Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[setter]

So, you are the one who thinks all sin is equal?

Kendy

The CCC citations do not support this impression as there is degrees of culpability and gravity to sin offense in objective and subjectively measured terms (God is the judge and final arbitrator).

My point is that sin is highly personal, as it directly offends the person of Jesus; just as Jesus was a real person and not an icon, simply a historical figure or untouchable God-man.

 

[Kendy]

You are absolutely right I am not good nor am I faithful. I guess I should resign myself to burning in hell for thinking for myself. OMG, that is not allowed at all. It is quite obvious that I am not welcome on these boards so I will bow out of this conversation and thread and wish you all the best.

Don’t be so nonchalant about your catholic identity. The church is a wonderful gift, and don’t allow yourself to separated from her. I hope you have a good priest to talk. I found one and it is so important.

Kendy

 

[fix]

Of course, not! It’s all about sex. It’s always about sex. I grew up with the that the only sin is a sexual sin mentality; it des not suprised.

It is always about sex because so many of us make it that way. Sexual sins seem to be the reason so many reject the truth of the Church. Why is sexual license seen as so “open” to personal discretion, yet things like racism, sexism, ect. are mostly viewed as “objectively” wrong?

Well, if I had to choose gogogirl @3=$%# her husband over one more dead Iraqi child, I would pick the former.

There is no such moral choice presented to us. All sin is wrong.

And btw, I will not allow you to determine what I can call myself.

Kendy

How am I determining what you call yourself?

 

[Kendy]

It is always about sex because so many of us make it that way. Sexual sins seem to be the reason so many reject the truth of the Church. Why is sexual license seen as so “open” to personal discretion, yet things like racism, sexism, ect. are mostly viewed as “objectively” wrong?

I have no indicated that we have a sexual license and that sexual things are open to personal discretion. However, there does seem to a group of people, usually conservative, who never seem to get upset unless someone somewhere is having an orgasm. Jesus said, “I was hungry you did not feed…and I will say to them I never knew.” Yet, so many don’t seem to take those words as seriously as something involving sex.

There is no such moral choice presented to us. All sin is wrong.

That is a protestant belief. All sin is wrong, but some are worse than others. Hitler is not on the same moral plane as Jean Val Jean who stole a loaf of bread. The sin of Javier, the sin of the pharasee (sp), is the failure to make those distinction, to apply wisdom and compassion to the law.

How am I determining what you call yourself?

Sorry, that comment was really meant for Setter. I must have thought she was the poster.

Kendy

 

[Lorarose]

You are absolutely right I am not good nor am I faithful. I guess I should resign myself to burning in hell for thinking for myself. OMG, that is not allowed at all. It is quite obvious that I am not welcome on these boards so I will bow out of this conversation and thread and wish you all the best.

Gogo girl…if you were contracepting, you wouldn’t be pregnant right now.
No one on this board has the authority to declare if you are in a state of mortal sin - or if you are a catholic or not.

 

[tjm8]

How can the Pope be infallible only in some aspects of faith and morals and not others? How is that determined?

When you find out, let me know.

 

[gogogirl]

Gogo girl…if you were contracepting, you wouldn’t be pregnant right now.
No one on this board has the authority to declare if you are in a state of mortal sin - or if you are a catholic or not.

Thank you for noticing the fact that I said that I am pregnant. OS has never ever been used instead of regular intercourse. We use NFP very strictly and during the times that we have tried to avoid conception, we limit ALL sexual activity so that it is never ever used in a contraceptive manner.

This is something that my husband and I have studied and prayed about and have not taken lightly. Rigidly following every little nuance of the churches teachings on sex in marriage was a hindrance to our marriage. We had to be very careful so that nothing was ever spilled or deposited somewhere other than where the church said it has to go. We were constantly worrying about whether or not we were lusting after each other, using each other as objects, and so on and so forth. There was absolutely nothing unitive or procreative about intercourse during those times. We tried for six months to conceive and it was only when we gave ourselves to each other (not the church) that we were able to conceive. After all, we are married and we do honor our marriage vows and we do not contracept in any way shape or form.

It is apparent that many find it very offensive for me to attempt to call myself Catholic so I will refrain from doing so in order to not offend anyone. I apologize for being incapable of walking the narrow path that is apparently so very easy for many of you.

 

[Lorarose]

It is apparent that many find it very offensive for me to attempt to call myself Catholic so I will refrain from doing so in order to not offend anyone. I apologize for being incapable of walking the narrow path that is apparently so very easy for many of you.

As far as I can tell only one person has taken it upon himself to declare you a catholic in name only - and I seriously doubt he has the authority to do so. It is his opinion and I doubt it is shared by many others.
Good luck to you and congratulations on your pregnancy.

 

[RyanL]

Rigidly following every little nuance of the churches teachings on sex in marriage was a hindrance to our marriage…

Dear gogo,

It sounds like you’ve had a difficult time with this - may Christ grant you peace.

I think your problem might have been the same as that of the Pharisees - they followed the Law, but they did not live it. The law of the Lord is love, and it is only when the love is fully expressed will the law be fulfilled. The “rules” of the Church are there to help us, and the yoke is only easy through love (love both for Christ and your spouse). Without the fullness of this love, however, the yoke is a burden that is very hard to bear. I sympathize, truly I do - but I assure you that, just like the Levitical Law, there is nothing wrong with the law (properly understood), but with the hearers. (Psalm 19:7.)

Perhaps an analogy? When we love something, we make rules about it. Watch kids play pretend in the back yard and you’ll be amazed at the complexity of the rules they come up with for their games – don’t step on the rock, because it’s lava. Don’t go past the tree, because it’s out of bounds. If the ball bounces twice, you’re out for the next two turns. Etc. Etc.

But it’s not just a kid thing - it’s a human thing. Take golf, for example. Golfers *love *the rules, as they understand that the game is played best when the rules are observed. Most golfers worth their salt will carry a copy of the rules of golf in their back pocket, and know what the rules allow and what they don’t. They wouldn’t think of letting their children run loose on the course, whacking around and claiming to “golf” - they have too much respect for the integrity game to allow it. Rather, they teach the rules to their children, knowing that in the end it is the truest way to play. You’ll note, also, that you don’t see professional golfers checking their rule book very often - they live the rules.

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.

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.

May God bless you and your family richly,
RyanL

 

[setter]

Thank you for noticing the fact that I said that I am pregnant. OS has never ever been used instead of regular intercourse. We use NFP very strictly and during the times that we have tried to avoid conception, we limit ALL sexual activity so that it is never ever used in a contraceptive manner.

This is simple rationalization of sin choice.

This is something that my husband and I have studied and prayed about and have not taken lightly. Rigidly following every little nuance of the churches teachings on sex in marriage was a hindrance to our marriage.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We had to be very careful so that nothing was ever spilled or deposited somewhere other than where the church said it has to go. We were constantly worrying about whether or not we were lusting after each other, using each other as objects, and so on and so forth. There was absolutely nothing unitive or procreative about intercourse during those times. We tried for six months to conceive and it was only when we gave ourselves to each other (not the church) that we were able to conceive. After all, we are married and we do honor our marriage vows and we do not contracept in any way shape or form.

More rationalization of sin choice and rejecting Christ’s authority given to the Church.

It is apparent that many find it very offensive for me to attempt to call myself Catholic so I will refrain from doing so in order to not offend anyone.

Do not worry about offending man, worry about offending God.

I apologize for being incapable of walking the narrow path that is apparently so very easy for many of you.

This is a highly self-centered comment.

 

[Kendy]

:yup:

As far as I can tell only one person has taken it upon himself to declare you a catholic in name only - and I seriously doubt he has the authority to do so. It is his opinion and I doubt it is shared by many others.
Good luck to you and congratulations on your pregnancy.

:yup:

 

[fix]

I have no indicated that we have a sexual license and that sexual things are open to personal discretion. However, there does seem to a group of people, usually conservative, who never seem to get upset unless someone somewhere is having an orgasm. Jesus said, “I was hungry you did not feed…and I will say to them I never knew.” Yet, so many don’t seem to take those words as seriously as something involving sex.

Obviously you are exaggerating. The problem with sexual license is not that it is too much discussed but that so many dismiss such sins as trivial. Most folks, even non Christians, are well aware of one’s obligation to help the poor. The understanding of sexual gifts and responsibilities is lacking in our culture.

That is a protestant belief. All sin is wrong, but some are worse than others. Hitler is not on the same moral plane as Jean Val Jean who stole a loaf of bread. The sin of Javier, the sin of the pharasee (sp), is the failure to make those distinction, to apply wisdom and compassion to the law.

Please do not put words in my mouth. We all know there are degrees of gravity. Murdering one’s parents is worse than murdering a stranger, yet both lead to perdition.

Also, there seems to be this fiction that somehow only persons like mass murderers are really guilty of mortal sin. It is as if we have made Hitler the yardstick for all moral decisions. It is not good enough to not be like Hitler. We must strive to be like Christ. He is the touchstone. So, when I read that a deviant sexual practice is seen as a trvial matter I cringe.

The marital embrace is the only complete sexual expression. Substituting some other act is not God’s will for us.

Sorry, that comment was really meant for Setter. I must have thought she was the poster.

Kendy

No problem.

 

[fix]

I have no indicated that we have a sexual license and that sexual things are open to personal discretion. However, there does seem to a group of people, usually conservative, who never seem to get upset unless someone somewhere is having an orgasm. Jesus said, “I was hungry you did not feed…and I will say to them I never knew.” Yet, so many don’t seem to take those words as seriously as something involving sex.

That is a protestant belief. All sin is wrong, but some are worse than others. Hitler is not on the same moral plane as Jean Val Jean who stole a loaf of bread. The sin of Javier, the sin of the pharasee (sp), is the failure to make those distinction, to apply wisdom and compassion to the law.

I want to revisit this. I think Cardinal Pell spoke to these ideas very well right here:

…I imagine that to non-Christians this must seem rather odd: If moral and religious teachings bind only to the extent that one’s individual mind and will enthuse about them, then pretty clearly the teachings do not bind at all. What “binds” is simply the autonomous self, with all the limitations that our selves are prey to. And to say “I am bound by me” is hardly to make a meaningful moral utterance. Rather, it is to reject the need for morality and creed and to claim that I should be allowed to live as I choose within the constraints imposed by family, friends and society…

But the twist is that many people who accept moral truths in some area of life reject moral truth especially in areas such as sexual morality, and perhaps also in life issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Moral truth is a great ally when it is on your side; but when it grates against your own convenience it can be tempting to treat it as an anachronism. But either there are or there are not moral truths, and if there are, these will have something to say about unpopular matters as well as more fashionable causes. …

Much of the debate over conscience in Catholic circles focuses on the possibility of a conscience against the Church’s teaching. This seems to me a peculiar notion. For a start, it would mean that dissenters believed that following the Church on, for example, contraception or same-sex relationships, would actually give them a guilty conscience, not just frustrated wishes. Yet it seems clear that most dissenters do not fear guilt if they obey the Church: What they fear is precisely the frustration of their unsatisfied wishes. …

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/ZPELLNEW.HTM

 

[Kendy]

Please do not put words in my mouth. We all know there are degrees of gravity. Murdering one’s parents is worse than murdering a stranger, yet both lead to perdition.

Also, there seems to be this fiction that somehow only persons like mass murderers are really guilty of mortal sin. It is as if we have made Hitler the yardstick for all moral decisions. It is not good enough to not be like Hitler. We must strive to be like Christ. He is the touchstone. So, when I read that a deviant sexual practice is seen as a trvial matter I cringe.

It did sound like that’s what you were saying even if that’s not what you meant.

Anyway, I am well-aware that Christ and not Hitler is our yardstick. However, the real question for me is whether there is a real issue of deviance here and I have thought about this often, and I just fail to see the deviance. All the warnings about this degrates the spouse and is a selfish act just doesn’t resonate. Conviction needs to occur in two places— in the heart and in the mind. I am not just persuaded about the eucharist. I have a heartleft conviction. On the other hand, I am aware that the church does not like this, but I am from from convicted. Frankly, it seems a little petty. And I am saddened by how easy some of us are to cast family members (our catholic family) and forbid them from bearing our family name over something so small.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

I want to revisit this. I think Cardinal Pell spoke to these ideas very well right here:

I am not fond of the primacy of ther personal conscience thing either. I agree, it’s a bad slippery slope. However, that does not mean I am persuaded by these arguments. I am fortunate to not be married and therefore, I can put this issue on the back burner.

Kendy

 

[Lorarose]

Yet it seems clear that most dissenters do not fear guilt if they obey the Church: What they fear is precisely the frustration of their unsatisfied wishes. …

While this premise may be true sometimes, I don’t agree it is true all the time.
It is easy to dismiss people when you first mischaracterize them as selfish, immature, etc. etc…
But some people really do reach a point where they they cannot handle it anymore.
A person does have their limits. Just a month or so ago the Pope commented on how everyone needs a vacation - that too much work with no rest can lead to hardness of the heart.

That really spoke to me, because I think he partially nailed what my problem is…for some people trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control - there is no rest. Not only are there catholics having more children than they can handle…they aren’t getting a break either.
Is it any wonder they reach a breaking point?

 

[setter]

Frankly, it seems a little petty. And I am saddened by how easy some of us are to cast family members (our catholic family) and forbid them from bearing our family name over something so small.

Kendy

Interesting how modern day Catholics can minimize grave sin as “it seems a little petty”, and castigate a fellow Catholic who in all charity admonishes a fellow Catholic who is openly professing to embrace serious (if not mortal) sin as a good and edifying marital behavior. This is a real victory for the Enemy of our souls if left unchallenged.

Originally Posted by gogogirl
My husband and I took a lot of what was said in this thread into consideration back in April and have come to a decision that has been really enriching for us. I know it doesn’t agree with the church and what many of you have been saying but ultimately, our bedroom antics are between us and God.

Originally Posted by Kendy
You can call yourself catholic. You will find that many conservative catholic are not exactly in lock step with Rome when it comes to things like the Uraq war, the death penalty, and aid to the poor. We are all imperfect.

Originally Posted by Kendy
Don’t be so nonchalant about your catholic identity. The church is a wonderful gift, and don’t allow yourself to separated from her. I hope you have a good priest to talk. I found one and it is so important.

Perhaps better advice would be for this fellow Catholic to not be so non-chalant about knowingly and willfully enagaing in serious sin and that the “good priest” likewise be qualified as an orthodox, faithful to Rome priest.

 

[dulcissima]

Where is the serious sin that you are so worked up about, Setter?

It sounds like she was not only open to life but hoping to conceive. What’s more, through a progression of intimate acts, she was able to express to her husband the very depths of her love, appreciation, and desire for him. Sounds beautifully unitive.

Why is this so despicable to you that you must devote post after post to making this woman feel like expressing her love for her husband has somehow made her unworthy? I can’t see that this is something that is so black and white. It seems to fall into a grey area, one where it is probably best to keep in mind the goal behind the teaching, which is to promote love over lust. I would not chastise her for not living up to what you perceive to be the letter of the law, when she is clearly living up to the spirit of it.

 

[fix]

However, the real question for me is whether there is a real issue of deviance here and I have thought about this often, and I just fail to see the deviance. All the warnings about this degrates the spouse and is a selfish act just doesn’t resonate.

But, whether is resonantes or not does not determine the truth.

Conviction needs to occur in two places— in the heart and in the mind.

Truth is truth whether one “feels” it or not. I may not feel like attending to a crying infant, yet I am obligated to do so.

Frankly, it seems a little petty. And I am saddened by how easy some of us are to cast family members (our catholic family) and forbid them from bearing our family name over something so small.

I am not talikng about anyone’s specfic case right here. I am saying that such issues are not petty.

… The Church, one hears, is lacking in understanding and compassion. But the Church’s motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm… The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection”.149

In fact, genuine understanding and compassion must mean love for the person, for his true good, for his authentic freedom. And this does not result, certainly, from concealing or weakening moral truth, but rather from proposing it in its most profound meaning as an outpouring of God’s eternal Wisdom, which we have received in Christ, and as a service to man, to the growth of his freedom and to the attainment of his happiness.150…

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal…

Veritatis splendor

 

[fix]

While this premise may be true sometimes, I don’t agree it is true all the time.
It is easy to dismiss people when you first mischaracterize them as selfish, immature, etc. etc…
But some people really do reach a point where they they cannot handle it anymore.
A person does have their limits. Just a month or so ago the Pope commented on how everyone needs a vacation - that too much work with no rest can lead to hardness of the heart.

But, obeying the moral law should not be a burden. Perhaps I need to reread the OP but if we are talking about intentionally substituting some act for the marital embrace that is hardly a burden. If such things happend by accident that is no sin.

That really spoke to me, because I think he partially nailed what my problem is…for some people trying to follow the Church’s teaching on birth control - there is no rest. Not only are there catholics having more children than they can handle…they aren’t getting a break either.
Is it any wonder they reach a breaking point?

Yes, child bearing and rearing is a tremendous task and can be overwhelming. I do not think the Church is asking anything much in not violating the natural law.