

:banghead: :banghead:

So long as the end act of the marital embrace is unitive and procreative that is what is important. That is what the “unitive and procreative” statement refers to. It is not referring to what happens before sexual intercourse. Twist it and turn it how you will, but you are using it to support what you are saying and not looking at the big picture.

Tell me this, why does the church say that it is okay for a huband to stimulate his wife to climax after the act of sexual intercourse. This is ACCEPTED by the Church as moral behavior. This is oral sex. This is done with the mouth or the hands. This is the same as this act occuring before sexual intercourse.

Simply because one views the act of oral sex as “dirty” or “disgusting” (IN THEIR OWN MINDS) does not mean that the act in and of itself is wrong. I think that feet are disgusting and would never put my mouth on my wife’s feet during foreplay. You on the other hand think that this is something that is a big turn on for you or your wife and you participate in this act as a means of foreplay before sexual intercourse. Should I tell you that this is wrong simply because I view it as “dirty?” Many, many, many more theological scholars have studied JPII’s TOtB and never once have I read one of them (or seen anyone post that one of them) saying that oral sex within the marital embrace is wrong.

The act performed solely for the pleasure of one or the other spouse outside of the marital embrace is wrong, within it, no.

Since kissing, caressing, massaging is only unitive, not procreative are they against the church’s teachings as well? The wife’s breasts are there for the nourishment of a young child, caressing them is unitive, not procreative, is that wrong?

Do you think that a husband and wife simply lay by each other in bed, kiss, rub each others face, back, and shoulders, maybe the knees (since those are not dirty parts of the body) and are aroused enough to have sexual intercourse. To me that is NOT nor will it ever be what sex is about. If so, no thank you. Sexual intercourse is the giving of yourself to your spouse freely and totally. Saying to your bride that this is the renewal of our wedding vows. I give you all that I have and all that I am without reservation, selflessly for you.
 
I’ve started to address the most recent posts on the other thread in an effort to avoid hijacking this one (again).
 
40.png
vluvski:
I’ve started to address the most recent posts on the other thread in an effort to avoid hijacking this one (again).
Click to expand...
I know I went to the other post, sorry for the confusion. Again thanks for your candid response and for your candor. You have done an amazing job in your defense of the stance that we are making. :clapping: :tiphat:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top