Oral Sex if we are practicing natural family planning?

[Michael038]

My wife and I are practicing natural family planning(the Church approves this) since we are doing this and our intercourse can not lead to life, is it then given these circumstances that we can have oral sex to climax? Help, I’m very confused with this topic.
God Bless!
M

 

[Mt19_26]

No, oral sex can not be done to climax. It would not be open to life and it would not be NFP. It would be a form of contraception. I don’t have a catechism with me with right but you should be able to find the reasons for this in there.

 

[Loboto-Me]

Even if practicing NFP we are still supposed to be open to the CHANCE that God will think otherwise for our lives… in other words, He may want you to have a child at the moment, even if you are not ready.

ANY climax by the man HAS to be inside the body of the woman, there are no exceptions.

ANY climax by the woman HAS to be in the context of the FULL marital embrace… meaning you can’t just bring your wife to climax and leave it at that, you must finish it off with FULL, complete intercourse. It must be a part of the marital embrace, not used as a release in and of itself.

Oh dear I just re-read my post and I think it sounds like the wife must climax as part of the intercourse! What I mean is yes she can be brought to climax in any way, but intercourse must either be fulfilled before or after (or if lucky… during) intercourse. Whew!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Michael,

If you are practicing NFP, you understand that you are open to life during times of fertility. If you ask yourself, why can’t a couple use a condom during sex? Because no life can come from it. Why can’t two homosexuals have sex? Because no life can come out of it. Why can you not have oral sex (to a climax)? Because no life can come out of it.

Oral sex is accepted as foreplay leading up to the act of intercourse. I heard a priest once say that he was approached with the question of what is acceptable as foreplay and a bishop responded to him that you could “swing from the ceiling fan if you want as long as it ends in the act of intercourse.” Funny visual. Therefore, oral sex is fine, beFORE the actual act of intercourse, but not by itself.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Loboto-Me:

Even if practicing NFP we are still supposed to be open to the CHANCE that God will think otherwise for our lives… in other words, He may want you to have a child at the moment, even if you are not ready.

ANY climax by the man HAS to be inside the body of the woman, there are no exceptions.

ANY climax by the woman HAS to be in the context of the FULL marital embrace… meaning you can’t just bring your wife to climax and leave it at that, you must finish it off with FULL, complete intercourse.

Short sweet and to the point. Thanks for pointing this out, I think that some get confused about a woman having an orgasm during the act. I was for a while, but have been enlightened since.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

2351 Lust is 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.

Even if you don’t reach climax, making use of sexual pleasure for arousal outside the context of the marital embrace, even if you are married, is also wrong. That is important to know, especially when using NFP. Each couple’s level of tolerance is different, and the motives behind each action must be taken into account too. The key is self-discipline. This reminds me of: If you’re not planning on going to Chicago, what are you doing on the plane?

 

[dizzy_girl]

A man can only orgasm within his wife vaginally. He can be stimulated orally but needs to complete the act inside the proper place.

A woman can only orgasm in the context of marital embrace. Whether that is oral or otherwise, it needs to be directly before or after the husband’s climax.

 

[Michael038]

Thanks Everyone!

 

[tgerlinger143]

2351 Lust is 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.

Even if you don’t reach climax, making use of sexual pleasure for arousal outside the context of the marital embrace, even if you are married, is also wrong. That is important to know, especially when using NFP. Each couple’s level of tolerance is different, and the motives behind each action must be taken into account too. The key is self-discipline. This reminds me of: If you’re not planning on going to Chicago, what are you doing on the plane?

/QUOTE]
My pastor/ bible teacher said that it is possible to commit the sin of lust within the context of marriage? What if the the sex act is lustful and is procreative at the same time? Is that still lust?
God bless you!
Teresa

 

[Pentecost2005]

tgerlinger143:

My pastor/ bible teacher said that it is possible to commit the sin of lust within the context of marriage? What if the the sex act is lustful and is procreative at the same time? Is that still lust?
Teresa

It would seem that lustfulness depends on your intent. Eagerness is not the same as lustfulness. It depends on whether you see your partner as an object, a means to your own pleasure.

 

[Celeste88]

Loboto-Me:

Even if practicing NFP we are still supposed to be open to the CHANCE that God will think otherwise for our lives… in other words, He may want you to have a child at the moment, even if you are not ready.

ANY climax by the man HAS to be inside the body of the woman, there are no exceptions.

ANY climax by the woman HAS to be in the context of the FULL marital embrace… meaning you can’t just bring your wife to climax and leave it at that, you must finish it off with FULL, complete intercourse. It must be a part of the marital embrace, not used as a release in and of itself.

Oh dear I just re-read my post and I think it sounds like the wife must climax as part of the intercourse! What I mean is yes she can be brought to climax in any way, but intercourse must either be fulfilled before or after (or if lucky… during) intercourse. Whew!

Do the rules change if the couple is older and the wife is past menopause? I know Sarah (and Abraham) had a child when she was 90 but really, how often does God let that happen?

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Celeste88:

Do the rules change if the couple is older and the wife is past menopause? I know Sarah (and Abraham) had a child when she was 90 but really, how often does God let that happen?

The “rules” do not change under any circumstance that we could ever imagine.

They are there to help us be open and loving with our spouses. They are there to help us be moral people. This particular rule is about much more than whether an act can lead to a new life. So it doesn’t matter if a man/woman is infertile.

Malia

 

[rosario]

I was reading this thread because a question came to me as I was reading a portion of “Love and Responsibility”. But before I pose the question I feel compelled to address some of the responses here.

In a marriage bedroom there are only three people, you, your spouse and the Lord. The way some of these questions were answered, seemed to me like so much meddling by outsiders.

The Cathechism does say …“procreative and unitive”, most everyone here seems to concentrate primarily on the procreative aspect. By that definition, infertile couples, older couples, the sick or incapacitated in any way , and many others (not homosexual) are excluded.

If a married couple loves each other profoundly, and is open to the possibility of the miracle of life and God’s will within their marriage (no birth control) and chooses to use NFP or simply cannot have children, so long as they offer the gift of true love and self to their partners, whatever they do in their privacy is nobody elses busness. There is “proceative” but their is also “unitive”, and in a marriage, as long as it’s consensual it is not for anybody else to judge or pontificate on,

I agree, if a married couple uses oral sex alone and no other kind of sex for the purpose of not becoming pregnant then they are acting wrongly because they are not open to life.

But if a couple is open to life, and love, and it happens that on any given occasion they wind up having only oral sex, that falls under the definition of “unitive”. And the couple shouldn’t have to feel ashamed. A married couple’s private intimate life cannot and should not have to be so rigid.

Also for many couples while the wife is perfectly fine and able, the husband simply cannot normally complete the sex act inside his wife, for a miryad of reasons. They need to complete the sexual act in some other way outside their wife’s body. After they tried and tried quite often to complete the act the traditional way. So therefore in reality they are most definitely open to life. That is what is in their hearts. Some people in this forum say there are NO EXCEPTIONS. According to “Love and Responsibility” It would be selfish to receive so much love and satisfaction from your spouse, but not to try hard to make sure your spouse is likewise satisfied.

There are too many people in husbands and wives’ bedrooms.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

rosario:

I was reading this thread because a question came to me as I was reading a portion of “Love and Responsibility”. But before I pose the question I feel compelled to address some of the responses here.

In a marriage bedroom there are only three people, you, your spouse and the Lord. The way some of these questions were answered, seemed to me like so much meddling by outsiders.

The Cathechism does say …“procreative and unitive”, most everyone here seems to concentrate primarily on the procreative aspect. By that definition, infertile couples, older couples, the sick or incapacitated in any way , and many others (not homosexual) are excluded.

If a married couple loves each other profoundly, and is open to the possibility of the miracle of life and God’s will within their marriage (no birth control) and chooses to use NFP or simply cannot have children, so long as they offer the gift of true love and self to their partners, whatever they do in their privacy is nobody elses busness. There is “proceative” but their is also “unitive”, and in a marriage, as long as it’s consensual it is not for anybody else to judge or pontificate on,

I agree, if a married couple uses oral sex alone and no other kind of sex for the purpose of not becoming pregnant then they are acting wrongly because they are not open to life.

But if a couple is open to life, and love, and it happens that on any given occasion they wind up having only oral sex, that falls under the definition of “unitive”. And the couple shouldn’t have to feel ashamed. A married couple’s private intimate life cannot and should not have to be so rigid.

Also for many couples while the wife is perfectly fine and able, the husband simply cannot normally complete the sex act inside his wife, for a miryad of reasons. They need to complete the sexual act in some other way outside their wife’s body. After they tried and tried quite often to complete the act the traditional way. So therefore in reality they are most definitely open to life. That is what is in their hearts. Some people in this forum say there are NO EXCEPTIONS. According to “Love and Responsibility” It would be selfish to receive so much love and satisfaction from your spouse, but not to try hard to make sure your spouse is likewise satisfied.

There are too many people in husbands and wives’ bedrooms.

Whoa, I read “Love and Responsibility”, and when it talks about trying to satisfy your spouse it specifically speaks about when a woman does not reach climax, but her husband does. It suggests that the husband should lovingly help her reach it. It never even remotely suggests that the man can complete the act outside of the wife’s body (which would not be open to life) nor does it say anything that would suggest oral sex outside of foreplay is ok.

One thing is if are intending to complete the marital embrace and an unforseen situation interrupts you, and another is purposely doing anything you know is foreplay knowing you will not complete the act.

Someone asked a question, and everyone is just answering. No one is trying to get into anyone’s bedroom.

 

[rosario]

That’s exactly the point. The example of the wife was given, but that was just an example, a for instance, but what about a husband unable to complete the act in the traditional way? Shouldn’t this example be applied to both the wife and husband? I’m sure that the guidance was not just looking out for the interests of the wife.

As for the other comment regarding the type of affection a properly married couple choose to engage in, neither the Cathechism, nor Love and Responsibility embrace nor deny with any kind of specifics. The bottom line is that so long as marriage is truly pointed towards Our Lord, the act of love is present and a gift to your spouse, all day long, everyday.

It seems that this individual was asking all the rest of the people what is or is not appropriate for him to do in the intimacy with his wife. What busness is that of anyone?

 

[cynic]

What is this oral sex stuff about? It’s disgusting, what man would want a woman to do that? Especially your wife, whom your supposed to respect.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

rosario:

I agree, if a married couple uses oral sex alone and no other kind of sex for the purpose of not becoming pregnant then they are acting wrongly because they are not open to life.

Each and every act MUST remain open to life. No exceptions.

But if a couple is open to life, and love, and it happens that on any given occasion they wind up having only oral sex, that falls under the definition of “unitive”. And the couple shouldn’t have to feel ashamed. A married couple’s private intimate life cannot and should not have to be so rigid.

So now we do not need to feel ashamed if we sin? I for one WANT to feel ashamed if I offend God.

Sin is the seperation from God. When we choose sin we choose to distance ourself from Him.

We live by the teachings of God and the Church because they are there for our own good. If having oral sex (to the point of a man’s climax) was for our own good then there wouldn’t be a problem.

Also, if having oral sex as foreplay, we accidentally “go too far” that is nothing to be ashamed of. That is not deliberate.

Also for many couples while the wife is perfectly fine and able, the husband simply cannot normally complete the sex act inside his wife, for a miryad of reasons.
This is when we are required to lovingly abstain.

They need to complete the sexual act in some other way outside their wife’s body.

Why? This can lead down the slippery slope…be careful.

After they tried and tried quite often to complete the act the traditional way. So therefore in reality they are most definitely open to life.

Each act must be open to life. Period.

That is what is in their hearts. Some people in this forum say there are NO EXCEPTIONS. According to “Love and Responsibility” It would be selfish to receive so much love and satisfaction from your spouse, but not to try hard to make sure your spouse is likewise satisfied.

It is loving to abstain in a circumstance where you KNOW the other person cannot complete the act for whatever reason.

It is not loving to lead them into sin by telling them it is ok to pervert the marital act for a “good” reason. This is what happens when individuals interpret things…everyone gets a different result.

I highly suggest you read Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage” if you are truly interested in understanding the Church’s point of view.

There are too many people in husbands and wives’ bedrooms.

No, there is still just God and the spouses. Sometimes people need a little help with what God wants from us…that why this forum is here.

I see you are new. When you get the time, go to the Ask An Apologist forum (if you are truly seeking orthodox answers to life’s questions) and do a search for “oral sex”.

Malia

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Below is part of an article from Christopher West and “Theology of the Body”

theologyofthebody.com/article1.asp

“Sexual union that is free, total, faithful, and open to new life (i.e., sexual union that truly expresses wedding vows) symbolizes and participates in the communion of Christ and the Church. Masturbation, fornication, adultery, intentionally sterilized sex, homosexual acts, etc.– none of these accurately symbolize, and thus never bring about the love of Christ for the Church. None of these behaviors are marital. Thus, for sexual union to consummate a marriage it must be performed in a “human manner” and be “per se suitable for the generation of children.”[16]”

 

[Katie1723]

rosario:

…There are too many people in husbands and wives’ bedrooms.

Amen to that! And a bunch of us out here who are more guilty than we dare to admit.
~ Kathy ~

 

[vluvski]

rosario:

The Cathechism does say …“procreative and unitive”, most everyone here seems to concentrate primarily on the procreative aspect. By that definition, infertile couples, older couples, the sick or incapacitated in any way , and many others (not homosexual) are excluded.
…
But if a couple is open to life, and love, and it happens that on any given occasion they wind up having only oral sex, that falls under the definition of “unitive”. And the couple shouldn’t have to feel ashamed. A married couple’s private intimate life cannot and should not have to be so rigid.

Sorry, rosario, but you are going to get criticized for this post. It is simply not consistent with Catholic teaching.

As you pointed out, the Catechism says “procreative and unitive.” Key word there is AND. Oral sex to the man’s climax excludes the procreative aspect, and is therefore always disordered and sinful. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Post-menopausal, infertile, or otherwise non-REPRODUCTIVE couples are not anti-creative. They are, by having sex in the natural way (vaginal intercourse), being pro-creative. That is, in favor of creation, because their act demonstrates an understanding of the nuptial meaning of their bodies. They are not in any way hindering any reproductive potential inherent to the act. Not every procreative act is reproductive, and not every reproductive act is procreative (examples: a condom breaks, fertilization after breakthrough ovulation while on the pill). The Church stipulates procreative, not reproductive, so as not to wrongfully exclude infertile couples, not to wrongfully include “surprise” or “unplanned” pregnancies, and to give us the responsibility of discerning whether we have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy by abstaining during fertile periods.

If I am doing something wrong, even privately, it is YOUR BUSINESS to correct me in the spirit of Christian charity. How can we avoid sin if no one is willing to correct us out of a misplaced sense of privacy?