"No penetration, no mortal sin", says Sam (age 70)

  • Thread starter Thread starter spiritblows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spiritblows

Guest
I was talking with “Sam” (ficticious name), who is a really nice older (70s) gentleman from my parish. I ran into his wife at Safeway, and she said Sam was waiting in the car. He’s been getting chemo for lymphoma lately and hasn’t been to church for awhile. He’s normally a greeter, he’s just the nicest guy with a friendly twinkle in his eyes and normally the nicest head of hair you’d ever want to see on an older guy you’d ever want to see.(everyone says he’s not going to church because he lost his hair)

Well, we were talking about this and that for a long time, and I mentioned that I think I needed to find a husband. He said “Why’d you want to go and do that, you’ll just end up having to put up with him and take care of him when he gets sick. You’re doing pretty well on your own!” (Good point, btw, Sam). I laughingly said that it was the only way I could get to have sex again, because it was a mortal sin to have sex out of marriage.

He told me that that was only true for penetration! I said, no, I’m sure that’s not true, Sam. He said yes it is, that without penetration it was no different than kissing! (sounds like Bill Clinton) I laughingly refuted him then we went on to other subjects.

Now this guy goes to confession at least a couple of times a year and still receives communion on his knees. I was surprised at his lack of knowledge of sexual morality, unless I’m wrong about something. I told him that oral sex was a mortal sin, and he catagorically denied that. I always thought that was the case though.
 
If you’re sincerely interested in the “rules” and the validity of exceptions thereto, check with your priest. I’d take that as a more reliable source of info.
 
I agree, that’s really interesting that someone could be a regularly faithful Catholic and not understand at least that much of sexual ethic. You’re sure he wasn’t joking? Since apparently you’re comfortable talking about such things with him, I’d set him aside and discuss with him one day what exactly he does believe, and if he is open, make sure he understands all of sexual ethics (birth control, etc.) You don’t know how many other people may otherwise be inadvertently mislead by him.

Josh
 
40.png
threej_lc:
I agree, that’s really interesting that someone could be a regularly faithful Catholic and not understand at least that much of sexual ethic. You’re sure he wasn’t joking? Since apparently you’re comfortable talking about such things with him, I’d set him aside and discuss with him one day what exactly he does believe, and if he is open, make sure he understands all of sexual ethics (birth control, etc.) You don’t know how many other people may otherwise be inadvertently mislead by him.

Josh
Click to expand...
I agree, I was really surprised. He was saying that unmarried people were free to do everything but penetration. I did clarify that. He said it wasn’t any different morally than kissing. I was suprised, being from the old school, that he was that poorly catechised. He’s a big advocate of communion on the knees and is a wee bit critical that Father cut back on confession hours. I know I’ve seen him there at Lent and before Christmas, so he does go occasionally at least.

I don’t really want to bring up the subject again 'cause it was sort funny talking about that with him, but okay one time. It was kind of a casual conversation, sort of spontaneous.
 
Chaste kissing (with no intent to arouse) is about as exciting as it should get before marriage.

Read “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.
 
In my considerable experience with old geezers (having lived in two retirement parks for last 5 years) the old gents delight in saying such shockers, just to get a reaction. Just give a vague answer and write it off to hardening of the arteries to the brain.
 
Contrary to what some would have you think, ALL was not well before Vatican II!

The Baltimore Catechism didn’t mention it. So he doesn’t know it. Perhaps he’s one of the pray, pay and obey guys that prompted the calling of Vatican II in the first place!
 
The argument in the thread title is a classic example of legalism. And like most other attempts to fish for loopholes in the teachings of the Church, it is both flawed and dangerous.

In his Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis had his devil Screwtape point out to his Junior Tempter nephew Wormwood:

Gratitude looks to the Past and love to the Present; fear, avarice, lust, and ambition look ahead. Do not think lust an exception. When the present pleasure arrives, the sin (which alone interests us) is already over. The pleasure is just the part of the process which we regret and would exclude if we could do so without losing the sin; it is the part contributed by the Enemy, and therefore experienced in a Present. The sin, which is our contribution, looked forward. (Letter 15)

To commit the sin of lust, as this example illustrates, one need not be succesful in one’s ultimate intentions, and one cannot avoid it by stopping short of a certain physical act.

Blessings,

Gerry
 
40.png
manualman:
Contrary to what some would have you think, ALL was not well before Vatican II!

The Baltimore Catechism didn’t mention it. So he doesn’t know it. Perhaps he’s one of the pray, pay and obey guys that prompted the calling of Vatican II in the first place!
Click to expand...
No kidding!!! I have learned more about Catholicism since the internet came about than I ever learned in all my years of going to religion. And I had a die-hard Catholic Mother. Unfortunately, you just didn’t go up to people and ask sexual questions. They thought ignorance was bliss-- and they lived it. We have bible study in our home every lent, and was surprised to hear one of the ladies say, “My dad always said, don’t dig too deep when it comes to religion.” I wholeheartedly agree – All was not well before Vatican II. Just ask some of us who lived it.
 
Sounds more like advice he is getting from his Priest.
That was bad or he misunderstood.
That could be the a source of much confusion.
 
40.png
gus:
Sounds more like advice he is getting from his Priest.
That was bad or he misunderstood.
That could be the a source of much confusion.
Click to expand...
What priest would say that oral sex outside of marriage is hunky dory? I thought oral sex was a big no no even inside of marriage. Oral sex is a mortal sin, I thought. Masturbation is too. Oral sex is worse than masturbation is, don’t you think? Masturbation in or out of marriage is clearly a mortal sin. Oral sex is a worse perversion of natural, life giving intercourse, don’t you think?
 
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her (towards her) in his heart” Matt 5:27-28

I reckon that if looking lustfully is a mortal sin, then rubbing body parts and oral sex must be as well.

Fr Larry Richards says that if you wouldn’t do something in Church in front of the tabernacle – then don’t do it anywhere else. So I guess before marriage it is best to stop at chaste kisses.

Listen to Fr Larry’s talks at Franciscan Uni. Young Adults Conference this year – Called to Glory & Eucharist
commarts.libsyn.com/
 
Read up on John Paul II’s theology of the body and pretty much anything by christopher west. Oral sex that results in male orgasm outside the vagina is always a mortal sin. Outside marriage no sexual activity whatsoever is permissable i.e. no passionate kissing no nothing. Oral sex within marriage is ok if neccesary to get things moving but would be mortally sinful if ejaculation occurred outside the vagina on purpose.
 
40.png
manualman:
Contrary to what some would have you think, ALL was not well before Vatican II!

The Baltimore Catechism didn’t mention it. So he doesn’t know it. Perhaps he’s one of the pray, pay and obey guys that prompted the calling of Vatican II in the first place!
Click to expand...
It seems a terrible smear on the many holy men and women who came before us. Contrast your assertion with what we have today. With all the catechesis, internet, quick and easy access to information and the majority of folks who call themselves Catholics think contraception is licit, as one example.

My grandmother, with little formal education, knew more of her faith and how to live a moral life then many who claim education and enlightenment today.
 
40.png
spiritblows:
What priest would say that oral sex outside of marriage is hunky dory? I thought oral sex was a big no no even inside of marriage. Oral sex is a mortal sin, I thought. Masturbation is too. Oral sex is worse than masturbation is, don’t you think? Masturbation in or out of marriage is clearly a mortal sin. Oral sex is a worse perversion of natural, life giving intercourse, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Oral sex within marriage is not wrong in all circumstances. It can be used as foreplay, providing that the husband climaxes in the appropriate life-giving place. A wife may climax from oral sex if it is within the same time frame (directly before or after) as vaginal intercourse.

Yes, masturbation is a mortal sin if all conditions are present.
 
ummm within marriage oral sex is allowed as a part of foreplay as long as vaginal intercourse has occured. oral sex is just another form of giving.
40.png
spiritblows:
What priest would say that oral sex outside of marriage is hunky dory? I thought oral sex was a big no no even inside of marriage. Oral sex is a mortal sin, I thought. Masturbation is too. Oral sex is worse than masturbation is, don’t you think? Masturbation in or out of marriage is clearly a mortal sin. Oral sex is a worse perversion of natural, life giving intercourse, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
 
40.png
TarAshly:
ummm within marriage oral sex is allowed as a part of foreplay as long as vaginal intercourse has occured. oral sex is just another form of giving.
Click to expand...
Yes, I was under the impression that “anything goes” in marital relations, including things that would be immoral if you were…um…alone…and also oral stimulation, as long as everything in the end winds up where it’s supposed to be. I think I read that on here from someone, actually. :hmmm:
 
I am not sure what the Catechism says on oral sex - even in marriage, but here is what CA says…

​

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/post_old.gif October 19, 2005, 09:56 PM
Fr. Vincent Serpa http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_1036912”, true);
Catholic Answers Apologist
Join Date: May 4, 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,163

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Is giving my non-Catholic husband oral sex a sin??
Dear a,

Oral sex is allowed only as foreplay. It must end in normal intercourse. However, you may have relations with him while HE practices birth control. You cannot engage in any form of birth control yourself. And you are to try to educate him to the evil of contracepting. I suggest you get the book, “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. Our Customer Service sells it through shop.catholic.com or by phone: 888 291 8000.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
 
Well, how about that? That’s a new one on me. I thought it was forbidden. I never liked it anyways, but I thought it was forbidden.

(Appropriate life giving place? Very funny way of putting it :D)
 
40.png
spiritblows:
Well, how about that? That’s a new one on me. I thought it was forbidden. I never liked it anyways, but I thought it was forbidden.

(Appropriate life giving place? Very funny way of putting it :D)
Click to expand...
Well, there are thirteen year olds on this forum…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top