Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[Neithan]

gogogirl:

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. 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.

Church teachings on sexuality really have been in rapid development over the past 40 years (since Vatican II). Before then, the basic teaching was
1.) ‘sex between husband and wife only’; and
2.) 'a man’s seed shall not be ‘“wasted.”’
This was pretty much all that was needed for proper moral conduct, but once artificial contraception hit the mainstream and severely complicated things, sexual ethics became an intensely important topic. The most important teachings since Vatican II, as far as I know (which might not be too far) are Pope Paul VI’s Encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope John Paul II’s *Theology of the Body *lectures, and of course the 1983 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Point being that sexuality is still a hot topic and there is still plenty of grey area, albeit a lot *less *grey area than before the 1960s.

It’s all based on Natural Law. What is the natural intent? (some graphic language here) Obviously, the natural intent of sperm is to impregnate a woman, and this is only possible if it ends up in the vagina. You ask why it is allowed to have sex during infertile periods, and not violate the procreative purpose? I think you might be looking at it from the wrong angle: NFP isn’t about having sex only during infertile periods, it’s about *abstaining *during *fertile *periods. Same thing, but a different perspective: it’s simply about refraining from natural sexual relations during a specific period of time. It’s basically regulated abstinence. The problem with ABC is that it deliberately retards a natural process, NFP does not. When one sees the word procreative in the context of sexual teaching, it is used in the sense of not contradicting a woman’s natural cycle of procreation. So when a couple has sex during infertile periods, it is ‘procreative’ because it is making use of the natural procreative cycle. It doesn’t mean ‘will produce a baby guaranteed.’
There is no restriction on when a couple may or may not have sex, whether they know they will probably get pregnant or know they will not. NFP can be used to aid both reproductive and contraceptive purposes, but the key is that it is entirely natural. Sin occurs only when Natural Law is broken. Sin is by definition a breach of Natural Law.

(excuse the graphic text) The problem with fellatio–when performed to completion–is exactly that Natural Law is being violated. Sperm obviously doesn’t belong anywhere except the vagina. That’s basically it (as Mirror Mirror has repeated in several posts). If we did not use this Natural Law basis, then there would be a number of difficulties for Catholic teaching to condemn a vast array of disordered practices between husband and wife (i.e. sexual practices outside of vaginal intercourse).
One might ask–why is fellatio allowed when *not *performed to completion, surely genitalia don’t belong in the mouth? Good question, but I would counter that, as evidenced by kissing, the lips/mouth are used as a natural expression of physical affection and can be applied to any body part for this purpose, within the context of the ‘marital embrace’ (i.e. climaxing with vaginal intercourse). ‘Foreplay’ (and even ‘afterplay’) is A-okay, as long as said play is the rising action or denouement, and not the main event.

(Continued)

 

[Neithan]

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,…]

Christianity and Talmudic Judaism have little to do with one another except sharing the same history: ancient hebraic Judaism (writings of the Old Testament). The Talmud was written some centuries after Christ and is an outgrowth of Pharisaism. Modern Judaism is quite different from that of Christ’s day! No writings from the Talmud or Kabbalah (another sect) should ever be compared as on par with the Old Testament!!

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?

Neither go into detail on this topic explicitly, nor do they have to, since these teachings are still developing. What’s important is that they have always been present *implicitly. *For example, the blanket prohibition of sexual immorality mentioned by St. Paul would include copulation outside the proper place (wife’s vagina) although he doesn’t elaborate in that regard (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6). This is based on the Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit guides the Magisterium over time, further clarifying the deposit of Faith and Morals left by Christ–known as sacred Tradition.

A woman can have multiple orgasms yet a man cannot?

There is no restriction on Oral sex for women because there is no “wasted seed” i.e. the procreative faculty of sex is not unnaturally broken. As for multiple orgasms if a man could do that without ejaculating (not sure if that is possible), then that would be licit, again as long as it is within the context of natural sexual intercourse (basically, vaginal climax is always the ultimate goal or end).

• if we are supposed to use our bodies the way God intended, then not breastfeeding our children would be a mortal sin.*

Not true. Simply refraining from an otherwise natural act is not sinful. It is the commission of an unnatural act which is sinful. If a woman were deliberately wasting breastmilk and thereby *depriving her child *of proper nutrition, *that *would be a sin. Would it be a mortal sin? I don’t know, as that depends on the gravity of the consequences (if the baby became seriously ill or died from lack of milk then yes, that would obviously be a grave sin).

In summary: It’s all about Natural Law.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Gogo…
To breastfeed or not isn’t part of the “creative process”. It doesn’t serve the greater good. It is good - don’t get me wrong - but it isn’t essential. Breastfeeding doesn’t create life. This is why it is “optional” and not considered a sin if a woman chooses not to breastfeed her baby.

 

[Ham1]

DVIN CKS:

Gogo…
To breastfeed or not isn’t part of the “creative process”. It doesn’t serve the greater good. It is good - don’t get me wrong - but it isn’t essential. Breastfeeding doesn’t create life. This is why it is “optional” and not considered a sin if a woman chooses not to breastfeed her baby.

Note: non sequitor

Interestingly, there is a doctoral thesis written by Fr. William Virtue that makes the case that the moral obligation to breastfeed is serious. He contends that, unless prohibitive circumstances exist, purposefully not nursing a child would be disordered.

Okay…back to the topic at hand…

 

[fix]

Ham1:

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.

Yes, the definition is critical to understanding the teaching.

…“God has wisely disposed natural laws and
rhythms of fecundity, which, of themselves, cause a separation in the
succession of births” (“Humanae vitae,” n. 11), he evidently does not
regard this “separation in the succession of births,” caused by the
“rhythms of fecundity,” to entail the dissolution of the inseparable
connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of conjugal
intercourse or the “openness” of conjugal acts to the transmission of life…

…A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of
procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of
life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or
cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or
age or disease. A conjugal act respectful of what Pope John Paul II calls
the “nuptial meaning” of the body and of the willing submissiveness of
sexed humanity to the gift of fertility11 is one that is “open” to the
transmission of life. There is a significant “moral” difference between a
conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease
and one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the free choice of the
spouses…
CHURCH TEACHING AND THE MORALITY OF CONTRACEPTION

 

[Ham1]

fix:

Yes, the definition is critical to understanding the teaching.

Just so we’re clear, I didn’t make up that definition for “procreative.” The The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines it this way:

“Procreative - adj., 1. Capable of reproducing; generative”

The Church really knows her words.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Ham1:

Note: non sequitor

Interestingly, there is a doctoral thesis written by Fr. William Virtue that makes the case that the moral obligation to breastfeed is serious. He contends that, unless prohibitive circumstances exist, purposefully not nursing a child would be disordered.

Okay…back to the topic at hand…

The Catechism doesn’t state that if a woman chooses not to breasfeed her baby that it is a disordered behavior. Fr. Virtue is entitled to his opinions, but he doesn’t speak on behalf of the Magisterium or the Church. I’d stick with the Catechism for guidance on this issue.

 

[Ham1]

DVIN CKS:

The Catechism doesn’t state that if a woman chooses not to breasfeed her baby that it is a disordered behavior. Fr. Virtue is entitled to his opinions, but he doesn’t speak on behalf of the Magisterium or the Church. I’d stick with the Catechism for guidance on this issue.

Well, just because the Catechism doesn’t say anything about a specific obligation doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. There are many facets of natural law and theology that are not specifically addressed in the catechism. Just because something is not specifically addressed does not mean that the behavior is entirely optional or morally indifferent.

 

[puzzleannie]

gogogirl:

I read an article that states that oral sex can actually help you achieve and maintain pregnancy.

a doctor who claims that oral sex is the best way to achieve pregnancy is probably in another specialty besides gynecology and obstetrics. maybe he is a doctor of philosophy because he is out of touch with reality. Any activity that both husband and wife agree to is licit within marriage as long as it is part of general activity that leads up to the marriage act.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

Ham1:

Well, just because the Catechism doesn’t say anything about a specific obligation doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. There are many facets of natural law and theology that are not specifically addressed in the catechism. Just because something is not specifically addressed does not mean that the behavior is entirely optional or morally indifferent.

You may be right…however I am going to leave it up to the teaching authority of the Church to decide whether choosing not to breastfeed is “disordered” behavior. Mothers do not need to be confused over the moral implications of breastfeeding or not.

I will not comment anymore since this is off topic of the OP’s question.

 

[JPIIFan]

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.

Would you please let me know where exactly John Paul II says that intentionally producing female orgasm before or after intercourse is morally acceptable? I think I remember him saying something like this in Love and Responsibility but I can’t remember exactly. I don’t take Christopher West as any kind of authority (no offense to his fans).

I’m kind of torn on this question and running out of time (I’m getting married in three months). It seems to me there are two considerations here with respect to natural law. Depending on how one approaches the problem, it seems there are two completely different solutions:

Possibility 1:

Female arousal has two phases, just like a man’s. He has erection and orgasm, while she has lubrication and orgasm. The first, in each case, is appropriate to foreplay, while the latter is appropriate to intercourse. Female orgasm’s purpose is to provide pleasure for women from intercourse. It is, after all, (usually) the result of direct genital stimulation, and would be more easily producible otherwise if it had some other purpose. Lubrication, whose purpose is clearly preperatory, is relatively easy to produce without such direct stimulation. If its purpose were preperatory, female orgasm would not be extremely difficult to produce without direct genital stimulation. Therefore, intentionally producing a female orgasm before or after intercourse is morally wrong.

Possibility 2:

Female orgasm’s purpose is to enhance a woman’s fertility. Therefore, an orgasm within a short time frame before or after intercourse can be considered part of the procreative act. Therefore, intentionally producing a female orgasm before or after intercourse is morally permissible and even laudatory.

Any thoughts on this? I’d really like to find JPII’s quotes on the subject, if anyone knows them.

 

[Lorarose]

“Interestingly, there is a doctoral thesis written by Fr. William Virtue that makes the case that the moral obligation to breastfeed is serious. He contends that, unless prohibitive circumstances exist, purposefully not nursing a child would be disordered.”

For cryin out loud!
Don’t mistake me for a raging feminist, but sometimes I think it would be awfully nice it female theologians were the ones weighing in on these topics!
Sheeeesh!

 

[Pug]

I think it would be awfully nice it female theologians were the ones weighing in on these topics!
Sheeeesh!

What someone said in a doctoral thesis is meaningless, apart from the arguments provided. That is almost as unhelpful as citing a college paper from a humanities class. (okay, I *grossly *exaggerate). I bet you can find at least ten humanities papers to support any idea imaginable.

If the author were female, it still wouldn’t weigh much with me. But I do know what you mean. (I think, anyway!)

 

[Lorarose]

If the author were female, it still wouldn’t weigh much with me. But I do know what you mean. (I think, anyway!)

It’s a weakness of mine I suppose.
I have a hard time with the theory vs. practical application of catholic teaching.
We have celibate men contemplating the everyday sex lives of married couples - but they aren’t the ones coping with the day to day struggles (hormones, stress of too many children,).

So I have a hard time accepting these assignments of “grave” matters to married sex - as if they are on par with abortion.

I know they mean well and are doing their best - but I compare it to C.S Lewis writing about pain and grief before his wife died of cancer (The Problem With Pain) vs. after his wife’s death (A Grief Observed).
There is something valuable that comes from walking the daily walk that the Church is missing when these rules about married life are handed down.

 

[Pug]

We have celibate men contemplating the everyday sex lives of married couples - but they aren’t the ones coping with the day to day struggles (hormones, stress of too many children,).

I didn’t know about his book, A Grief Observed. I’ve got to put it on my huge list of things to read someday.

I do know that experience teaches. I was told that marriage was difficult so many times, yet I didn’t get it at all until I was actually married.

But now I think I have learned a lot about being in intractible, difficult situations, and that I could apply that knowledge to have empathy for other people in situations that I’ve never been in. I wouldn’t know all the exact stressors (things like hormones) for their situation, but I would know how stressors operate and how circumstances can affect decisions. Maybe that is a bit arrogant of me, though.

A priest would have tons of experience helping people make moral choices in every sphere of life, so they would be great doctors for a wounded concience no matter what the situation that lead to it.

But maybe you mean coming up with the rules to begin with, and not the part about helping people to live within them. Is that the issue for you?

 

[KATA_LOUKAN]

It has always been my understanding that giving a woman oral sex is morally permissable as long as the man finishes inside of her. I have read several works by Christopher West (who might just be one of the most knowledgable people on the subject) and he maintains that it is ok. As for women performing it on me, that is objectively immoral.

 

[hasikelee]

I read an article that states that oral sex can actually help you achieve and maintain pregnancy. If you practiced it in this context, would it still be a mortal sin? Is there any room for interpretation to the rules regarding oral sex?

Here is an excerpt from the article:
GENTLE PERSUASION by Douglas Fox
New Scientist; 02/09/2002, Vol. 173 Issue 2329, p32, 3p

Gogogirl, that article is a load of bunk and science disproves it. Some basic studying of immunology, reproduction and the statistical inference is definitely a recommendation for that pretender. Notice how there is no real explanation for how this supposed method works.

As an aside, I must add that autoimmune or immuno-supressed females should definitely seek treatment for their issues as that could definitely make conception difficult. Remember, the vagina supresses the immune system to an extent that protect the sperm from being rejected/swallowed by lymphocytes as they are foreign objects.

Yet sperm that is swallowed will be instantly killed by the stomach acids.

What a joke. Bio 101!

 

[Lorarose]

But maybe you mean coming up with the rules to begin with, and not the part about helping people to live within them. Is that the issue for you?

I think I struggle with the fact that the ones issuing the “rules” - the ones contemplating the sex lives of married couples, are not the ones walking the walk. Granted - they are walking a different walk that we cannot comprehend, but then again - we’re not telling them how to do it either.

I can’t help but think of married couples in centuries past who were taught sex was only for procreation. They also didn’t have the benefit of understanding fertile/infertile periods.
Of course, many of them lived in an agricultural society where additional children meant more helping hands.

For me personally - I’ve become pregnant twice while practicinng NFP…I’ve given up on it. It simply doesn’t work for me.
At the same time - I also know that the baby I’m carrying now is going to have to be my last for physical/emotional/mental/and financial reasons. I’m at my whit’s end.

So what do I do? Risk NFP again? No way.
Tubal ligation? does that mean I won’t be able to participate in eucharist during the rest of my childbearing years? (at least 10 more years)

So…people do get stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It isn’t like we haven’t been open to life.
I have seen women have 10 kids before they finally gave into using contraception. I don’t view them the same way as a couple who refuses to have children because they might interfere with their careers or lifestyle.

I think there are alot of people, like me, who feel “stuck”
No matter what we do - we’re in trouble.

 

[setter]

I think I struggle with the fact that the ones issuing the “rules” - the ones contemplating the sex lives of married couples, are not the ones walking the walk. Granted - they are walking a different walk that we cannot comprehend, but then again - we’re not telling them how to do it either.

It is all the same walk of faithful Christian discipleship and growth in holines that all believers are called to, whether one is the Pope, married, or residing in a mental institution.

For me personally - I’ve become pregnant twice while practicinng NFP…I’ve given up on it. It simply doesn’t work for me.
At the same time - I also know that the baby I’m carrying now is going to have to be my last for physical/emotional/mental/and financial reasons. I’m at my whit’s end.

At your “whit’s end” over what? Giving up sex, or the effort required to improve upon your use of NFP? I hope that DH has something to say in this shared journey?

So what do I do? Risk NFP again? No way.
Tubal ligation? does that mean I won’t be able to participate in eucharist during the rest of my childbearing years? (at least 10 more years)

Better 10years marital continence that an eternity spent in hell–the cost of discipleship and taking up one’s cross presented to them.

So…people do get stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It isn’t like we haven’t been open to life.
I have seen women have 10 kids before they finally gave into using contraception. I don’t view them the same way as a couple who refuses to have children because they might interfere with their careers or lifestyle.

Unfortunate that these couple’s did not refine their use of NFP and willfully enjoin the cross of periodic abstinence in their marriage for the sake of holiness and faithfulness to Jesus Christ.

I think there are alot of people, like me, who feel “stuck”
No matter what we do - we’re in trouble.

Adolecent attitudes feel “stuck” with the rules that feel “imposed” on them from without, lacking reason, comprehension and the internal movement of grace to embrace.

 

[drforjc]

It has always been my understanding that giving a woman oral sex is morally permissable as long as the man finishes inside of her. I have read several works by Christopher West (who might just be one of the most knowledgable people on the subject) and he maintains that it is ok.

I have read this from a number of sources.

As for women performing it on me, that is objectively immoral

I have not read this- I have read that there is no difference between the two “as long as the man finishes insided the woman” as you noted earlier.