Oral as foreplay against natural law?

[D0UBTFIRE]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557

Is this official?

 

[Khalid]

Not insofar as I can tell. From my understanding of Christian sexual ethics, pretty much all sex is acceptable as long as it is between two heterosexual married persons and “ends in the right way”, i.e. in a way that can possibly result in procreation.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Not insofar as I can tell. From my understanding of Christian sexual ethics, pretty much all sex is acceptable as long as it is between two heterosexual married persons and “ends in the right way”, i.e. in a way that can possibly result in procreation.

Agreed.This is just one priest’s opinion. And if you take him literally, you’d have to stop kissing, too.

I did recently find a prohibition against sodomy in the CCC I hadn’t known was there that I believe applies to heterosexual married couples. Other than that, as another priest once said to me, “There’s no reason a Sacramentally married couple shouldn’t have a whompin good time in bed!” And he was a Canon lawyer.

 

[bargio]

Note the difference between oral “sex” and oral “foreplay.” Two very different things!

 

[ahs]

Note the difference between oral “sex” and oral “foreplay.” Two very different things!

Yes, this. Oral “sex” (a completed act) is just as much a sin as masturbation (and not much different). OP, hopefully you have read those Catechism paragraphs I mentioned in the other thread…Conjugal Love involves a* totality*…mutual and reciprocal self-giving. The couples enter into the conjugal act fully, giving all of themselves to one another. So long as the ac tis completed in a manner which is ordered toward unification AND procreation, no one could rightly say that any foreplay is wrong (given mutual consent, etc…). Anyone that would suggest such foreplay is wrong would need to support their assertion by stating what sin is taking place and provide the pertinent Church teaching as support.

 

[fpt]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557

Is this official?

**NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO **

In catholic moral theology, in general, concerning what is “ out of the substance of the act ”, there are the circumstances and intentions (seven or eight types of circumstance and intention) that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral:

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed;
3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

This is only a help for the understanding the morality of preliminaries (the foreplay and the sexual foreplay) in the context of marital act.

The oral sex means a replacement and a substitution, it is morally wrong.
The oral foreplay does not mean a replacement and a substitution, It is morally permissible.

 

[shipwrkd]

Agreed.This is just one priest’s opinion. And if you take him literally, you’d have to stop kissing, too.

Agreed and this is the opinion of another priest who became Pope John Paul II. IMO, his opinion, given in his writing “Love and Respondsibility” trumps all other priests.

The man must take this difference between male and
female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for
altruistic reasons. (p. 272)
There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both
spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both
by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur
in both simultaneously. (p. 272)
Non-observance of these teachings of sexology in the marital
relationship is contrary to the good of the other partner to
the marriage and the durability and cohesion of the marriage
itself. (p. 273)
Precisely because a slower and more gradual rise in the curve
of sexual arousal is characteristic of the female organism
the need for tenderness during physical intercourse, and
also before it begins and after its conclusion, is explicable in
purely biological terms. (p. 275)

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Okay, thanks everyone. I was really worried about this one. I wasn’t even looking it up, I was looking up stuff about natural law and ran into this and was like “WHAT?!” Glad to hear it’s not a problem.

 

[Moore11]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557

Is this official?

It is official.
Officially the opinion of that Priest that works for EWTN…

 

[OxygenMan]

I thought oral sex or touching of any kind was forbidden? Was I wrong?

 

[Ghosty]

This priest makes no distinction between oral sex outside of the marital act, and oral sex as part of foreplay. In fact he says that both are wrong, and in this he is wrong. The Church does not condemn oral stimulation, before or after copulation, so long as it’s part of the over-all encounter of the marital act. Luminaries no less than John Paul II have recommended manual and oral stimulation, especially for the woman, in order to make the the marital act pleasing to both parties.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Metropolis]

Actually studies have been shown that approx. 70% of women cannot come to orgasm through vaginal penetration alone. Many condemn any sort of foreplay, but that would mean that most women would never have an orgasm. That doesn’t make any sense and the Church realizes this. Part of the marital embrace is caring about your spouses satisfaction. As long as it is in the right context of the completed act that is open to life it is a-ok.

 

[shipwrkd]

I thought oral sex or touching of any kind was forbidden? Was I wrong?

Yes, you were wrong (short answer)

 

[chevalier]

The problem is not about “foreplay” or not. On the physical side, the problem comes down to whether the oral stimulation is meant to continue until ejaculation into the oral orifice or not. Which makes it a wrong substitute for normal intercourse. And referring to it as foreplay in the sense that vaginal intercourse with ejaculation would follow after it, wouldn’t change things. So it’s not only about what comes later but also how far the oral stimulation goes.

As for health risks, there is nothing wrong in insisting that those should be taken into consideration appropriately or that achieving a certain desired variation of sexual pleasure is not an appropriate moral motive for taking serious risks to one’s health.

As for being against natural law when strictly foreplay (i.e. not until ejaculation), I have mixed feelings there. I don’t think that the “normal destination of organs” argument can be used conclusively here. On the other hand, it isn’t really unbased, either.

There can also be some porn-related or otherwise humiliating, objectifying overtones, depending on the motivation which leads people to engage in certain specific sexual behaviours. It would tend to be wrong to act on that that type of thing.

 

[CuriousInIL]

In the original EWTN post, there is a long “question” by an anonymous poster. Then, the priest responded “Thank you for your explanation of how the natural law applies to oral sex.”

I don’t see that at all as him agreeing that what is in the “question” is right. He simply thanks the poster for “YOUR EXPLANATION.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557

Is this official?

The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each and every sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. Oral sexual acts are not procreative, and are not truly unitive as the Church uses that term. And so all such acts are inherently immoral, even within marriage. The lack of climax in an oral sexual act does not make the act procreative or unitive, and so the act remains gravely immoral, even as foreplay. The good intention of foreplay (to prepare for the natural act) does not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to that good end.

The claim of many commentators, that no type of foreplay is immoral is in contradiction to Church teaching on the basic principles of ethics. An act is only moral if it has only good in the intention, only good in the moral object, and is not reasonably anticipated to do more harm than good. Unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, are intrinsically evil – they lack the unitive and procreative meanings in the moral object.

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

For more on this topic, see this article by Alice von Hildebrand:
catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

 

[Jade_Tiger]

I don’t think it’s necessarily morally wrong, but why would anyone WANT to? I mean, ugh…

 

[fpt]

The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each and every sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. Oral sexual acts are not procreative, and are not truly unitive as the Church uses that term. And so all such acts are inherently immoral, even within marriage. The lack of climax in an oral sexual act does not make the act procreative or unitive, and so the act remains gravely immoral, even as foreplay. The good intention of foreplay (to prepare for the natural act) does not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to that good end.

The claim of many commentators, that no type of foreplay is immoral is in contradiction to Church teaching on the basic principles of ethics. An act is only moral if it has only good in the intention, only good in the moral object, and is not reasonably anticipated to do more harm than good. Unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, are intrinsically evil – they lack the unitive and procreative meanings in the moral object.

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

For more on this topic, see this article by Alice von Hildebrand:
catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

Questions:

Could you try to define the marital act? Could you identify this constitutive elements of the marital act? How do you define the naturality of the materiality of the marital act? How do you define the naturality of the materiality of intimate contacts in the context of marital act? How do you indentify what is the substance of the act of the marital act for understanding the naturality, and thus the morality of the marital act?

Do you agree with the fact that it is a phenomenon? Could you identify the number of moments of this act?
or
Do you deny the notion of phenomenom for the marital act? If yes, how do you explain your position? Are you against the phenomenolgy? And why?

Could you explain what are the different acts that are morally permissible or not on the other to practice during those moments of marital act?

Could you define each one of notions that you are using? Do you want to try to do that in order to permit to the others to understand your manner to do

In catholic moral theology, in general, concerning what is “ out of the substance of the act ”, there are the circumstances and intentions (seven or eight types of circumstance and intention) that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral:

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed;
3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

How do you use that traditional method about this topic? Explain to me, please.

 

[ahs]

The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each and every sexual act must be both unitive and procreative.

Yes. What the Magesterium also teaches is that conjugal love involves a totality, in which all aspects of the couple enter. CCC 1643

[QOUTE]Oral sexual acts are not procreative, and are not truly unitive as the Church uses that term. And so all such acts are inherently immoral, even within marriage.

You fail to recognize the difference between a completed act of oral sex and an act that is part of the conjugal union.

The lack of climax in an oral sexual act does not make the act procreative or unitive, and so the act remains gravely immoral, even as foreplay.

Incorrect, and you will find no Doctrinal support for your assertion. Again, you fail to recognize the difference between a completed act of oral sex and an act that is part of the conjugal union.

The good intention of foreplay (to prepare for the natural act) does not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to that good end.

Correct, except that you have failed to show that foreplay is “an intrinsically evil means to that good end”. You assert that it is, yet can show no evidence to support your assertion. It is rejected as easily as you made it. Again, you fail to recognize the difference between a completed act of oral sex and an act that is part of the conjugal union.

The claim of many commentators, that no type of foreplay is immoral is in contradiction to Church teaching on the basic principles of ethics.

Please provide the Church teaching that being contradicted. (Since you cannot, your assertion is rejected.)

An act is only moral if it has only good in the intention, only good in the moral object, and is not reasonably anticipated to do more harm than good. **Unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, are intrinsically evil **-- they lack the unitive and procreative meanings in the moral object.

What this got to do with foreplay? How is foreplay unnatural?

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

Yes, each sex act…“sexual act” as defined by the Church, not by Ron Conte. Read CCC 1643-1654 and 2331-2400 to understand what the Church means by “sexual act”. Your personal view of what a sex act is, is not in conformity with the Church.

For more on this topic, see this article by Alice von Hildebrand:
catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

Yes, or you could go straight to the source (the Catechism references I provided). One could also read Christopher West or Pope John Paul II.

 

[fpt]

The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each and every sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. Oral sexual acts are not procreative, and are not truly unitive as the Church uses that term. And so all such acts are inherently immoral, even within marriage. The lack of climax in an oral sexual act does not make the act procreative or unitive, and so the act remains gravely immoral, even as foreplay. The good intention of foreplay (to prepare for the natural act) does not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to that good end.

The claim of many commentators, that no type of foreplay is immoral is in contradiction to Church teaching on the basic principles of ethics. An act is only moral if it has only good in the intention, only good in the moral object, and is not reasonably anticipated to do more harm than good. Unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, are intrinsically evil – they lack the unitive and procreative meanings in the moral object.

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

For more on this topic, see this article by Alice von Hildebrand:
catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999

Actually, in the context of marital act between wife and husband, your acception of the sin of masturbation is not link with the catholic defintion.

Indeed, by your theory, the manual stitumation done by the other on the exterior sexual organs of the spouse is the sin of masturbation: the manual masturbation. And the oral stimulation done by the other on the exterior sexual organs is also, the sin of masturbation: the oral masturbation. Are you serious???

You are wrong, your view is very simplistic, your intellectual approach of the defintion of the sin of masturbation is wierd. Your philosophy of the marital act seems to be irrealistic and nonobjective.

You see masturbation everywhere. Are you serious? What is the moral position of your local bishop? Do you discuss with him? What is his moral view on your moral work making focus on the marital act?

What are the moral positions of your confessors and /or of your spiritual directors?