Oral Sex To Completion Within Marriage

[Bookcat]

And you missed " and unitive." Which is why I told him the wife has to be completely supportive. This can be very unitive. It doesn’t say “or” unitive, you have to be isolated from both to be disordered.

.

PS the understanding presented here of unitive and procreative is not correct. It is not was is meant here.

You do not have to be isolated from “both” to be disordered.

And of course also it is important to add that if something is contrary to the procreative…the openness to life…it is also contrary to the unitive.

For example…In vetro fertilzation, contracepion, etc are gravely disordered.

 

[Hadrianus]

CCC 2351 - “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

CCC 2366 - “…it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”

If the husband is receiving oral pleasure and ejaculates outside the vagina, that act was not ordered per se to procreation. Ordered per se to procreation means intravaginal ejaculation.

Also read CCC 2360 - 2372.

This certainly follows the views of the traditional Moral theologians writing in Latin who looked at the matter at some length and considered this practice contrary to the rightful use of marriage. I am thinking of people like Fr Pruemmer OP and St Alphonsus.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That’s an interpretation. What did I tell him? Take an NFP class, do it on infertile days or the second time around. And you missed " and unitive." Which is why I told him the wife has to be completely supportive. This can be very unitive. It doesn’t say “or” unitive, you have to be isolated from both to be disordered.

Anyway, that’s my opinion, which is different from yours. Until some Bishop comes in here and says something definitive, that’s all we have.

What you think of as unitive is not what the Church defines as unitive. And your opinion is not relative here. It goes against what God expects from each and every sexual act. Oral sex to completion for a man is dis-unitive. Period. When a man climaxes outside of his wife, it becomes a selfish act. Taken over an entire marriage, this encourages the selfish attitude of the husband and isolates the wife. A man’s body was DESIGNED to be inside of his wife’s body, not outside of it. That is why he has the organ he does, because we are designed to encompass it.

It is one of the factors that is disordered within my own marriage and I am a regular confessor of this. If I told my husband that something he has taken for granted is disordered according to the Church, he might well leave me. But it is disordered. People come on here and try to justify this act in all sorts of ways, arguing about it almost endlessly, but the fact remains. It is against Church teaching and is disordered.

 

[JoyfulLife]

It’s a good question for Jason Evert. Give him a call and let us know what you find out.

Her body and my body belong to eachother, and there is no harm in a playful teasing that does not lead to sex (“extended foreplay” over the course of the day/week).

Jason Evert and others made it clear that foreplay is only to precede sex.

Have a read over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578622

Also, if you read there, you will see that female orgasm through foreplay isn’t supposed to be the goal. That’s after sex if sex-orgasm for her failed.

 

[CredoEtMiror]

It isn’t a matter or whether the wife is already pregnant or can get pregnant, it is a matter of the couple completing the marital act according to God’s design…“ordered per se to procreation”; otherwise it is not a marital act. If the couple engages “in some non-procreative sex” as you put it, then it is nothing more than mutual masturbation. The act must be completed as designed by God in order for it to fulfill the purpose of the act (fidelity and fecundity, together, inseperable). Non-vaginal ejaculation is not unitive at all (the fidelity aspect) nor can it be ordered per se to procreation (the fecundity aspect).

Where is this found explicitly in the scriptures or the magisterial documents/council documents?

Onan’s sin is almost universally the only biblical citation given, and it is a very unique situation.

Questions: Is it a sin to touch my wife sexually if it doesn’t end in my climaxing in her vagina? Is that against natural law, too (i.e., using the “arousal function” of our bodies when not meaning to “finish the job” at that moment?) - for example, I’ll often come up and hug my wife from behind during the day, and this will occasionally lead to a more playful form of hugging etc…where is the line.

Jason Evert and others made it clear that foreplay is only to precede sex.

Have a read over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578622

Also, if you read there, you will see that female orgasm through foreplay isn’t supposed to be the goal. That’s after sex if sex-orgasm for her failed.

I greatly respect Mr. Evert and his ministry within the realm of Catholic Answers, but he too is merely a layman (and even theologians can and do differ on this issue…) He, along with Mr. West and others have come down on this side of the question, but their particular answers aren’t authoritative, and I’ve not seen anything other than an appeal to natural law.

Others will even go so far as to say that natural law strictly forbids any oral sex.

At what point does this become a matter for the couple to decide?
Is it possible that there is a flawed distinction here between “Sexual intercourse” and “Sexual actions” which if made more clearly could legitimize – in certain circumstances – the latter actions between a married couple open to life?

For 2000 years, there was silence on this issue because people didn’t talk about the nuts and bolts of sex. Then our over-sexualized culture went berzerk, and when many catholic theologians had to come up with a quick and consistent answer, the answer came back along the West/Everet lines. What if they were wrong? I know people who have stayed out of the church for this very reason. This weekend a friend of mine made his solemn profession at a Benedictine Monestary. He has renounced sex entirely for the sake of the kingdom. I would (and thus far have) renounced certain sexual acts within marriage for the sake of the kingdom, and willingly do so if that is what is required. But I’m starting to wonder if it is fully within the will of God or not – I’d hate to lose people over such an issue – but of course to be lost over such an issue may be a sign of being rocky soil, too.

Still wondering…

 

[JoyfulLife]

You might try asking over at ewtn: ewtn.com/vexperts/question.asp

 

[ahs]

Where is this found explicitly in the scriptures or the magisterial documents/council documents?

Onan’s sin is almost universally the only biblical citation given, and it is a very unique situation.

The Catechism paragraphs I mentioned previously discuss this, as do Casti Conubii, Familiaris Consortio, Humanae Vitae, Theology of the Body and many others. All are available online at vatican.va website. Of coarse, I paraphrased and summarized, I did not quote the works, so you won’t find my words explicitly in those documents.

As to the Biblical citation of Onan being unique, yes it is, and for that very reason should be taken seriously. His situation was unique because he was punished with death…and the crime that some claim was the “true” crime he was guilty of was not punishable by death. That shows that his unique act of spilling his seed was what led to his death.

Further, even the Bible tells us that not everything that happened in those days is written in Scripture. Jesus established His Church and gave the Apostles authority in the Church as the first “Church Fathers”. Their authority handed to them by Christ enabled them to take the traditions they established and write those into Church Doctrine and even into what we would later know as “The Bible”. They passed that authority through the ages via Apostolic Succession. The Church itself has specific teachings about the marital act that you won’t find solely in the Bible. And you should not expect to find every teaching in the Bible…even the Bible tells us this (2 Thes 2:15 and 2 Thes 3:6). Further, for those who like to put their personal interpretations on the story of Onan instead of accepting what the Church interprets it as, read 2 Pet 1:20.

Questions: Is it a sin to touch my wife sexually if it doesn’t end in my climaxing in her vagina? Is that against natural law, too (i.e., using the “arousal function” of our bodies when not meaning to “finish the job” at that moment?) - for example, I’ll often come up and hug my wife from behind during the day, and this will occasionally lead to a more playful form of hugging etc…where is the line.

I greatly respect Mr. Evert and his ministry within the realm of Catholic Answers, but he too is merely a layman (and even theologians can and do differ on this issue…) He, along with Mr. West and others have come down on this side of the question, but their particular answers aren’t authoritative, and I’ve not seen anything other than an appeal to natural law.

Others will even go so far as to say that natural law strictly forbids any oral sex.

At what point does this become a matter for the couple to decide?
Is it possible that there is a flawed distinction here between “Sexual intercourse” and “Sexual actions” which if made more clearly could legitimize – in certain circumstances – the latter actions between a married couple open to life?

You’ll find the answers to your questions in the works that I named above (CCC and the Encyclicals and Papal letters, etc…)

For 2000 years, there was silence on this issue because people didn’t talk about the nuts and bolts of sex. Then our over-sexualized culture went berzerk, and when many catholic theologians had to come up with a quick and consistent answer, the answer came back along the West/Everet lines…

Actually, you can find Church teachings on human sexuality and marital relations as far back as the 100’s, and heavily pronounced in the 500’s. The Church was never silent on this issue.

 

[searching04]

I am with CredoEtMiror on this one.

Go through all of the books and CCC and teachings; account for priests saying couples can have a whomping good time and swing from the rafters. The only thing - the one and only thing - absolutely dictated under church teachings (not dogma) is where the man can climax.

For those who have been there, done that (come on now, we are adults), I believe the act of a couple bringing each other to orgasm orally can be and is highly unitive, as it is if they do so manually; it is allowed and even encouraged for the man to bring his wife to orgasm any way he needs so as to not leave her hanging. The reason it is highly unitive is each person is totally giving of and to the other of their body, out of love. It fits perfectly well within a marriage where a couple follows NFP because there are times when we do indeed need and not just want each other, and when getting pregnant is not an option.

The whole thing with sex having to be both unitive and procreative is, in my opinion, a way for the Church to control the actions of Catholics and scare us into behaving, to keep producing little Catholics, out of the fear that couples will focus only on the physical pleasure of sex and not have intercourse enough or at all. No intercourse, no kids.

Is oral sex to climax abusing sex? I don’t believe so and never have, not if both partners are doing so out of love for their God-given spouse.

Yes, church teachings say that for the man to climax anywhere but inside his wife is wrong, disordered, and all of that. It is not the same as dogma. Also, someone in one of these many posts on this subject stated that even when the church was working on this issue and the CCC, there were bishops/cardinals who disagreed and stated the only reasons the church banned such acts were social, not spiritual; I have not found that in research yet, but… So are those clergy any less guided by the Holy Spirit or was it that the majority of bishops decided against it or the Pope overruled them?

The church, in this teaching, is acting pre-emptively and presuming what is in the hearts of couples and even telling us that what we feel and believe with all of our hearts is wrong. Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[searching04]

I’ll add two more things or observations/questions.

There have been churches I have heard about who discussed this very issue and have said it is fine and normal within the confines of marriage (think it was non-demominational); I have never heard of other Christian faiths condemning it. Is the Catholic church alone? What do Protestant faiths say? Is everyone else going to hell over it if they are not taught the same thing?

And I also think that a reason the church prohibits the man from climaxing outside of the woman is that since it bans birth control overall, than even in the context of sex with a spouse and acting in love, oral or manual sex to climax for the man is banned as well. Can’t call one thing OK and not the others.

 

[choose_to_love]

@credo

“no real question about . . . general disposition to life”

How do you think you would feel if your spouse was generally disposed to fidelity, but every now and then was not faithful? I mean, most of the time she is, right?

 

[JoArtist]

It’s a good question for Jason Evert. Give him a call and let us know what you find out.

Jason Evert and others made it clear that foreplay is only to precede sex.

Have a read over here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=578622

Also, if you read there, you will see that female orgasm through foreplay isn’t supposed to be the goal. That’s after sex if sex-orgasm for her failed.

So that equals every time for many women. That is how it is for me. (Not to mention I cannot be manually stimulated due to pain it causes and only can achieve orgasm through oral sex.) Plus I know of some men who cannot orgasm through vaginal sex… what about them?

 

[searching04]

That’s an interpretation. What did I tell him? Take an NFP class, do it on infertile days or the second time around. And you missed " and unitive." Which is why I told him the wife has to be completely supportive. This can be very unitive.

BINGO !

It doesn’t say “or” unitive, you have to be isolated from both to be disordered.

Anyway, that’s my opinion, which is different from yours. Until some Bishop comes in here and says something definitive, that’s all we have.

 

[Nate13]

Biblical verses that go contrary to idea of contraception or using contraception:

Gn 1:27-28 (Gen 9:1, Gen 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver
1 Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons and 3 daughters to exalt him
1 Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obed-edom with 8 sons
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
Dt 7:13-14 - you will be blessed: no male or female barrenness
Gn 38:9-10 - Onan killed for spilling his seed on the ground.
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death
Lv 20:13 - if man lies with man, put to death (wasting seed) Note: there is no similar penalty for lesbian action or relations between single man single woman (Dt 22:28-29)
Lv 20:15 - if man lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 20:16 - women lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicle is called a defect and blemish
Dt 23:1 - no one who is castrated shall enter the assembly
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women (=childbearing)
1 Tim 2:11-15 - women saved thru the bearing of children
Act 5:1-11 Ananias/Saphira slain-withholding part of a gift
Gal 6:7-9 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit (this is a good one!)
Mt 21:19 , Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, Rv 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions
1 Cor 6:19-20 - body is a temple of the holy spirit, glorify God in body

alright anyone have any verses we can look at that say contraception is ok?

Also why is it that many people are perfectly happy to accept the truth and wisdom about almost every other doctrine Catholicism teaches except for this one, for which everyone all of sudden becomes a biblical scholar and can come up with their own interpretations?

 

[Nate13]

@Julia Mae
Most people talk about contraception preventing the procreative aspect of the sexual act, but they also prevent the unitive aspect. Actually this point is what the theology of the body mostly keys in on. I’m sure you would agree that some acts are more unitive than other’s correct? The key to understanding this is understanding the difference between Utilitarianism and Personal-ism. The use of contraception makes a person an object no matter how you spin it and embraces Utilitarianism while sexual intercourse without barriers is capable of allowing for sexual acts which embrace Personal-ism. What I think trips up a lot of people is Utilitarianism does form a bond between two people and at times this bond is actually quite strong especially when first falling in love with someone. This bond is set upon the basis of “I’ll take care of you, you take care of me” and makes both parties dependent on each other. We are called to a much greater kind of love though that mirrors the love between the Trinity and embraces the idea of Personal-ism. This requires a complete and total gift of ourselves as Christ himself made a complete gift of himself on the cross with no thought for himself. We give ourselves to each other with no thought of ourselves is when we achieve the kind of love God had for us. Oral sex involves at most one person making a gift of themselves while the other takes. Only vaginal intercourse allows for both individuals to give of themselves completely and become “one flesh” as we are called to do.

 

[Nate13]

Biblical verses that go contrary to idea of contraception or using contraception:

Gn 1:27-28 (Gen 9:1, Gen 35:11) - be fruitful and multiply
Ps 127:3-5 - children gift from God, blessed is a full quiver
1 Chr 25:5 - God gave 14 sons and 3 daughters to exalt him
1 Chr 26:4-5 - God indeed blessed Obed-edom with 8 sons
Hos 9:10-17 - Israel is punished with childlessness
Ex 23:25-26 - blessings promised: no miscarrying, barrenness
Dt 7:13-14 - you will be blessed: no male or female barrenness
Gn 38:9-10 - Onan killed for spilling his seed on the ground.
Dt 25:5-10 - penalty for defying Levirate law: not death
Lv 20:13 - if man lies with man, put to death (wasting seed) Note: there is no similar penalty for lesbian action or relations between single man single woman (Dt 22:28-29)
Lv 20:15 - if man lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 20:16 - women lies with animal, put to death (sterile sex)
Lv 21:17-20 - crushed testicle is called a defect and blemish
Dt 23:1 - no one who is castrated shall enter the assembly
Dt 25:11-12 - punishment for potential damage to genitals
Rom 1:25-27 - natural function of women (=childbearing)
1 Tim 2:11-15 - women saved thru the bearing of children
Act 5:1-11 Ananias/Saphira slain-withholding part of a gift
Gal 6:7-9 - God is not mocked-accepting pleasure, denying fruit (this is a good one!)
Mt 21:19 , Mk 11:14 - Jesus cursed fruitless fig tree
Gal 5:20, Rv 9:21, Rv 21:8 - Greek pharmakeia = abortifacient potions
1 Cor 6:19-20 - body is a temple of the holy spirit, glorify God in body

alright anyone have any verses we can look at that say contraception is ok?

Also why is it that many people are perfectly happy to accept the truth and wisdom about almost every other doctrine Catholicism teaches except for this one, for which everyone all of sudden becomes a biblical scholar and can come up with their own interpretations? I mean we have people that claim to understand the biblical scripture behind this concept yet couldn’t even start to describe where our views of Mary come from in scripture.

 

[mwncheesehead]

So that equals every time for many women. That is how it is for me. (Not to mention I cannot be manually stimulated due to pain it causes and only can achieve orgasm through oral sex.) Plus I know of some men who cannot orgasm through vaginal sex… what about them?

JoArtist, women can be brought to orgasm by means of oral sex within the context of normal marital relations. It is the husband in this discussion that cannot be brought to climax outside his wife’s body. It is the husband’s climax that must be in the proper place because this is in keeping with the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act. If OS is how you can reach climax within the marital act with your husband, that is fine.

 

[CredoEtMiror]

@Bookcat, I know Fr. Matthew personally!

Okay, so here’s a twist. Suppose a couple were to engage in oral sex to completion. Would subsequently taking some of the semen and inserting it into the woman (perhaps in a further sexual act, thus keeping the act all in the same particular sexual moment ), would that mitigate or remove the immoral nature – the act would then be open to life, right?

Alternately, should extra-vaginal ejaculation occur accidentally, could the gravity of this act (accidental and so not mortal) be rectified though the above means?

 

[dbacks5439]

@Bookcat, I know Fr. Matthew personally!

Okay, so here’s a twist. Suppose a couple were to engage in oral sex to completion. Would subsequently taking some of the semen and inserting it into the woman (perhaps in a further sexual act, thus keeping the act all in the same particular sexual moment ), would that mitigate or remove the immoral nature – the act would then be open to life, right?

Alternately, should extra-vaginal ejaculation occur accidentally, could the gravity of this act (accidental and so not mortal) be rectified though the above means?

Regarding your first scenario, no it is not permissible. One of the reasons why IFV is immoral is that it is not natural and sows disunity between the man and woman. Also, by the very intent to not climax inside the woman already makes the act sinful, regardless if semen is later placed inside the woman.

As to your second scenario, since it is accidental and the intent was to ejaculate inside the woman, the culpability is lessened. I would advise making an attempt to take the semen and place it inside the vagina as a way of making best of the situation.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

@Bookcat, I know Fr. Matthew personally!

Okay, so here’s a twist. Suppose a couple were to engage in oral sex to completion. Would subsequently taking some of the semen and inserting it into the woman (perhaps in a further sexual act, thus keeping the act all in the same particular sexual moment ), would that mitigate or remove the immoral nature – the act would then be open to life, right?

Alternately, should extra-vaginal ejaculation occur accidentally, could the gravity of this act (accidental and so not mortal) be rectified though the above means?

No, you are splitting hairs and making up ways to get around the requirement to unite with your wife in sexual intercourse.

It is not JUST the openness to life, it is also the unitive factor, which has been explained several times.

 

[mwncheesehead]

@Bookcat, I know Fr. Matthew personally!

Okay, so here’s a twist. Suppose a couple were to engage in oral sex to completion. Would subsequently taking some of the semen and inserting it into the woman (perhaps in a further sexual act, thus keeping the act all in the same particular sexual moment ), would that mitigate or remove the immoral nature – the act would then be open to life, right?

Alternately, should extra-vaginal ejaculation occur accidentally, could the gravity of this act (accidental and so not mortal) be rectified though the above means?

No and no. Taking semen and inserting it into the woman is artificial insemination. Why would the situation you describe be any different than insemination? There’s no unitive aspect present. If ejaculation truly occurs outside the vagina by accident, then it’s not a grave act and there’s no need to rectify the situation.

Why CredoEtMiror are you so desperate to justify orgasm outside your wife?