Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[setter]

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

Fair enough, your impression. Join my other thread regarding the same if you like.

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 directed toward you and others who minimize and cuddle what is intrinsically disordered and a matter of grave sin. The modern day pervasiveness amongst Catholics is a phenomemon that is a crisis of truth and faith. If you are not convinced, read the statistics and the inability to distinguish “catholics” from others in behaviors that would distinguish Christians from non-believers.

It is very appropriate to call evil evil, however, if you call everything thing evil, you lose your credibility.

Please present some evidence where I call everything evil – this only serves to diffuse the discussion at hand.

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.

“…engaging in behavior that causes them or their neighbor no VISIBLE harm” has never been and never will be the criteria on which is based the principles of Catholic morality.

The commission of grave sin = the commission of an evil act. Whether such an offense to God is mortal or not is for God, and God only, to determine.

I am left wondering why so many folks expend so much energy denying the existence of evil, sin choice, and sin consequences. The Church has never been “out of touch” with what is evil, nor is sin a cultural artifact.

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.

Your own words betray otherwise:

Originally Posted by Kendy
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?

Interesting that you applaud calling sin sin, but you make blatant rationalizations of exception to not call sin a wife intentionally bringing her husband to climax apart from the act of marital intercourse. Please explain this contradiction.

 

[setter]

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

Then how about the consequences of committing evil, especially wanton commission of sin?

 

[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?

Of course, it was a serious sin. I am not syaing things are only srious if you get caught. He made a vow to his wife and God, which he broke so he is a liar. And then let’s play the if game, he had been “caught,” he could have wounded his wife, destroyed his marriage and family, he could have gotten a disease, and all these real potential consequences are sufficient to show that the act is sinful.

More importantly, while a particular man may not have “suffered” direct consequences for hius sin. We don’t have to look very hard to find countless victims of adultery. The evidence for the sinfulness of infidelity are plentiful. On the other hand, I have have have never met a victim of oral sex within the context of marriage.

Kendy

 

[setter]

On the other hand, I have have have never met a victim of oral sex within the context of marriage.

Kendy

Perhaps because it was a mutually consensual offense of grave sin. You are beginning more and more to sound like one talking around the preverbial ‘elephant in the [bed]room here’.

 

[dulcissima]

Of course, it was a serious sin. I am not syaing things are only srious if you get caught. He made a vow to his wife and God, which he broke so he is a liar. And then let’s play the if game, he had been “caught,” he could have wounded his wife, destroyed his marriage and family, he could have gotten a disease, and all these real potential consequences are sufficient to show that the act is sinful.

More importantly, while a particular man may not have “suffered” direct consequences for hius sin. We don’t have to look very hard to find countless victims of adultery. The evidence for the sinfulness of infidelity are plentiful. On the other hand, I have have have never met a victim of oral sex within the context of marriage.

Kendy

I would disagree with you there.

 

[Kendy]

Interesting that you applaud calling sin sin, but you make blatant rationalizations of exception to not call sin a wife intentionally bringing her husband to climax apart from the act of marital intercourse. Please explain this contradiction.

Well, that’s very simply. I don’t believe that it is a sin. I think I was compromising earlier, which served to confuse, when I said, well, perhaps, “it’s not a good idea.” I actually thing it is a very loving way for a wife to show affection to her husband.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Perhaps because it was a mutually consensual offense of grave sin. You are beginning more and more to sound like one talking around the preverbial ‘elephant in the [bed]room here’.

Do you think mutually consensual offenses, like prostitution are victimless?

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I would disagree with you there.

On which point?

 

[setter]

Well, that’s very simply. I don’t believe that it is a sin. I think I was compromising earlier, which served to confuse, when I said, well, perhaps, “it’s not a good idea.” I actually thing it is a very loving way for a wife to show affection to her husband.

Kendy

I am sincerely wanting to understand the mindset of one who unabashedly takes a dissident position against clear Church teaching in matters of sexual morality: How does one feel about taking an openly dissident position against clear Church teaching in matters of sexual morality as a self-identified “Catholic” (per your CA profile)? How does a Catholic allow for and reconcile exerting the primacy of conscience in opposition to Church authority?

 

[setter]

Do you think mutually consensual offenses, like prostitution are victimless?

Kendy

Mutual, consensual offense in matters of grave offense have two victims always, when properly understood as “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6: 12).

 

[dulcissima]

On which point?

“On the other hand, I have have have never met a victim of oral sex within the context of marriage.”

 

[Kendy]

I am sincerely wanting to understand the mindset of one who unabashedly takes a dissident position against clear Church teaching in matters of sexual morality: How does one feel about taking an openly dissident position against clear Church teaching in matters of sexual morality as a self-identified “Catholic” (per your CA profile)? How does a Catholic allow for and reconcile exerting the primacy of conscience in opposition to Church authority?

Well, I can’t say I like it either. I would much rather be completely in agreement with the church, but I may have to settle for 99% in agreement. I told a former catholic that this was the only thing I didn’t agree with the church on and she was quite surprised since she could think of a plethora of reasons to disagree with the church.

If it makes you feel better, I prayed about it during my hour of adoration today so maybe the Lord will enlighten my heathen mind. But I can’t go around pretending to agree with things that I disagree with.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Mutual, consensual offense in matters of grave offense have two victims always, when properly understood as “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6: 12).

Another not so obviously related quotation of scripture. The passage from Ephesians shows that are real enemy is sin, and that we need to contend against that. It again does not nothing to show that engaging in oral sex cooperates with the spiritual hosts of wickedness.

We are matter and spirit and sins seem to affect matter and spirit. Prostitution often leads to severe psychological and substance abuse problems for those who engage in it. There’s a great documentary by 20/20 on the not so glamorous lifestyle of porn stars. Both of these are consensual activities.

Again, God is kind enough to bless us with pain. And often in my own life he has blessed me with the pain of sins. That’s where matter meets spirit. It’s God way of smacking across the head. I am not seeing that here.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

“On the other hand, I have have have never met a victim of oral sex within the context of marriage.”

If you have met any victims, please let me know of them. Believe it or not, I would be open to be proven wrong. Like I said before, I would prefer to be 100% in agreement with the church, but I am just not convinced on this one.

Kendy

 

[setter]

Well, I can’t say I like it either. I would much rather be completely in agreement with the church, but I may have to settle for 99% in agreement. I told a former catholic that this was the only thing I didn’t agree with the church on and she was quite surprised since she could think of a plethora of reasons to disagree with the church.

If it makes you feel better, I prayed about it during my hour of adoration today so maybe the Lord will enlighten my heathen mind. But I can’t go around pretending to agree with things that I disagree with.

Kendy

I appreciate the candor and I am reminded that the work of conversion is ultimately of the Holy Spirit and not our own; we are only to cooperate with and choose transformation and life in Christ.

BTW – One can harbor lack of belief, disagreement on substantial matters of faith and morals, and still retain holy assent.

Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:

When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight. (CCC 1993)

 

[Pug]

Sorry I took so long to get back to you. I haven’t been able to log on to CAF since this morning. I only finally managed it by switching browsers.

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.

I like this idea, but so often it doesn’t seem to hold. One seems to be able to do drugs for a bit before one catches on naturally to the danger. It seems like the realization can come too late. Same with masturbation. It seems harmless at the time. I suppose so does breaking the Sabbath commandment. Contraception never shouted to the heavens for me either. I was more sensitive to lying, gossip, and the like. Killing a person who is suffering greatly is a difficult evil to grasp as well. Lacking certain insight, it could seem better to kill them all around.

I think each person will have different areas of evil that are difficult to grasp.

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.

You do see the oral sex as not open to life somehow, yet you separate that from the couple, whom you see as open to life. Do you do this by seeing oral sex as not being “the marital act”, so it doesn’t matter that it isn’t open to life, like it were a separate category of thing, like conversation and not sex?

 

[Kendy]

You do see the oral sex as not open to life somehow, yet you separate that from the couple, whom you see as open to life. Do you do this by seeing oral sex as not being “the marital act”, so it doesn’t matter that it isn’t open to life, like it were a separate category of thing, like conversation and not sex?

I don’t see it as necessarily not open to life. Someone asked me on what grounds do I think this teaching is based on and I said, it must have to do with openness to life. I wasn’t implying that I agreed.

Now, obviously oral sex can be used with a contraceptive intent and then the couple is not open to life. However, I suspect that a good number of couples engage in oral sex not to avoid pregnancy, but simply because they enjoy the act as an end in itself. I know many women who happen to know from experience that this is simply a very nice thing to do for your man, like an extra bonus gift. He appreciates it and since you love him, you want to make him happy, and perhaps, you enjoy it yourself.

I am not married now, and am not even close so I am grateful that I don’t have to think about this. But I do remember my pre-catholic days romances and I would think I would feel kinda hindered if I ever got married and was not able to show my husband affection in this fashion. Really, that is is all it is about ----Being able to show physical affection to someone in an amazingly intimate fashion because you love him.

Kendy

Kendy

 

[dulcissima]

If you have met any victims, please let me know of them. Believe it or not, I would be open to be proven wrong. Like I said before, I would prefer to be 100% in agreement with the church, but I am just not convinced on this one.

Kendy

You are like me in that regard, so often I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

As you might have guessed, I would be that victim. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I will let you know that I have personally learned that to separate sex from the procreative aspect also eventually will lead it to be separated from the unitive aspect. It will give lust a foothold and if fed often enough, lust will replace love entirely. It is a terrible thing when an act goes from being lovingly given, to being demanded with coercion, to being forced with threats and violence.

This applies not only to oral sex, but to all sexual intimacy when the procreative potential has been removed. The beauty of the Catholic teaching on sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife is that it strengthens their communication. They discuss what their family planning needs are and they learn to understand and respect their bodies. They learn that this intimacy is a gift from God and that sometimes they need to sacrifice their own immediate pleasure out of respect for God and their relationship. An added bonus is that this time of sacrifice is a good time to build up the other aspects of their relationship, and so it doesn’t become one dimmesional.

This doesn’t happen though if you remove that potential for life from the equation. It becomes too focused on pleasure above all else. It frequently leads to the husband objectifying his wife, taking for granted that she is there anytime he wants this kind of gratification. He stops appreciating the gift of her love and is more focused on his needs than hers.

This is how something so seemingly good can end up so bad. While I might have had a more extreme experience, I know that I am not alone. I am sure if you posted a thread asking how many women had their husbands coerce them for oral sex, I wouldn’t be the only one answering.

 

[Kendy]

You are like me in that regard, so often I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong.

As you might have guessed, I would be that victim. I am not going to get into the particulars, but I will let you know that I have personally learned that to separate sex from the procreative aspect also eventually will lead it to be separated from the unitive aspect. It will give lust a foothold and if fed often enough, lust will replace love entirely. It is a terrible thing when an act goes from being lovingly given, to being demanded with coercion, to being forced with threats and violence.

This applies not only to oral sex, but to all sexual intimacy when the procreative potential has been removed. The beauty of the Catholic teaching on sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife is that it strengthens their communication. They discuss what their family planning needs are and they learn to understand and respect their bodies. They learn that this intimacy is a gift from God and that sometimes they need to sacrifice their own immediate pleasure out of respect for God and their relationship. An added bonus is that this time of sacrifice is a good time to build up the other aspects of their relationship, and so it doesn’t become one dimmesional.

This doesn’t happen though if you remove that potential for life from the equation. It becomes too focused on pleasure above all else. It frequently leads to the husband objectifying his wife, taking for granted that she is there anytime he wants this kind of gratification. He stops appreciating the gift of her love and is more focused on his needs than hers.

This is how something so seemingly good can end up so bad. While I might have had a more extreme experience, I know that I am not alone. I am sure if you posted a thread asking how many women had their husbands coerce them for oral sex, I wouldn’t be the only one answering.

I am very sorry that this happened to you, but I am certain that we can gather an equal number of women who have been forced to submit to vaginal sex. I think we can at least all agree that anything that freely given and not grateful received is not love.

Kendy

 

[dulcissima]

I am very sorry that this happened to you, but I am certain that we can gather an equal number of women who have been forced to submit to vaginal sex. I think we can at least all agree that anything that freely given and not grateful received is not love.

Kendy

Do you think that there would be a great many couples who faithfully follow the Church’s teachings on being open to life who have had this happen in their marriage? Do you think husbands who have learned the discipline required with NFP would treat their wives in this fashion?

I was not speaking exclusively of oral sex as being the problem. It is that when you use oral sex in such a way that it removes the life giving potential from the sexual intimacy between a husband and a wife, you are headed in the wrong direction, away from sacrificial love and into lust.

I have no problem with oral sex per se. Just take a look at the Obsession with Oral Sex thread. It is just when you totally take it away from an act that can give life that you run the risk of introducing lust and objectification into your marriage.

I know very well that other types of sex can be forced, but that wasn’t the point that I was making. It is that intentionally removing the life giving aspect of sex can damage a relationship. Following the teachings of the Church can help couples steer away from these problems.