Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[HappyCatholic01]

Mirror Mirror:

Why is it that so many people project their disgust or negative view of oral sex upon the church. They seem to misunderstand what OS is and what part it can play in the marital act.

Oral sex within the marital act, used as foreplay, leading up to vaginal intercourse with the husband’s climax inside his wife is morally permissable by the Church. Plain and simple.

As long as OS ends in this way it is accepted. The husband can perform OS on his wife after intercourse if he so desires to orgasm. Again still accepted by the church.

If you feel that OS is gross, fine, don’t do it, but do not tell others that this is not morally accepted by the Church because you are saying something that is false. If you do not believe me, read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. If that is too much, too wordy, read The Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West www.christopherwest.com and you will read that this practice is acceptable by the Church.

Now when you talk about performing OS one day, without intercourse and then having intercourse the next day, that is not. Just having oral sex and not ending in the act of intercourse with the husband’s climax inside his wife is a sin. Sorry it is. You can try to create hypotheticals to make this fit, to ease your mind, but the end result is still the same.

.

I agree, and the Church has spoken. Why is this even debated on here? Just read what they tell us, and obey; it’s simple.

 

[gogogirl]

HappyCatholic01:

I agree, and the Church has spoken. Why is this even debated on here? Just read what they tell us, and obey; it’s simple.

God gave us free will and part of the free will requires that we use our intellect. I am new to Catholocism so some of these teachings are not self evident. If I had just read what the leaders of my religion had told me, I never would have converted because I would have simply read what they told me and obeyed. It is that simple. I would still be an anti-Catholic Protestant spreading anit-Catholic propaganda.

In a one year RCIA program, there is no way that the teachers can properly address the teachings of the church in this detail. I apologize to those of you that are able to blindly read and accept whatever you are told. I need more than that.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I wasn’t referring to you, for the record, I was referring to the blakent statetments that it forbidden by the Church, since it isn’t.

I enjoyed your posts, and agreed, for what it’s worth.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Mirror Mirror:

Sex within a marriage the Church says has to be procreative and unitive. There is nothing procreative about a man finishing outside of his wife’s vagina. Let’s make this into a brief example. Why can’t two men or two women have homosexual sex? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we use ABC? Because no life can come out of it. Why can’t we just have oral sex? Because no life can come out of it. Having oral sex to completion for the husband is not “open to life” unless there is some biology that I am not aware of.

I am not sure what you are searching for? If there is a gray area here, please direct me to that because it would make things a lot easier. I would love to be able to do “other things” with my wife during fertile times of the month, but it is against what the Church teaches about marriage, about chastity, about love, about sex. Again I will direct you to “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. This book was a HUGE slap in the face for me. The first time I read it I did not want to believe it. I wanted to continue on in my sinful ways. Now that I read it again, it makes so much sense.

Again oral sex is permitted within a marriage as foreplay leading up to intercourse. Even after intercourse for the husband to bring his wife to an orgasm. Maybe I am missing what you are asking about. I am not great at pulling out Bible verses or the Catchesim so forgive me for that.

The bolded stements highlight what I understand are some of the unanswered questions here: Ok, we can’t** just** have oral sex because no life can come out of it. So why can we not combine oral sex and vaginal sex? Life certainly can come out of that. Similarly, why isn’t oral sex on the male allowed as afterplay (if it is not allowed)? Again, looking at the entire event, life can come out of it.

Or, perhaps the life can/cannot come out of it test is not the standard?

 

[gogogirl]

CuriousInIL:

The bolded stements highlight what I understand are some of the unanswered questions here: Ok, we can’t** just** have oral sex because no life can come out of it. So why can we not combine oral sex and vaginal sex? Life certainly can come out of that. Similarly, why isn’t oral sex on the male allowed as afterplay (if it is not allowed)? Again, looking at the entire event, life can come out of it.

Or, perhaps the life can/cannot come out of it test is not the standard?

I completely agree with you in regards to looking at an entire event rather than looking at each individual orgasm. Based on my understanding, each and every male orgasm must occur within the vagina in order for it to be ordered toward procreation. This is the part that I disagree with. I am trying to understand why it is sinful if vaginal intercourse occurred shortly before or shortly after. The intent is not to prohibit procreation but unite on a different level and give pleasure to your spouse. How is this any different than having sex when you know for a fact that you are infertile?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

CuriousInIL:

Ok, we can’t** just** have oral sex because no life can come out of it. So why can we not combine oral sex and vaginal sex?

Who said that this was not accepted by the Church? If you read my previous posts you will see that oral sex is acceptable during the marital act as foreplay (or afterplay for the wife to orgasm). The male must ejaculate inside his wife’s vagina, no where else.

CuriousInIL:

Similarly, why isn’t oral sex on the male allowed as afterplay (if it is not allowed)? Again, looking at the entire event, life can come out of it.

If that is something that you want to do after your husband has climaxed in the morally accepted way, I would see why there would not be a problem. I do not see the reason for this, but hey.

CuriousInIL:

Or, perhaps the life can/cannot come out of it test is not the standard?

I tend to believe that this is the standard.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

gogogirl:

I completely agree with you in regards to looking at an entire event rather than looking at each individual orgasm. Based on my understanding, each and every male orgasm must occur within the vagina in order for it to be ordered toward procreation. This is the part that I disagree with. I am trying to understand why it is sinful if vaginal intercourse occurred shortly before or shortly after. The intent is not to prohibit procreation but unite on a different level and give pleasure to your spouse. How is this any different than having sex when you know for a fact that you are infertile?

I think that you are falling victim to what so many think about sex within a Catholic marriage - “Catholics only have sex to make babies” which is so far from the truth. Having sex when you are “infertile” still, STILL leaves open the possibility that you could get pregnant. With God all things are possible. Therefore the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse has not been removed from the equation. The unitive aspect is still there and this falls within the teachings of the Church that every act must be procreative and unitive. Sex during an infertile time is not a sin. Period. Sex is a beautiful gift from God that gets twisted and turned around every which way. The marital embrace is one spouse giving of themself to the other freely, fruitfully and faithfully.

The part that you disagree with I do not understand - “why it is sinful if vaginal intercourse occurred shortly before or shortly after” shortly before or after what?

I think that a lot of your questions can be answered in Christopher West’s book. Please obtain a copy and that will really help out since you are a recent convert.

 

[fix]

gogogirl:

I completely agree with you in regards to looking at an entire event rather than looking at each individual orgasm. Based on my understanding, each and every male orgasm must occur within the vagina in order for it to be ordered toward procreation. This is the part that I disagree with. I am trying to understand why it is sinful if vaginal intercourse occurred shortly before or shortly after. The intent is not to prohibit procreation but unite on a different level and give pleasure to your spouse. How is this any different than having sex when you know for a fact that you are infertile?

Because intercourse during infertile times does not frustrate the procreative aspect of the act. Contraception frustrates that part of the act. Orgasm outside the vagina frustrates that part of the act. The two aspects cannot be ever separated. Even if one is past the child bearing years it would be wrong, as one example, to use a condom.

 

[gogogirl]

fix:

Because intercourse during infertile times does not frustrate the procreative aspect of the act. Contraception frustrates that part of the act. Orgasm outside the vagina frustrates that part of the act. The two aspects cannot be ever separated. Even if one is past the child bearing years it would be wrong, as one example, to use a condom.

My contention is that deliberately timing sex so that you are infertile does frustrate the procreative aspect. If a person is that deliberate about relations, that is frustrating the procreative act. If one is past child bearing years, then there is no need to have sex because procreation is not possible.

Can someone please explain this then? Since Christianity is really a development of Judaism, then OS to completion should be allowed because Jewish law states that any sexual conduct that does not regularly involve ejaculation outside the vagina is permissible. As one passage in the Talmud states, “a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife”. In fact, there are passages in the Talmud that encourage foreplay to arouse the woman, and oral and anal sex are permitted (though not necessarily desirable), if they are not to the exclusion of vaginal sex. Weren’t Jesus and the apostles Jews until after Pentecost when they started to preach to Gentiles as well?

If you argue that we as Christians are no longer bound by the old laws in the Old Testament, then where in the New Testament does it spell out that sexual relations between a husband and wife can only end with a vaginal orgasm? Where does it state this in the Catechism?

I would really like to understand this. I have yet to find a source that sufficiently explains the historical or Biblical basis for this teaching.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

gogogirl:

My contention is that deliberately timing sex so that you are infertile does frustrate the procreative aspect. If a person is that deliberate about relations, that is frustrating the procreative act. If one is past child bearing years, then there is no need to have sex because procreation is not possible.

Can someone please explain this then? Since Christianity is really a development of Judaism, then OS to completion should be allowed because Jewish law states that any sexual conduct that does not regularly involve ejaculation outside the vagina is permissible. As one passage in the Talmud states, “a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife”. In fact, there are passages in the Talmud that encourage foreplay to arouse the woman, and oral and anal sex are permitted (though not necessarily desirable), if they are not to the exclusion of vaginal sex. Weren’t Jesus and the apostles Jews until after Pentecost when they started to preach to Gentiles as well?

If you argue that we as Christians are no longer bound by the old laws in the Old Testament, then where in the New Testament does it spell out that sexual relations between a husband and wife can only end with a vaginal orgasm? Where does it state this in the Catechism?

I would really like to understand this. I have yet to find a source that sufficiently explains the historical or Biblical basis for this teaching.

Gogogirl,

I am not sure what else to tell you at this point. Several times I have provided you with ways to obtain this information that you are searching for. Unfortunately I do not have the time to pull all the research together for you. If you want to seach the Catechism then by all means do so. But be sure that you are not afraid of what it is going to tell you. Christopher West’s book - why have you not picked up a copy of this? This book will answer most, if not all, of your questions that you have raised here.

If you have an open mind about this and are willing to accept what the Church teaches, it should not be tough to understand. However, if you are set in your ways (the things you and your husband do in the bedroom) it will be more difficult to change.

I see it so many times, people try all that they can to rationalize oral sex and the meaning of the sexual union within a marriage. It is often debated. And it comes down to, either you believe and follow what the Church has taught about this or you don’t. It is not a cafeteria, we cannot pick and choose how we want this to go.

During infertile times, having sex with your spouse IS NOT A SIN. That is the teachings of the Church. If you do not believe me, do a search. I have read this several times and although I cannot tell you specifically where, I know it is out there. If you really want the answers, the truth, you will open your heart and search.

Lastly, oral sex to completion for the male is A SIN. Our faith is not built or based upon Jewish traditions of “anything to please your wife sexually even if she wants to perform oral sex on you to orgasm.” We have provided you with resources, now the ball is in your court to use them or continue with what you are holding so strongly to.

 

[fix]

gogogirl:

My contention is that deliberately timing sex so that you are infertile does frustrate the procreative aspect. If a person is that deliberate about relations, that is frustrating the procreative act. If one is past child bearing years, then there is no need to have sex because procreation is not possible.

…That there is a real difference between contraceptive intercourse and
periodic abstinence is demonstrable. In contraceptive intercourse there is
a double-barrelled choice: one chooses (a) to have sexual intercourse, the
sort of action known to be “open to the transmission of life” and (b) to
make this action to be closed to the transmission of life, i.e., to set
aside or destroy its procreative character. Choice (b) is what makes the
intercourse contraceptive; it is the choice to do something which, as Pope
Paul VI put it, "either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its
accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences,
proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation
impossible."13 This is what the contraceptor chooses to do. This is what
the contraceptor’s “intention,” in the sense of the “present intention” to
do “this,” bears on, no matter what his or her “further intentions” may be.

Spouses who choose to exercise their responsibilities through the practice
of periodic continence choose to do quite different deeds; they execute
entirely different choices. They choose, first of all, “not” to have
conjugal relations when there is some probability that conception will
result. They obviously choose to do this not because they regard conjugal
relations as wrong. Quite to the contrary, they recognize that the marital
act is a great good, worthy of human love and respect, for this act is
meant to be the expression of the love they bear for each other. Nor do
they choose to refrain from this act because they consider conception as an
evil; rather it too is a great good, but it is a great good that one can
rightly respect and love only when the life conceived can be properly
educated and cared for. They thus choose to forego the good of marital
relations here and now because they recognize that it would be
irresponsible to cause a pregnancy at this time. They likewise choose to
forego marital relations here and now because they are unwilling to choose
to engage in the marital act, the act “open to the transmission of human
life,” and to make it closed to this good. They are unwilling, in other
words, to contracept, to act in an anti-procreative way. They refuse to
regard their fertility as a disease or curse that they must get rid of…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT

I suggest reading the entire piece.

 

[gogogirl]

fix:

I suggest reading the entire piece.

Thank you for the link but it still does not answer my question.

The following statement is what cofuses me:

Paul VI put it, "either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."13 This is what the contraceptor chooses to do. This is what the contraceptor’s “intention,” in the sense of the “present intention” to do “this,” bears on, no matter what his or her “further intentions” may be.

I think I am just going to have to move on from this discussion. I don’t think that my point is being understood. I give up. The church teaches what it teaches and I am going to hell because I do not fully understand it. I have yet to find a source that specifically state OS to completion in the context of a sacramental marriage is a mortal sin. I have seen numerous sources that clearly state masturbation is wrong. Most of what I have read requires that you infer and make all the necessary connections in order to achieve the final conclusion that OS to completion within a marriage that is trying to conceive is a mortal sin. Thank you for your information. I will continue to watch this thread and do my own research.

 

[fix]

gogogirl:

Thank you for the link but it still does not answer my question.

The following statement is what cofuses me:

I think I am just going to have to move on from this discussion. I don’t think that my point is being understood. I give up. The church teaches what it teaches and I am going to hell because I do not fully understand it. I have yet to find a source that specifically state OS to completion in the context of a sacramental marriage is a mortal sin. I have seen numerous sources that clearly state masturbation is wrong. Most of what I have read requires that you infer and make all the necessary connections in order to achieve the final conclusion that OS to completion within a marriage that is trying to conceive is a mortal sin. Thank you for your information. I will continue to watch this thread and do my own research.

You are not going to go to hell because you do not understand any teaching. I think it shows you have a tender conscience that you want to follow the Church and you want to grasp Her teaching as fully as possible.

Perhaps others can help you and explain it more clearly than I can.

Any act that does not end up with the man climaxing into the vagina, without contracepting in anyway, would be sinful. The list of illicit things would be very long. It would include oral sex, hand sex, withdrawal, etc. Why are these things sinful? Because the martital embrace is both unitive and procreative. Again, we cannot separate these two aspects of the act.

I am trying not to be graphic, but how is completing the act in the mouth being open to life?

 

[gogogirl]

fix:

I am trying not to be graphic, but how is completing the act in the mouth being open to life?

How is deliberately timing sex so that you know for a fact you will not conceive being open to life?

The reason that I am struggling with this is because I am trying to get pregnant. I have read several articles including the one that I mentioned when I started this thread that indicates ingesting the sperm of your spouse can help you get pregnant because it helps your body become more familiar with and more accepting of his sperm thus making it easier for you to conceive. I would normally think that this is a bunch of hogwash but I have not been able to achieve and maintain a pregnancy since I joined the church and completely quit this activity for fear of committing a mortal sin. Does this help you to understand my point of view a little better? I am not trying to argue that it is OK so that I can get approval to use OS instead having marital relations with my spouse.

We are arguing in circles and I just cannot seem to grasp why OS to completion in the situation that I am describing would be considered a mortal sin.

 

[Seatuck]

popepaulvi.com/

If you have been having difficulty concieving contact them to find out what your options are in order to achieve pregnancy in a morally acceptable fashion. Unless you already have a doctor practice by the moral guidelines of the church.

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6073

For some guidelines in dealing with infertility-

usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

 

[Seatuck]

Here’s a paper on oral sex in marriage-

nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm#_ftn15

 

[gogogirl]

Seatuck:

Here’s a paper on oral sex in marriage-

nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm#_ftn15

I have read that paper before. The problem that I have with it is that:

1. It is a paper written for a moral theology class. We do not know what the grade was or if the paper was deemed acceptable.
2. It is not a church document.

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[1]

Notice that the above statement says procreative AND unitive purposes. This leads me back the the whole argument that I have been making all along. All sex would have to be PROCREATIVE in addition to unitive. I have read several other documents but I am just not understanding why the two can be separated in some instances but not others.

The Catechism states that lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[1] …From this specific definition, coupled with the definition of lust, it follows that if a married couple engages in oral sex and this act results in orgasm, then the act is immoral by its very nature.

Can you define what inordinate sexual pleasure is? Inordinate is defined as exceeding reasonable limits. Who gets to determine what exceeds reasonable limits in terms of sexual pleasure within the confines of a sacramental marriage? To me, all conjugal acts with my spouse cause inordinate sexual pleasure. Does this mean that the conjugal act then becomes lustful and is now rendered a mortal sin? Doesn’t the male anatomy require some sort of excessive desire in order for certain things to function? I am not trying to be crude. I ma just trying to determine where you draw the line between lust and normal longing for ones spouse. The OS is not being sought for itself and it is definitely unitive. To argue that all sex within a marriage must me the procreative AND unitive functions, then that would limit sex to only those times when it is possible to conceive.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

I’ll give it my best shot…I too once struggled with this question about how avoiding sex during a woman’s fertile time is no different than OS outside of the marital embrace.

Basically, it boils down to all the parts being in the right place at the right time. The first time I heard this I thought, “surely the egg isn’t in it’s ‘right’ place if the woman isn’t fertile”. However, the egg is in the ‘right’ place whether it is still in the ovary or has already been released and sitting in the fallopian tube waiting for the sperm to fertilize it. As long as all the parts/players are in their respective spots (i.e. sperm in the vagina, egg in either the ovary or the fallopian tube). OS outside of intercourse keeps the sperm from being “where it is suppose to be”. Same as birth control pills can keep the egg from being where it is suppose to naturally be.

Depending on where the egg is will determine if conception occurs. A couple who decides to avoid sex during her fertile time are not doing anything wrong or sinful because “all parts are where they should be”…the man’s sperm are still in his penis and the woman’s egg is most likely sitting in her fallopian tube. Since no intercourse happens…the act of abstaining isn’t frustrating God. God allows us the freedom to choose when we want to have sex. We aren’t forced to have sex when we are fertile no more than we are forced to have sex when the wife is infertile. We are required to respect the way our bodies naturally function in regards to reproduction. Spilling sperm outside of intercourse does not respect the way our bodies are designed for reproduction to occur.

I hope I didn’t confuse you more. I struggled for almost two years with this teaching and I’m a cradle Catholic. Keep searching and asking questions. You will eventually understand and “see the light”.

 

[Ham1]

DVIN CKS:

I’ll give it my best shot…I too once struggled with this question about how avoiding sex during a woman’s fertile time is no different than OS outside of the marital embrace.

Basically, it boils down to all the parts being in the right place at the right time. The first time I heard this I thought, “surely the egg isn’t in it’s ‘right’ place if the woman isn’t fertile”. However, the egg is in the ‘right’ place whether it is still in the ovary or has already been released and sitting in the fallopian tube waiting for the sperm to fertilize it. As long as all the parts/players are in their respective spots (i.e. sperm in the vagina, egg in either the ovary or the fallopian tube). OS outside of intercourse keeps the sperm from being “where it is suppose to be”. Same as birth control pills can keep the egg from being where it is suppose to naturally be.

Depending on where the egg is will determine if conception occurs. A couple who decides to avoid sex during her fertile time are not doing anything wrong or sinful because “all parts are where they should be”…the man’s sperm are still in his penis and the woman’s egg is most likely sitting in her fallopian tube. Since no intercourse happens…the act of abstaining isn’t frustrating God. God allows us the freedom to choose when we want to have sex. We aren’t forced to have sex when we are fertile no more than we are forced to have sex when the wife is infertile. We are required to respect the way our bodies naturally function in regards to reproduction. Spilling sperm outside of intercourse does not respect the way our bodies are designed for reproduction to occur.

I hope I didn’t confuse you more. I struggled for almost two years with this teaching and I’m a cradle Catholic. Keep searching and asking questions. You will eventually understand and “see the light”.

Good post…

Procreative doesn’t mean “resulting in conception” it means “capable of producing.” In other words, putting the parts together as designed so that conception “might” occur. There is a difference between:

1. Putting the parts together when conception is unlikely to occur (pregnancy or infertility).

And

1. Stimulating the parts in a different way resulting in “deposits” that are mot according to the design.

In the first case, you have left the decision entirely in God’s hands (yes, God could create a miracle conception). Whereas in the second case, you have altered the act from it’s original design.

 

[gogogirl]

DVIN CKS:

Basically, it boils down to all the parts being in the right place at the right time. The first time I heard this I thought, “surely the egg isn’t in it’s ‘right’ place if the woman isn’t fertile”. However, the egg is in the ‘right’ place whether it is still in the ovary or has already been released and sitting in the fallopian tube waiting for the sperm to fertilize it. As long as all the parts/players are in their respective spots (i.e. sperm in the vagina, egg in either the ovary or the fallopian tube). OS outside of intercourse keeps the sperm from being “where it is suppose to be”. Same as birth control pills can keep the egg from being where it is suppose to naturally be.

Depending on where the egg is will determine if conception occurs. A couple who decides to avoid sex during her fertile time are not doing anything wrong or sinful because “all parts are where they should be”…the man’s sperm are still in his penis and the woman’s egg is most likely sitting in her fallopian tube. Since no intercourse happens…the act of abstaining isn’t frustrating God. God allows us the freedom to choose when we want to have sex. We aren’t forced to have sex when we are fertile no more than we are forced to have sex when the wife is infertile. We are required to respect the way our bodies naturally function in regards to reproduction. Spilling sperm outside of intercourse does not respect the way our bodies are designed for reproduction to occur.

I hope I didn’t confuse you more. I struggled for almost two years with this teaching and I’m a cradle Catholic. Keep searching and asking questions. You will eventually understand and “see the light”.

Thank you. This does make sense to me from a medical standpoint and does help me to make a little more sense of things morally. I still have some issues with trying to understand some of the apparent contradictions that I see in church teachings. This may be a big jump but it seems like the church contradicts itself when talking about using our bodies they way they are supposed to be used. For instance, if we are supposed to use our bodies the way God intended, then not breastfeeding our children would be a mortal sin. I hope I am not sounding ridiculous in this. I am just trying to understand and comprehend the church’s approach to some of its teachings.