Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[Kendy]

Is this a deflection from your own minimization of calling sin sin and not enabling a fellow Catholic poster to continue to delude themself?

No.

 

[Kendy]

I always strive to seperate the person from the behavior in all my posts to fellow posters. If I have transgressed as such, I apologize. However, please do not mistake presentation of what the Church teaches with being uncharitable because the message finds offense by the one offending the moral law.

Delivery is an important component of the message. I have no problem with your position. I disagree, but I also think the issue is trivial so I am all that concerned that other people disagree with me on this point. What I have a problem with is your “Here the law, shut up a deal with it you treacherous sinner” attitude.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

This all but implies that people of good will are seeking to know, accept and live the truth. Dare I say, this seems to be sorely lacking amongst many fellow Catholics these days.

“And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” **Luke 11: 9-10 **

I can say without reservation that I seek to know. accept, and live the truth. If I may share my truth seeking credentials, I go to mass everyday, try to say a rosary everyday, pray the liturgy of the hours twice a day, attend adoration at least once a week, study scripture regularly, listen to catholic radio, watch catholic television, read books by the saints, and pray to the Lord every morning that I will know and seek to do His will.

Yet, believe it or not, I find your arguments unpersuasive. The more you shout, “This is evil,” the less convinced I am. Perhaps, if you could settle for more moderate words, I am be persuaded. I could be persuaded that this not a good idea, but evil? I think you are overeaching and that makes less convincing.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I think the cardinal addresses your point:

I think many cannot understand certain teachings, but we can still obey and try to grow in understanding. I guess what perplexes me most about these things is the notion that we as Catholics think we get to define what the Church is ourselves, rather than accepting the definition from Christ.

Cardinal Pell points this out well;

But if the church had a rule forbidding one to wear blue sweaters, and it declared the wearing of blue sweaters evil. Do you not think that it would raise eye brows. Do you think even faithful catholics would not wonder whether they were just being intrusive.

Or a better example might be this— A rule that says people should not eat ice cream because it has little nutitional content, is fattening, and the only real reason to eat ice cream is for the pleasure of it. Those seeking ordered consumption of dairy should stick to milk.

Now, of course, all of these reasons for not eating ice cream at are valid. There are no good reasons to eat ice cream except that it pleases. However, we would think the church silly to forbid all ice cream consumption at moderate levels simply because it is solely pleasurable. We would think the church sillier if she went about saying this is evil.

Likewise, there is no good to consume ice cream, there is no good reason to have oral sex, other than the fact that it is pleasure. But such little pleasure used in moderation make life a sweeter.

Kendy

 

[LittleDeb]

I have again been reading quietly to avoid getting flamed. I would like to step in again and try to bring some points up in the most charitable way possible.

Those of us here saying oral sex is evil are saying so for two reasons. Number 1. (and most importantly) The Church says it. And 2. We have examples that have shown this to be Truth.

It seems we are focusing here on “general marital acts.” Some proponents of oral sex have said, that one act of oral sex is no big deal, especially when followed up by intercourse. Proponents of oral stimulation without male climax say each act must be procreative and unitive.

So down to my nitty gritty point. Every single marital act is a renewal of our marital vows. It is said in a Sacramental marriage that the vows are not complete until they are consummated. Just as Jesus said as he died on the cross. “It is consummated.” It means completed or finished, or a deeper definition, “all encompassing, all consumed.”

Each and every act is a consummation. I recommend this fabulous free MP3 download by John Martignoni, entitled “Marriage and the Eucharist.” biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/marriage_and_the_eucharist.mp3

May God bless all of us on this journey toward a fuller understanding of God’s Truth made present in His Church.

 

[Kendy]

And 2. We have examples that have shown this to be Truth.

And what are they? This is very important.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I need to proofread; I skip so many word.

 

[fix]

But if the church had a rule forbidding one to wear blue sweaters, and it declared the wearing of blue sweaters evil. Do you not think that it would raise eye brows. Do you think even faithful catholics would not wonder whether they were just being intrusive.

The Church is not fabricating any such thing. She transmits the truth. In such issues as morals, how we are ought to act, She is the authority.

…Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience* in the Church and her Magisterium. *As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself ".111 It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom “from” the truth but always and only freedom “in” the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the *service of conscience, *helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. *Eph *4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.,
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

Or a better example might be this— A rule that says people should not eat ice cream because it has little nutitional content, is fattening, and the only real reason to eat ice cream is for the pleasure of it. Those seeking ordered consumption of dairy should stick to milk.

Now, of course, all of these reasons for not eating ice cream at are valid. There are no good reasons to eat ice cream except that it pleases. However, we would think the church silly to forbid all ice cream consumption at moderate levels simply because it is solely pleasurable. We would think the church sillier if she went about saying this is evil.

Likewise, there is no good to consume ice cream, there is no good reason to have oral sex, other than the fact that it is pleasure. But such little pleasure used in moderation make life a sweeter.

Kendy

I think we should keep in mind we are talking about the natural moral law, not contrived rules regarding morally neutral actions.

…In point of fact pleasure itself is neither right nor wrong. It
all depends on whether the antecedent action is right or wrong.
That an action is pleasurable is, if anything, an indication that
the action is sound and in accordance with human nature. Pleasure
is congenial to good action. It is true that our nature is ill
and our desires disorganized by original sin, and that
consequently we can enjoy things out of place. Yet pleasure is
not a luxury, but a necessity; the sign and stimulus of healthy
activity…

…Taking into account the
great power of the impulse and its profound effects on the
individual and on society and the dangers of its excess and
abuse, it is not surprising that the right exercise of sex is
limited to certain situations. As a matter of fact restricting
conditions surround every desire, for ruin would result if
immediate satisfaction were open and granted to every one of
them.

In the scheme of the universe established by the will of God,
marriage is the appropriate situation for the complete activity
of sex. The only proper complete sex act is the marriage act.
Consequently sex desires must be disciplined to the purpose of
proper sex love, which implies the devotion of husband and wife,
the blessing of family life, and the welfare of society…

MORALS AND MARRIAGE

 

[setter]

I think we should keep in mind we are talking about the natural moral law, not contrived rules regarding morally neutral actions.

…In point of fact pleasure itself is neither right nor wrong. It
all depends on whether the antecedent action is right or wrong.
That an action is pleasurable is, if anything, an indication that
the action is sound and in accordance with human nature. Pleasure
is congenial to good action. It is true that our nature is ill
and our desires disorganized by original sin, and that
consequently we can enjoy things out of place. Yet pleasure is
not a luxury, but a necessity; the sign and stimulus of healthy
activity…

I would add that too many folks fail to appreciate the condition and impact of original sin.

In marital sexual foreplay, any part of the body can become eroticized. However, we are living in the post-fall condition of original sin. While our first parents possesed the *preternatural gift *of absence of concupiscence, we unfortunately are left with the effects of original sin and are prone to concupiscence of the flesh (i.e., the inordinate love of sensual pleasure, to which fallen man is naturally prone). Hence, not all sexual desire and expression is sought for its divinely intended purpose, and objective standards and pursuit of holiness are needed to discern good and evil and to please the Lord in all things.

 

[setter]

Delivery is an important component of the message. I have no problem with your position. I disagree, but **I also think the issue is trivial **so I am all that concerned that other people disagree with me on this point.

I’m not exactly sure what ‘issue’ you are referring to, but, the thread topic is anything but a trivial issue as it pertains to grave violation of moral law.

What I have a problem with is your “Here the law, shut up a deal with it you treacherous sinner” attitude.

Kendy

Not all receive my posts as such. It is a variable of one’s personality and subjective frame of reference. I would offer that a variety of charitable approaches in presentation of what the Church teaches for a variety of personalities and perspectives is a good thing.

 

[setter]

I can say without reservation that I seek to know. accept, and live the truth. If I may share my truth seeking credentials, I go to mass everyday, try to say a rosary everyday, pray the liturgy of the hours twice a day, attend adoration at least once a week, study scripture regularly, listen to catholic radio, watch catholic television, read books by the saints, and pray to the Lord every morning that I will know and seek to do His will.

My words were not personally directed toward you.

BTW – I find your devotional prayerfulness inspiring to know that I am not the only fanatical Catholic out here.

Yet, believe it or not, I find your arguments unpersuasive. The more you shout, “This is evil,” the less convinced I am. Perhaps, if you could settle for more moderate words, I am be persuaded. I could be persuaded that this not a good idea, but evil? I think you are overeaching and that makes less convincing.

Kendy

The mere pointing out and accurate labelling of evil and grave violation of natural and moral law is now to be considered offensive shouting “This is evil” amongst fellow Catholics?

I submit, that this is a dire warning of the signs of the times when simply calling evil evil and sin sin is no longer tolerated as proper and pursuasive protocal and etiquette for preaching the gospel.

Please show me where in the gospels or New Testament writers where evil is cloached and sanitized as “not a good idea”. No where. This is the ploy and deception of the Enemy of our souls. Are the believers of our day in such sorry spiritual shape and neglect that allusion to evil in the most cursory manner and a voiced challenge that one is wandering on ‘the broad way that leads to destruction’ is deemed counter productive to winning souls over to Christ? I will take my example from Jesus and speak the truth in love, however “harsh” it may sound and “rudely” be received.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7: 13-14

“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” Luke 7: 31-35

"And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” **Luke 13: 2-5 **

 

[Kendy]

The Church is not fabricating any such thing. She transmits the truth. In such issues as morals, how we are ought to act, She is the authority.

I think we should keep in mind we are talking about the natural moral law, not contrived rules regarding morally neutral actions.

Neither of this frankly seems all that obvious to me, particularly the latter. Again, on the question of evil, should this serious evil have serious evil consequences?

Kendy

 

[fix]

Neither of this frankly seems all that obvious to me, particularly the latter. Again, on the question of evil, should this serious evil have serious evil consequences?

Kendy

The best way to answer that is to quote the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

As for evil consequences I would say chief among them would be that we are offending God. On a moral physically tangible level we see that part of the punishment for sin is the illicit thrill we get when we commit illicit acts. The more we do it the more we want to do it, thus pulling us farther and farther from God.

 

[Kendy]

The mere pointing out and accurate labelling of evil and grave violation of natural and moral law is now to be considered offensive shouting “This is evil” amongst fellow Catholics?

First of all, whether you admit it or not, you don’t come across as merely pointing out.

I submit, that this is a dire warning of the signs of the times when simply calling evil evil and sin sin is no longer tolerated as proper and pursuasive protocal and etiquette for preaching the gospel.

Is this point directed to anybody or just to yourself? If someone is not convinced that something is indeed evil, it seems to me that pointing out that this is a crisis, does very little to make your point. It is very appropriate to call evil evil, however, if you call everything thing evil, you lose your credibility.

Abortion is evil, the greed and materialism that pervades our society is evil, adultery is evil, the constant objectification of women’s body for financial gain is evil. All these have very concrete EVIL consequences. Abortion takes life and causes women to fall into depression, materialism starves the poor among other evils, adultery destroys families, objectification of women leads to anorexia and lust that leads to destruction of families.

It is very important that the Church maintains the ability to condemn these things. Unfortunately, so much time and energy is spent trying to make sure that wives don’t pleasure the husbands at the expense of real evil. So, many people look at the church as out of touch, with it plethora of unnecessary rules. And everytime, energy is spent trying to stop people from engaging in beavior that causes them or their neighbor no VISIBLE harm, the church loses it’s credibility.

Please show me where in the gospels or New Testament writers where evil is cloached and sanitized as “not a good idea”. No where. This is the ploy and deception of the Enemy of our souls. Are the believers of our day in such sorry spiritual shape and neglect that allusion to evil in the most cursory manner and a voiced challenge that one is wandering on ‘the broad way that leads to destruction’ is deemed counter productive to winning souls over to Christ? I will take my example from Jesus and speak the truth in love, however “harsh” it may sound and “rudely” be received.

I am not trying to sanitize anything. While I want to be sensitive and compassionate, I do not intend to be politically correct. I am not afraid of calling evil, evil. Like I said before, because it is important to call evil evil, it is necessary to avoid calling things that are not evil evil. It diminishes the value of evil. If everything little thing is evil, then nothing is evil.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7: 13-14

“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” Luke 7: 31-35

"And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” **Luke 13: 2-5 **

 

[Kendy]

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” Matthew 7: 13-14

“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.' For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, He has a demon.’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, `Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” Luke 7: 31-35

"And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo’am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” **Luke 13: 2-5 **

I don’t see how any of these passages make the point that oral sex is evil.

 

[Pug]

But if the church had a rule forbidding one to wear blue sweaters, and it declared the wearing of blue sweaters evil. Do you not think that it would raise eye brows.

What underpinnings do you see for the rules we are talking about? I realize your answer may be “none”, but maybe not.

Do you require the consequences of the (evil) action to be immediately visible and intelligible to the actor at that time?

About the ice cream thing. There is some good that comes of oral stimulation. That would be the very ordered act of demonstrating affection toward your spouse and expressing trust and love between the two. The level of closeness required is astonishing, in a way. It need not be a meaningless action. However, the fact that the pleasure is there matters towards giving the action the loving meaning.

 

[Kendy]

The best way to answer that is to quote the CCC:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature

Actually, I am a little tired of all the quotation in this thread, most of which prove nothing. Pretend I am stupid. What does this prove?

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

As for evil consequences I would say chief among them would be that we are offending God. On a moral physically tangible level we see that part of the punishment for sin is the illicit thrill we get when we commit illicit acts. The more we do it the more we want to do it, thus pulling us farther and farther from God.

I agree that natural law may not be obvious to everyone. However, it is a poor argument to say that you are clearly not seeing thre obvious evil because you lack grace.

It reminds me of the time that my friends were convinced that some lady was a prophet and I need to accept penances for her. After talking to her, I said, I saw no evidence that is has special spiritual gifts. Well, this was evidence that I was not hearing from God. Well, you cannot prove or disprove my spiritual discernment. This is not an argument.

As for your other statement— that it is illicit and offends God. Neither of these are proofs. First, the debate is “does this offend God?” Thus, the statement that it offends God period begs the question. Second, you have already determined that is sinful and then used that assumption to say that getting pleasure from sin only shows that it is sin. This again assumes what it attempts to prove. Third, you have to do better than. I can’t think of a single other sin that have no visible consequences other causing on to receive thrill.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

What underpinnings do you see for the rules we are talking about? I realize your answer may be “none”, but maybe not.

Well, I suppose the answer would be that it is not open to life. However, as the OP said, this was not being used as a contraceptive. Thus, while that act may not lead to reproduction, the couple is clearly open to life.

Do you require the consequences of the (evil) action to be immediately visible and intelligible to the actor at that time?

I think God in his mercy lets us burn our hands when we touch the stove---- that’s how we know not to touch the stove.

About the ice cream thing. There is some good that comes of oral stimulation. That would be the very ordered act of demonstrating affection toward your spouse and expressing trust and love between the two. The level of closeness required is astonishing, in a way. It need not be a meaningless action. However, the fact that the pleasure is there matters towards giving the action the loving meaning.

Agreed.

 

[corvidae]

gogogirl-

I cannot say if oral sex is wrong, I know it is if used as a form of contraception. But I can say if your sex with your husband was not unitive or procreative and just seemed like following a rulebook then it wasn’t what it was meant to be.

Unitive and Procreative are the key, if sex is not open to either one, it is happening wrong.

It seems like you have a better understanding of what sex is meant to be now under your “sinful” ways than you did then.

A lone Raven

 

[fix]

Actually, I am a little tired of all the quotation in this thread, most of which prove nothing. Pretend I am stupid. What does this prove?

It proves, via right reason, that we each are born with the knowledge of good and evil.

I agree that natural law may not be obvious to everyone. However, it is a poor argument to say that you are clearly not seeing thre obvious evil because you lack grace.

You do not think that persistent, unrepentent sin, can blind folks to what is best for them? There are other variables that can blind, or partially blind, folks but this culture certainly has many trumpets that drown out the truth.

It reminds me of the time that my friends were convinced that some lady was a prophet and I need to accept penances for her. After talking to her, I said, I saw no evidence that is has special spiritual gifts. Well, this was evidence that I was not hearing from God. Well, you cannot prove or disprove my spiritual discernment. This is not an argument.

Catholics start from the position they have a living authority to ask questions of and to use as reference. If you question why Catholics accept that living authority, the pope, that can be a new thread.

As for your other statement— that it is illicit and offends God. Neither of these are proofs. First, the debate is “does this offend God?” Thus, the statement that it offends God period begs the question. Second, you have already determined that is sinful and then used that assumption to say that getting pleasure from sin only shows that it is sin. This again assumes what it attempts to prove. Third, you have to do better than. I can’t think of a single other sin that have no visible consequences other causing on to receive thrill.

Kendy

There are all types of sin, mortal and venial, that do not have immediate visibly seen dire consequences. Take a married man who has sex with a woman other than his wife. He gets no STD, no one gets pregnant and he never sees her again. He had “fun” and no one ever knows. Was that a serious sin?