Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

[setter]

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?

Are these exhausted, limited out folks turning to God Himself for the grace, power and wisdom in trying to follow Him faithfully? Or are they being self-reliant in their own efforts?

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11: 28-30

“Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.’" Mark 10: 27

”Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” **2 Corinthians 12: 8-10 **

“But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me has not been ineffective. Indeed, I have toiled harder than all of them; not I, however, but the grace of God (that is) with me.” 1 Corinthians 15: 10

 

[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.

I have not seen any of this charity.

 

[Kendy]

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

No, but in order to live that truth, one must be convinced of it.

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.

I never said that. What I mean is that one must be convicted in both heart and mind that attending to a crying child is the right thing to do no matter how ones feels.

 

[Lorarose]

But, obeying the moral law should not be a burden

It’s exactly the issue I’m wrestling with right now.

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.

Your opinion…perhaps you haven’t found yourself in situations that others have found themselves in.
I don’t think it is a good thing to look at others we disagree with and just assume they are immature and selfish because we would like to dismiss to them.

 

[thechrismyster]

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.

please, remember where you are, you are on an anonymous message board talking to completely random people who have no credentials or, for that matter, names… and you’d choose to not call yourself what you are…CATHOLIC… because of a few unknown voices.
If it bothers you, talk to a Priest, but please don’t give these forums more weight then they deserve.

You are Catholic.

 

[Lorarose]

Are these exhausted, limited out folks turning to God Himself for the grace, power and wisdom in trying to follow Him faithfully? Or are they being self-reliant in their own efforts?

You have all the answers and seem to already know what a terrible person I am.
Why bother asking me?

 

[fix]

No, but in order to live that truth, one must be convinced of it.

I never said that. What I mean is that one must be convicted in both heart and mind that attending to a crying child is the right thing to do no matter how ones feels.

I am not seeing your point.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28

1. In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for* God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. *Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values…
   vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[setter]

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.

There is neither nothing “beautiful”, “unitive” or authentically “loving” about the morally illicit behavior that this poster is advocating as acceptable for a Catholic couple to engage in. It actually falls under allowing the marital bed to be “defiled” (Hebrews 13: 4).
From post #114:

Originally Posted by gogogirl
We still engage in oral sex but only when it is not being used with a contraceptive mentality. For example, I will finish him off so to speak and then we will proceed to have full intercourse later the same evening. I can always count on my husband to rise to the occasion several times in a short time span so I don’t see why there is any harm in it. I personally love to give my husband that type of pleasure. There are times that I would rather pleasure him in that fashion then to have full blown intercourse.

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.

All sin is despicable in eyes of God, and especially grave and willful sin.

The “spirirt of the law” is a panacea for rationalizing whatever sin one wishes to choose to engage in contrary to Catholic moral theology.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

 

[fix]

It’s exactly the issue I’m wrestling with right now.

Your opinion…perhaps you haven’t found yourself in situations that others have found themselves in.
I don’t think it is a good thing to look at others we disagree with and just assume they are immature and selfish because we would like to dismiss to them.

I do not think the quote from the cardinal was calling anyone immature or selfish. I think he was pointing out we can, and do, make excuses. The Splendour of Truth from JPII talks about our call to martrydom with these issues. I do not deny they are difficult. I struggle with many things, but that does not mean the moral norm should be lessened, or could be lessened.

Setter’s point seems to be that we all have recourse to God’s grace. No one claims it is easy. Christ Himself asks us to take up our cross daily.

What gets me is the notion that these sexual isses are mostly seen as absolutely impossible to master and the Church is just too cold. Now, without indicting anyone here, is it not possible that we just want to do what we want to do without sensing guilt?

 

[setter]

I have not seen any of this charity.

Is this a deflection from your own minimization of calling sin sin and not enabling a fellow Catholic poster to continue to delude themself?

 

[setter]

I have not seen any of this charity.

I always strive to seperate the person from the behavior in all my posts to fellow posters. If I have transgressed as such, I apologize. However, please do not mistake presentation of what the Church teaches with being uncharitable because the message finds offense by the one offending the moral law.

 

[Lorarose]

I do not think the quote from the cardinal was calling anyone immature or selfish.

I saw a similarity in his statement to other statements made on the thread. A premise is made about the mindset of another person in order to more easily dismiss them.
I think the cardinal presumes too much - and I think others here presume too much as well.

What gets me is the notion that these sexual isses are mostly seen as absolutely impossible to master and the Church is just too cold. Now, without indicting anyone here, is it not possible that we just want to do what we want to do without sensing guilt?

Sometimes that could be the case, and sometimes it may not be the case.
Again…it is easier to dismiss people if we assume that is always the case isn’t it?

 

[dulcissima]

There is neither nothing “beautiful”, “unitive” or authentically “loving” about the morally illicit behavior that this poster is advocating as acceptable for a Catholic couple to engage in. It actually falls under allowing the marital bed to be “defiled” (Hebrews 13: 4).
From post #114:

All sin is despicable in eyes of God, and especially grave and willful sin.

The “spirirt of the law” is a panacea for rationalizing whatever sin one wishes to choose to engage in contrary to Catholic moral theology.

1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means. (CCC)

What evil action are you referring to? I think you need to step back and gain some perspective.

 

[setter]

No, but in order to live that truth, one must be convinced of it.

This all but implies that people of good will are seeking to know, accept and live the truth. Dare I say, this seems to be sorely lacking amongst many fellow Catholics these days.

2104 “All men are bound to seek the truth, especially in what concerns God and his Church, and to embrace it and hold on to it as they come to know it.” (CCC)

2467 Man tends by nature toward the truth. He is obliged to honor and bear witness to it: “It is in accordance with their dignity that all men, because they are persons . . . are both impelled by their nature and bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth once they come to know it and direct their whole lives in accordance with the demands of truth.” (CCC)

“And I tell you, Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” **Luke 11: 9-10 **

 

[fix]

I saw a similarity in his statement to other statements made on the thread. A premise is made about the mindset of another person in order to more easily dismiss them.
I think the cardinal presumes too much - and I think others here presume too much as well.

Sometimes that could be the case, and sometimes it may not be the case.
Again…it is easier to dismiss people if we assume that is always the case isn’t it?

I think the cardinal addresses your point:

… When we receive messages, we listen to them. We do not make them up and reword them to reflect what we wish had been said. If we disagree with the Church’s message so seriously that we cannot follow its terms, then we cannot reinvent it to make it easier or more palatable.

Rather, we enter into a period of prayer, study and inquiry to try to understand the message and to understand why we find ourselves opposed to it. And we should realize that if the matter that puzzles us is one of a binding Church teaching or a central moral teaching, then prayer and study of this may be a lifetime’s work.

A Catholic conscience cannot accept a settled position against the Church, at least on a central moral teaching. Any difficulties with Church teaching should be not the end of the matter but the beginning of a process of conversion, education and quite possibly repentance. Where a Catholic disagrees with the Church on some serious matter, the response should not be “that’s that; I can’t follow the Church here”; instead we should kneel and pray that God will lead our weak steps and enlighten our fragile minds, as Newman recommends in Sermon 17 — “The Testimony of Conscience.”

I think many cannot understand certain teachings, but we can still obey and try to grow in understanding. I guess what perplexes me most about these things is the notion that we as Catholics think we get to define what the Church is ourselves, rather than accepting the definition from Christ.

Cardinal Pell points this out well;

… Of course, Newman’s view of conscience is profoundly counterintuitive to modern ears. For Newman, conscience is objective, hard work, a challenge to self, a call to conversion, a sign of humility; and this sits uncomfortably for those who see freedom as the right to reject what is unpalatable. Many will say: “You can interpret conscience this way if you want to — I’ll even defend your right to do so! But my own view is very different.”

The only answer to this is to explain and to defend the existence of moral truth. In theory, this should not be too difficult. After all, everyone agrees that there is a basic truth of the matter in cases of social justice, children’s protection, the immorality of torture, lying and cheating in public life, and so on.

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,…

 

[Lorarose]

[QUOTEI think many cannot understand certain teachings, but we can still obey and try to grow in understanding. I guess what perplexes me most about these things is the notion that we as Catholics think we get to define what the Church is ourselves, rather than accepting the definition from Christ.
]

I know I don’t get to define what the Church teaches…I just find myself at a point where I feel unable to live up to it.
I have had 2 pregnancies while trying to give NFP a try…I could continue to have a baby a year this way until I hit menopause.
Or…my other option, according to Church teaching is to abstain from sex with my husband for 10 years.

 

[valient_Lucy]

It doesn’t belong there because the kid can jab himself in the brain with it. Oral sex is no more dangerous than vaginal intercourse.

.

Actually, I doubt very much that a child could stab his brain by sticking a pencil up his nose. I mean, the brain is still encased in the skull, which is pretty think. If he stuck the pencil in just the right angle, and applied plenty of force, he might be able to do it. But I wouldn’t bet on it. He could definatly cause a lot of damage to the nasal cavity. But I don’t know about actually stabbing the brain.

 

[setter]

I know I don’t get to define what the Church teaches…**I just find myself at a point where I feel unable to live up to it.**I have had 2 pregnancies while trying to give NFP a try…I could continue to have a baby a year this way until I hit menopause.
Or…my other option, according to Church teaching is to abstain from sex with my husband for 10 years.

In the Christian life and walk with Jesus Christ, when one finds themself up against a wall and at the end of their own resource, this is the normative opportunity where for the power and grace of God to be extended and take us beyond our human capacity and strength to embrace the specific crosses and live the life honoring to God. It is the supernatural life of grace lived by and through the holy Spirit where we can do what is humanly impossible as we embrace God’s will for our life.

1. And now our words more directly address our own children, particularly those whom God calls to serve Him in marriage. The Church, while teaching imprescriptible demands of the divine law, announces the tidings of salvation, and by means of the sacraments opens up the paths of grace, which makes man a new creature, capable of corresponding with love and true freedom to the design of his Creator and Savior, and of finding the yoke of Christ to be sweet.

We do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them as for everyone else, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life.” But the hope of that life must illuminate their way, as with courage they strive to live with wisdom, justice and piety in this present time, knowing that the figure of this world passes away.

Let married couples, then, face up to the efforts needed, supported by the faith and hope which “do not disappoint . . . because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to Us”; let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer; above all, let them draw from the source of grace and charity in the Eucharist. (Humanae Vitae)

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.” Hebrews 12: 1-2

“To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.” ** 2 Thessalonian 1: 11-12**

“May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.” Colossians 1: 11-12

“Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4: 16

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” **Romans 15: 13 **

“But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us. We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair;” 2 Corinthians 4: 7-8

 

[valient_Lucy]

Still, if he really wanted humans to not have sex except for procreation he could have arranged for that.
.

It is you, not the Church, that says that a couple can have sex ONLY for procreation. It just simply says that you must be open to the possibillity of conception.
Similarly, it’s perfectly fine to enjoy a feast. But you can’t go to the bathroom afterwards and throw it back up, as the Romans would do with peacock feathers, to purge after large meals.
Catholics view BC in much the same way. Catholics feel that the sexual act can have both the procreative nature and the unitive (loving) nature, and yes, pleasure. But to enjoy the act and unitive nature while deliberatly trying to prevent the natural consequences of the act is no different in the Catholic mind than eating a feast and throwing it up to attempt to prevent weight gain.

 

[tjm8]

But to enjoy the act and unitive nature while deliberatly trying to prevent the natural consequences of the act is no different in the Catholic mind than eating a feast and throwing it up to attempt to prevent weight gain.

Really, “no different in the Catholic mind than eating a feast and throwing it up to attempt to prevent weight gain”. Well why are we discussing this? I thought it was a real issue. Or, are you telling me that eating a feast and throwing it up to attempt to prevent weight gain is viewed by the church as a serious (mortal) sin.