Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[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 think anyone who would force his to do anything is jerk. NFP or not. As for what NFP would do, I am not in a position to say what the effect would be.

 

[gogogirl]

Here, our love is like golf. The Church values our love so greatly that she gives us rules that we might preserve the integrity of the game. She knows that objectifying our spouse will lead to a poor game, so she tells us not to do it. Treating another like an object of lust erodes the respect felt for the other, and is really no way to love. She knows that reducing our love making to a self-oriented pleasure-seeking that it will ultimately degrade the integrity of the act. In sex, we are given the gift of mirroring the inner life of the Trinity - we come together in a very real way, and in love we bring forth new life. This is the essence of the Trinity, new life brought forth in love, and God allows us to partake in that experience. We are not created for rules…the rules are created for us, that we might know God better. When we are *truly *loving, the rules will be extraneous. Until we are truly loving, we will continue to need the rules to guide us. This was the central message of JPII’s Theology of the Body.

I must be completely defective because I have never associated love with rules. Rules are things that you get punished for when you break them. I think of rulers and dictators. I associate guidance with love.

Honest answer time – do you really think that the Church is wrong for wanting to keep the sexual act, a mirroring of the inner life of the Trinity, as pure as possible? Do you think you know theology better, or that you’re going to bring something to the table that the Bishops/theologians simply didn’t think of? I ask with respect, so please don’t take this as an affront of any kind.

I am not arguing about keeping the act pure. I was arguing about what they consider to be pure. I have done quite a bit of searching about matters of sexuality and marriage and the things that I have found that condemn OS are not written by major theologians or bishops. Everyone keeps referring to Christopher West but I checked his credentials and he is not what I would consider a theologian. He is not a Bishop nor does he have a Doctorate of Theology. Kippley has a book out called “Sex and the Marriage Covenant” but again he is not a bishop and does not have a doctorate either. I consider a true theologian to be someone who has studied theology enough to have earned a doctorate degree rather than simply a master’s degree. Or someone who has earned a rather high place in the church such as Bishop.

I certainly do NOT know theology better that anybody else. If I did, I wouldn’t waste my time with these forums. Theologians have had how many years to study and understand things whereas I have only had a couple of years at most.

 

[gogogirl]

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.

FYI, my husband and I have used NFP since the day we got married. My husband has always placed me on a pedestal and has treated me with nothing but respect at all times. It seems like there is a very slippery slope with the whole life giving aspect of sex. I know that it is important for it to be both unitive and procreative but it seems that many of you are agast at the fact that someone could actually find OS to be unitive in any way shape or form. I find it to be very unitive and enjoyable.

I find the entire argument that it could lead to objectification or coercion is not entirely valid. In a disfunctional relationship, anything can lead to that. If you use that reasoning, you should never cook a guy his favorite meal because he could begin to demand it and use threats to make sure that he gets what he wants. I don’t think that argument holds much water. A guy that acts that way has problems that go way beyond anything that you could have done.

Also, there is no life giving potential during Phase 3 of NFP. Should I abstain during infertile times? Should I stop having sex with my husband because I am pregnant and know for a fact that there is no potential for a life giving force because a life is already there. Yes, you can continue to refer back to “semen can only be deposited in one place and one place only”. I find that to be very disruptive and uncreative but then again I am a product of a heathen family that was not blessed with growing up thinking inside the Catholic box.

All I have to say is that if I had followed the letter of the law, I probably wouldn’t be pregnant right now. My due date is April 21st btw. Also, I have heard that semen has a high protein content and my midwife recommends that I get lots of protein to help keep me healthy during pregnancy. Eating an egg with my husband is rather dull and boring because there is no intimacy involved.

 

[dulcissima]

FYI, my husband and I have used NFP since the day we got married. My husband has always placed me on a pedestal and has treated me with nothing but respect at all times. It seems like there is a very slippery slope with the whole life giving aspect of sex. I know that it is important for it to be both unitive and procreative but it seems that many of you are agast at the fact that someone could actually find OS to be unitive in any way shape or form. I find it to be very unitive and enjoyable.

I find the entire argument that it could lead to objectification or coercion is not entirely valid. In a disfunctional relationship, anything can lead to that. If you use that reasoning, you should never cook a guy his favorite meal because he could begin to demand it and use threats to make sure that he gets what he wants. I don’t think that argument holds much water. A guy that acts that way has problems that go way beyond anything that you could have done.

Also, there is no life giving potential during Phase 3 of NFP. Should I abstain during infertile times? Should I stop having sex with my husband because I am pregnant and know for a fact that there is no potential for a life giving force because a life is already there. Yes, you can continue to refer back to “semen can only be deposited in one place and one place only”. I find that to be very disruptive and uncreative but then again I am a product of a heathen family that was not blessed with growing up thinking inside the Catholic box.

All I have to say is that if I had followed the letter of the law, I probably wouldn’t be pregnant right now. My due date is April 21st btw. Also, I have heard that semen has a high protein content and my midwife recommends that I get lots of protein to help keep me healthy during pregnancy. Eating an egg with my husband is rather dull and boring because there is no intimacy involved.

Setter, my sincere apologies.

 

[RyanL]

I must be completely defective because I have never associated love with rules. Rules are things that you get punished for when you break them. I think of rulers and dictators. I associate guidance with love.

Rules are not all about dictators and tyranny. There are rules in math and science – does insisting that the earth is round somehow forbid thought or “oppress” you? Do you think it’s a “dictatorship” when rape is forbidden by rules? Of course not. Is it merely “guidance”? Nope. Is it oppressive? Not in the sense of true freedom (which is not to be confused with the modern concept of “liberty”).

I don’t think you understand, not because you’re defective, but because you’ve never really thought about it.

As I said on the other thread, there are rules to love as well. Love does not commit adultery. That’s not “guidance” – it’s a rule. Do not. If you break this rule, there are consequences, true, but more importantly you’re not truly loving your beloved.

I am not arguing about keeping the act pure.

Good. That’s the first step.

I was arguing about what they consider to be pure.

Would you have purity defined for you by God, or would you rather invent your own definition and let Him know about it?

I have done quite a bit of searching about matters of sexuality and marriage and the things that I have found that condemn OS are not written by major theologians or bishops…I consider a true theologian to be someone who has studied theology enough to have earned a doctorate degree rather than simply a master’s degree. Or someone who has earned a rather high place in the church such as Bishop.

If I show you one who has, would that be enough to settle your heart and mind?

I certainly do NOT know theology better that anybody else. If I did, I wouldn’t waste my time with these forums.

It would be an opportunity for you to share your knowledge…that’s hardly a waste.

Theologians have had how many years to study and understand things whereas I have only had a couple of years at most.

This true, and yet you are unwilling to trust. Might I ask why?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

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.

But, let us say nothing “bad” happened to him, that does not prove it was not seriously sinful. We cannot simply look to temporal effects as the proof a sin is serious.

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

Oral sex lead to objectification. It uses the other simply as a means to an end while discounting their true worth. The effects of all sin are not always readily apparent to us both in how they offend God and how the wound us. That we do not have eyes to see right away in now way means the damage is not present.

 

[setter]

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.

St. Paul in the scripture passage was pointing out that sin is related to the spiritual realities at hand and all out bloody war for souls raging about us.

When one sins, one gives themself over to the power of sin (becomes a slave to sin), and turns from righteousness. This weakens the soul and one’s resistence to sin again unless one repents. One does not have to know that they are sinning in order to become snared and enslaved to sin – this is a scarry spiritual reality. As one more and more egages in sinful behavior, habits of sin, a sinful lifestyle apart from god, their consciene, their ability to recognize and distinguish sin becomes dulled. This is why it becomes harder, and for some too late, to repent over time, as they choose spiritual death over spiritual life.

“Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.’” John 8: 34

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.” James 1: 13-16

“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” Hebrews 5: 11-14

“Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 6: 13,16,18-23

 

[setter]

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

The subjective criteria of “the pain of sins” is not always readily evident, especially in the immediate reward (pleasure) for choosing and acting in sin. That is why it is temptation (the appealing forbidden apple in the garden). The ploy of the devil is to get one focused on the immediate gratification, the easy way (not to pick up the cross), and the wispers of lies and rationalization, sense of entitlement, … But be assured, sin always exacts it cost, often in little, subtle, and then in a progession of a graduated, more enslaving manner. Jesus died on the Cross because the reality of sin consequence on the soul is a sober and crushing reality.

Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between “spirit” and “flesh” develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:

For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man’s nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally *good or bad *works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of *submission *(in the first case) or of *resistance *(in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2516)

“A murderer from the beginning, . . . a liar and the father of lies,” Satan is “the deceiver of the whole world.” Through him sin and death entered the world and by his definitive defeat all creation will be “freed from the corruption of sin and death.” Now “we know that anyone born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world is in the power of the evil one.” (CCC 2852)

 

[Kendy]

Oral sex lead to objectification. It uses the other simply as a means to an end while discounting their true worth. The effects of all sin are not always readily apparent to us both in how they offend God and how the wound us. That we do not have eyes to see right away in now way means the damage is not present.

I don’t think there’s any evidence to allow us to declare definitely that oral sex leads to objection. We may know relationships where oral sex have been so used, but I know many more relationships where wives were objectified through the labor that they performed in their families. Does that mean that wives should not cook, or clean because it might lead to their husbands seeing them as nothing more than that.

I, adamantly, disagree that everytime someone has oral sex, they are being used. And I think again, this is why I have such a hard time accepting these arguments; they are often extremely out of touch with people’s lived experience. You are completely disregarding the many women who look forward to pleasing their husbands this way as well as the many husbands who lovingly and gratefully accept this gift from their wives.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

BTW, how come it is not equally objectifying for a husband to perform oral sex on his wife?

Kendy

 

[fix]

I don’t think there’s any evidence to allow us to declare definitely that oral sex leads to objection. We may know relationships where oral sex have been so used, but I know many more relationships where wives were objectified through the labor that they performed in their families. Does that mean that wives should not cook, or clean because it might lead to their husbands seeing them as nothing more than that.

The sexual act is not morally equal to cooking. It is true one can abuse the goodness of another in ways other than sex, but the sexual act seems very open to objectification. To intentionally set aside the procreative aspect of the sexual act is to deny how important and good it really is.

I, adamantly, disagree that everytime someone has oral sex, they are being used. And I think again, this is why I have such a hard time accepting these arguments; they are often extremely out of touch with people’s lived experience. You are completely disregarding the many women who look forward to pleasing their husbands this way as well as the many husbands who lovingly and gratefully accept this gift from their wives.

Kendy

A good intention does not make an intrinsically wrong act licit. Moral acts depend on intention and means.

 

[fix]

BTW, how come it is not equally objectifying for a husband to perform oral sex on his wife?

Kendy

It can be if it becomes immoderate or outside the marital act.

 

[Kendy]

The sexual act is not morally equal to cooking. It is true one can abuse the goodness of another in ways other than sex, but the sexual act seems very open to objectification. To intentionally set aside the procreative aspect of the sexual act is to deny how important and good it really is.

A good intention does not make an intrinsically wrong act licit. Moral acts depend on intention and means.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Kendy

 

[setter]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Kendy

As in disagree with with what the Church clearly teaches in matters of morality – which is what fix has consistently and persistently presented in his posting.

 

[fix]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

Kendy

This is an old debate but all I can offer is that my position is that I bind myself to the truth. The Church teaches the truth and I accept that. I accept it because it is true.

That does not mean the truth is easily understood or accepted by all immediately. I think it means that through grace and prayer and hard study one comes to see that moral truth is not relative.

 

[Kendy]

As in disagree with with what the Church clearly teaches in matters of morality – which is what fix has consistently and persistently presented in his posting.

The more I argue about it, the less convinced I am. We might as well leave it alone.

 

[setter]

The more I argue about it, the less convinced I am. We might as well leave it alone.

Agree. There comes a time to submit to and allow time for the holy Spirit to work conversion and enlightenment of the mind. Again, the work of conversion of the mind is ultimately the work of the holy Spirit.

 

[Therese_Martin]

Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.