Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[dch1983]

It seems that part of the discrepancy is in the understanding of exactly what OS is. Some are arguing against OS because OS implies that the man climaxes; others using the same term to describe an act that is performed, although not to completion. Perhaps this part of this discussion is just a terminology issue.

I too had similar questions to those earlier in this thread and it seems the answer is this:
OS performed to the man’s completion = morally wrong.
OS NOT performed to the man’s completion, but as a stimulating act of foreplay leading to intercourse = not morally wrong.

Does this sound right?

 

[dulcissima]

It seems that part of the discrepancy is in the understanding of exactly what OS is. Some are arguing against OS because OS implies that the man climaxes; others using the same term to describe an act that is performed, although not to completion. Perhaps this part of this discussion is just a terminology issue.

I too had similar questions to those earlier in this thread and it seems the answer is this:
OS performed to the man’s completion = morally wrong.
OS NOT performed to the man’s completion, but as a stimulating act of foreplay leading to intercourse = not morally wrong.

Does this sound right?

Yep.

 

[setter]

It seems that part of the discrepancy is in the understanding of exactly what OS is. Some are arguing against OS because OS implies that the man climaxes; others using the same term to describe an act that is performed, although not to completion. Perhaps this part of this discussion is just a terminology issue.

I too had similar questions to those earlier in this thread and it seems the answer is this:
OS performed to the man’s completion = morally wrong.
OS NOT performed to the man’s completion, but as a stimulating act of foreplay leading to intercourse = not morally wrong.

Does this sound right?

Corect. Perhaps better stated: *oral stimulation *(morally licit) versus *oral sex *(morally illicit). Though, oral sex is a misnomer regardless.

 

[Lorarose]

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.

It has been a long and painful road…and no - I wouldn’t describe my arrival at this place being due to having an “adolescent” attitude.
How is the view from way up there?

 

[Saint_Sinner]

Those of us who are converts from a Protestant background (like myself) had to dig through this teaching because it is so deeply accepted these days in mainline Prot. denominations. Once I truely understood the Catholic position I was able to embrace this teaching but…no…this isn’t something I accepted easily at first.

 

[setter]

It has been a long and painful road…and no - I wouldn’t describe my arrival at this place being due to having an “adolescent” attitude.
How is the view from way up there?

The tone of your wording betrayed a childish (versus adult) mentality. Instead of a focus on gratitude for the blessings of God and what a couple do to please God (mature God-focus) , the focus of your wording was on feeling deprived and restricted by God’s love as revealed through Catholic moral theology (immature self-focus). Always room to “grow up” more in Christ as the written Word of God admonishes and encourages us today.

“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: 12-14

Him we proclaim, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man mature in Christ.” **Colossians 1: 28 **

“…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,” Ephesians 4: 13-15

 

[Lorarose]

First of all…I was responding to questions from another poster.

The tone of your wording betrayed a childish (versus adult) mentality

With all due respect…the tone of your wording betrays a pompous jerk who enjoys feeling superior to others.

You have no clue what my situation is and yet feel justified in rash judgement.
Bully for you…just don’t be surprised when I don’t care one whit for any helpful “advise” you have to offer.

 

[Pug]

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

You ARE in one of those tough spots…you are married, so clearly the route of complete abstinence is difficult, yet you and your spouse have perhaps determined that even NFP does not meet your circumstances, since you cannot have more children right now. You are surely correct that sterilization is not the right plan. (being too old, btw, does not guarantee that you’d actually repent of it. sins affect our hearts and it might be hard to repent after doing it)

I wonder…, you are thinking about the future, and not the actual now, even though it is barreling down upon you. Being pregnant means the issue is for the future in some sense. I’ll pray for you about this. I know I sound insanely optimistic, but maybe the view will be different somehow after your baby arrives. Anything can happen. Look at Steve Irwin. I somehow found that death rocking and unexpected. Not to compare birth to death , but just how things can change. Jobs change, emotions change, our bodies change, it could be anything.

I would like to personally assure you (via experience) that total abstinence can be done. It, uh, isn’t fun though. However, it produces a huge change of perspective, and that isn’t bad.

I agree, the stuck feeling is truly there. Many people would see it as impossible to suspend relations with their spouse lest they end up divorced, for example. It all depends. I’ve felt stuck before, but not on the identical set of horns. Have you tried talking this out with a priest?

I’ve wondered about married couples from the past as well, just what went through their heads and all. Do you feel that the Holy Spirit is behind the rules at all? He does know our hearts and struggles for sure.

I don’t know why I asked so many questions, just, I guess I understand about being stuck and I wish I could help. But I know, only the HS can help, really.

 

[setter]

First of all…I was responding to questions from another poster.

With all due respect…the tone of your wording betrays a pompous jerk who enjoys feeling superior to others.

You have no clue what my situation is and yet feel justified in rash judgement.
Bully for you…just don’t be surprised when I don’t care one whit for any helpful “advise” you have to offer.

Your mud slinging and accusatory tone are but evidence of what I was pointing out to you in all charity. I offered no advise, I only offered critical feedback. The only “advise” that I will offer is that in the future you simply ignore a fellow poster if you cannot refrain from an uncharitable response.

 

[Lorarose]

Your mud slinging and accusatory tone are but evidence of what I was pointing out to you in all charity. I offered no advise, I only offered critical feedback. The only “advise” that I will offer is that in the future you simply ignore a fellow poster if you cannot refrain from an uncharitable response.

Oh please…the “mudslinging” began with your condescending tone, judgement of me with no knowledge of me whatsoever, and referring to me as an adolescent.

May I suggest that if you cannot approach someone without insulting them, then maybe you shouldn’t approach them at all?

You know nothing about me.

 

[Lorarose]

. I’ll pray for you about this. I know I sound insanely optimistic, but maybe the view will be different somehow after your baby arrives. Anything can happen. Look at Steve Irwin.

Thank you for the prayers. I suppose it is possible things can change, but right now it doesn’t seem that way.
My son is so upset about poor Steve!

. Many people would see it as impossible to suspend relations with their spouse lest they end up divorced

And this is a legitimate concern isn’t it? Many people do wind up divorced because of lack of intimacy - and a sexless marriage would certainly be disasterous for most (not all) marriages.

I’ve wondered about married couples from the past as well, just what went through their heads and all. Do you feel that the Holy Spirit is behind the rules at all? He does know our hearts and struggles for sure.

Good question. And when you get back to the issue of marriages in the past that had to deal with the “sex is only for procreation” mentality the Church once had…well, it seems the Church was wrong about that - yes?
And if couples back then were having sex when procreation wasn’t possible - were they sinning because the Church said they were?
So I guess my answer is “I don’t know”. Like I said in another post - there is a difference between theory and reality.
I think there is a large gap there.

I don’t know why I asked so many questions, just, I guess I understand about being stuck and I wish I could help. But I know, only the HS can help, really.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.
I do take comfort in the knowledge the HS understands me better than I understand myself.

 

[Pug]

And this is a legitimate concern isn’t it? Many people do wind up divorced because of lack of intimacy - and a sexless marriage would certainly be disasterous for most (not all) marriages.

Yes, it is. How the suspension of marital relations will affect the marriage does matter. It can’t be ignored when thinking about abstinence (or maybe about a constellation of issues).

Good question. And when you get back to the issue of marriages in the past that had to deal with the “sex is only for procreation” mentality the Church once had…well, it seems the Church was wrong about that - yes?

My historical knowledge is not good enough to discuss fully about the “sex is only for procreation” concept. Since the elderly were allowed to marry and thus to have sex, as far as I know, that doesn’t seem to fit. I tend to think of marriage itself first, and think of the meaning of sex in a sort of derivative fashion to that, like, that the meaning of marriage makes what is the meaning of sex, I guess.

Yet something does fit in that recently they seem to avoid traditional language about primary (the procreation one) and secondary ends and purposes to marriage. Is this a sort of prudence, or a growth in understanding? If people tended not to value marriage in itself, and instead only saw it as some secondary thing to producing children, with children being the only part having any real value, then it would be prudent to avoid language like that so as to avoid confusing people.

Perhaps the teaching has gotten more subtle or developed. If so, does that mean the people from long ago got gypped by not hearing the best explanation? Or did other factors cover it, like a more supportive culture, so that they “got it” anyway. I suppose Israel wandering around in the Sinai desert didn’t get to hear about the good news of Jesus, but somehow we don’t consider them gypped. As you see, I often think aloud.

 

[LittleDeb]

And this is a legitimate concern isn’t it? Many people do wind up divorced because of lack of intimacy - and a sexless marriage would certainly be disasterous for most (not all) marriages.

Good question. And when you get back to the issue of marriages in the past that had to deal with the “sex is only for procreation” mentality the Church once had…well, it seems the Church was wrong about that - yes?
And if couples back then were having sex when procreation wasn’t possible - were they sinning because the Church said they were?
So I guess my answer is “I don’t know”. Like I said in another post - there is a difference between theory and reality.
I think there is a large gap there.

Procreation is always possible without contraception. Reproduction is limited to fertile times.

I am sorry you are struggling with your use of NFP. After the birth of your child please take a step back and look at NFP more objectively. Method failure of NFP could happen once to a couple, but I have some trouble believing two method failures in the same couple. Please check your charts more carefully and maybe take a refresher course in your method.

I know a couple in a marriage who are unable to be intimate. (Impotency due to car accident.) They have done well nurturing their marriage without resorting to oral sex.

I agree that the term oral sex is a misnomer. That was my point waaay back in this thread when I got flamed and stepped out. Oral stimulation is fine. Since the female’s eggs are not affected by orgasm, oral stimulation to the point of orgasm for a female is not contraceptive. For a male it is. Period. Sperm belongs either inside the male testes or deposited in the vagina. It may accidentally end up other places, and that is fine. But to deliberately deposit sperm in a mouth, stomach, or anus violates the purpose of our bodies in all of our glory.

My prayers go out to couples who struggle in this area. It can feel like a very heavy cross to bear.

 

[Lorarose]

After the birth of your child please take a step back and look at NFP more objectively.

I did that after the birth of my last child.

Method failure of NFP could happen once to a couple, but I have some trouble believing two method failures in the same couple.

Believe it! And I’ve found out I am not unusual.

Please check your charts more carefully and maybe take a refresher course in your method.

Believe me when I tell you…the charts were checked, rechecked, and triple checked.

[QUOTEI know a couple in a marriage who are unable to be intimate. (Impotency due to car accident.) They have done well nurturing their marriage without resorting to oral sex.
]

I’m glad your friends are doing well.
It is a bit different situation than if both spouses were healthy and capable of having relations.
I understand there are couples who are very strong and are in sync with that situation. I just don’t think there very many of them.

[QUOTEI agree that the term oral sex is a misnomer. That was my point waaay back in this thread when I got flamed and stepped out]

It can get tough around here can’t it?

Sperm belongs either inside the male testes or deposited in the vagina

Then why does God allow nocturnal emmissions?
And do you think millions of teenage boys worldwide are in the state of mortal sin due to their weakness for masturbation?

But to deliberately deposit sperm in a mouth, stomach, or anus violates the purpose of our bodies in all of our glory.

I thought the sin was in the intent. I thought the person who suggested the situation where the man also proceeds to make love to his wife in the regular fashion is showing he is open to life.

[QUOTEMy prayers go out to couples who struggle in this area. It can feel like a very heavy cross to bear.]

 

[Lorarose]

If people tended not to value marriage in itself, and instead only saw it as some secondary thing to producing children, with children being the only part having any real value, then it would be prudent to avoid language like that so as to avoid confusing people.

It is difficult to tell if this teaching is still evolving, or if there will be changes to the teaching in the future.

[QUOTEIf so, does that mean the people from long ago got gypped by not hearing the best explanation?]

I wonder that too…and I think that because God can read our hearts, it is a good thing He is the one making the ultimate decision concerning the state of our souls.

I suppose Israel wandering around in the Sinai desert didn’t get to hear about the good news of Jesus, but somehow we don’t consider them gypped. As you see, I often think aloud.

They experienced part of the path to revelation. I think everyone understands God wouldn’t hold against them what they didn’t know.

 

[Image_of_God]

OS is against natural law. When one does this they are having sex in away that avoids the risk of pregnancy. OS if not leading to procreation in marriage is contraceptive.

It is called natural law because it is written on the hearts of man. Anything that is done for arousal outside of marital procreation is bad. OS with the idea of not procreating, is done out of lust and causes arousal. It is not only a teaching of the Church, but also a nature thing. It is naturally immodest.

OS is just away to feel pleasure and not get pregnant in most cases and is contraceptive. Compare a kiss on the cheek to oral sex and you will see a huge difference in how moral it looks.

Anyone who causes someone to become aroused outside of marriage or without the intention of procreating cause the other person to sin and has “commited adultery in their heart.” Christ taught that he who looks at a another woman(or man) with lust in his(or her) heart commits adultery—such as to stare at a woman purposely. How much more is it adultery to touch another woman with lust outside of marriage.

 

[Lorarose]

Anyone who causes someone to become aroused outside of marriage or without the intention of procreating cause the other person to sin and has “commited adultery in their heart.”

Are you opposed to couples having sex when it is impossible for them to procreate? The only reason they would be doing it is for arousal.

 

[Image_of_God]

Are you opposed to couples having sex when it is impossible for them to procreate? The only reason they would be doing it is for arousal.

No. For there impossibility to procreate is not accounted to them. But we are talking about people who use oral sex for sexual pleasure just to avoid pregnancy. If one cannot procreate, they cannot “avoid” pregnancy and it is not there fault.

Nevertheless some people use oral sex as a contraceptive action without knowing it.

 

[Lorarose]

I’m just trying to understand your position …you made it sound like they shouldn’t be having sex unless they intended to procreate.

What about the case another poster suggested…the man received OS, but then he also proceeds to make love to his wife.

 

[Image_of_God]

That is not contraceptive so it would be