oral sex with my wife ok?

[CuriousInIL]

From the Catechism

(bold mine)

Please note that when reading the aforementioned sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church you can readily see the emphasis on procreation. How can procreation happen? Only one way (as accepted by the Church) with the joining of the male sperm with the female egg. How does that happen? With the male’s orgasm inside his wife’s vagina.

Please understand, my question is not where does the male’s orgasm have to occur, it is what is the Church teaching to support the comment “The Church requires a man to achieve orgasm (if possible).”
Or, perhaps more to the point, what “initial” activity is enough to trigger the requirement of male orgasm.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Please understand, my question is not where does the male’s orgasm have to occur, it is what is the Church teaching to support the comment “The Church requires a man to achieve orgasm (if possible).”
Or, perhaps more to the point, what “initial” activity is enough to trigger the requirement of male orgasm.

Again reread my post. The orgasm is there for one reason, procreation. Hence the aforementioned sections of the Catechism

The Church does not say that oral sex/stimulation is wrong. Please refer to the teachings of the late, great JPII.

 

[newbetx]

1. Sincere people come here for guidance. Shouldn’t we give them what they need to seek and find the Truth? Like Catholic APPROVED text, Catechist/Biblical references, Dogma, and other Catholic endorsed publications…

2)“Never argue with a fool. Most folks can’t tell the difference.” We are all entitled to our opinions. However, we appear as idiots while we fight and nit pick each other. The enemies of the Church must simply LOVE to see this. The Church is consistent; what I see here, is not. We can ill afford to battle each other “on the fine points” and end up “winning” the war that rages against the Church.

1. The forum costs about 50 cents per post at this rate. Must it cost us this resource to repeatedly debate one’s personal opinion?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Again reread my post. The orgasm is there for one reason, procreation. Hence the aforementioned sections of the Catechism

The Church does not say that oral sex/stimulation is wrong. Please refer to the teachings of the late, great JPII.

I have reread your post and I cannot see how it addresses the issue I raised.

I have no idea if the second part of your post is addressed to me. If it is, I have no idea why. I have not said or implied that oral sex/stimulation is wrong.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1. The forum costs about 50 cents per post at this rate. Must it cost us this resource to repeatedly debate one’s personal opinion?

What do you mean by this and how are you figuring the costs?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I have reread your post and I cannot see how it addresses the issue I raised.

I have no idea if the second part of your post is addressed to me. If it is, I have no idea why. I have not said or implied that oral sex/stimulation is wrong.

The issue that you raised is where does the Church state that the male must have an orgasm, correct? If that is the case then you can see that the Church teaches that the act must be procreative, therefore the orgasm is needed for that to happen.

The second part refers to your statement about “what “initial” activity is enough to trigger the requirement of male orgasm” which I read to mean what foreplay is enought to trigger…and if I misread, I apologize.

 

[darthsmozers]

I have not heard of it even Writing down the title, and I will look for it. I do get a little nervous though, as I’ve never felt used by my husband (or he by me), I know we’ve done stuff the church teaches against, and I’m afraid of being told that I know religion is more than what we feel (otherwise, what’s the point), but I fear being told what I feel is true in my heart is not. Does that make sense? But I don’t want to be in the dark either.

I do love John Paul II as well, he’s another plus on the Catholic column So I’ll look for that too, I’m interested in what he had to say.

And thank you!

From personal experience, let me say that the clarity that the Catholic Church provides makes once-fulfilling things suddenly that much paler compared to the joy of living in the truth. I totally recommend picking up the book by Christopher West. prepared to be floored! It is amazing

 

[CuriousInIL]

The issue that you raised is where does the Church state that the male must have an orgasm, correct? If that is the case then you can see that the Church teaches that the act must be procreative, therefore the orgasm is needed for that to happen.

The second part refers to your statement about “what “initial” activity is enough to trigger the requirement of male orgasm” which I read to mean what foreplay is enought to trigger…and if I misread, I apologize.

Then, what constitiutes the “act”?
I mean, it is not required every day, right? Nor every time a couple talks, right? Nor every time that a man kisses his wife or a woman her husband, correct?

And (I suppose but do not know and still have not seen anything that states this), that if there is intercourse, then there is a “requirement” for male orgasm?

What is the line that triggers this requirement?

Yes, my question is what triggers the requirement for a male orgasm. I have no idea how that question leads to your comment.

 

[dessert]

I have always heard that the marriage bed is undefiled.

Meaning anything goes.

Dessert

 

[CuriousInIL]

I have always heard that the marriage bed is undefiled.

Meaning anything goes.

Dessert

I have heard that too. I do not think it reflects Catholic Church teaching.

It comes from Hebrews 13:4

1 Let the charity of the brotherhood abide in you. 2 And hospitality do not forget; for by this some, being not aware of it, have entertained angels. 3 Remember them that are in bands, as if you were bound with them; and them that labour, as being yourselves also in the body. 4 Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your manners be without covetousness, contented with such things as you have; for he hath said: I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee.

I think it means we are to keep the marriage bed undefiled; not that it remains that way no matter what is practiced there.

 

[dessert]

I have heard that too. I do not think it reflects Catholic Church teaching.

It comes from Hebrews 13:4

I think it means we are to keep the marriage bed undefiled; not that it remains that way no matter what is practiced there.

Yes I agree, There is a diff as to how the Hebrew law viewed it and the NT looked a lot about how the ethics were and morals.
Dessert

 

[newbetx]

What do you mean by this and how are you figuring the costs?

Near as I can tell, there are about 4000 posts per week. According to the support request letter I recieved, it costs about $10,000 per month to run this operation… rough math says about half a buck per post…

Funny, the only thing from my post that is commented upon to appears to be about a nit.

CuriousIL… I’m glad you are seeking answers. What I found to be useful has been posted here and elsewhere. When we tend to look at things at a micro level, it is similar to using a single phrase of the bible to judge everything on. This is where we hear arguments against Church teachings… But I have finally understood that the teachings come from a wider view of things. The way CW portrays things, backs up and takes a wider view and then takes you down to the details was a great benefit for me to understand. If you don’t read TOB, you’ll only get bits and pieces, like one always gets here in debates. As CW says… Take the whole package or none of it. When things are described as a package, it all makes logical sense. THEN, I could finally understand my folly and follow the Church and lead my family. I hope you can too. Peace!

 

[mamacita]

Anal sex is only a part of the discussion in that it is another example of a permissible activity during foreplay that I find unedifying.

By the way, we have discussed our attitudes toward oral/anal sex and thankfully they are on the same page.

The OP was asking about ORAL SEX, not ANAL SEX

 

[blessedtoo]

I tend to think that I disagree; but, before I do, which “issue” exactly are you meaning?

There are no “rules” in the Catechism regarding specific non-coital sex acts. As far as I know, there has never been a Pope who has spoken dogmatically on specific non-coital sex acts. The USCCB has never released any documents about specific non-coital sex acts.

Anything else that is written by apologists, theologians, priests, individual Bishops is simply opinion. There are equal numbers of opinions, written and voiced, to support either side of this debate.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Then, what constitiutes the “act”?

The “act” is the marital embrace, sexual intercourse.

I mean, it is not required every day, right?

What?

Nor every time a couple talks, right? Nor every time that a man kisses his wife or a woman her husband, correct?

This line of reasoning makes no sense at all. I am not sure where you are going with this.

And (I suppose but do not know and still have not seen anything that states this), that if there is intercourse, then there is a “requirement” for male orgasm?

Yep, that is correct and you saw that in the references to the Catechism that were posted earlier. Sexual intercourse must be unitive and procreative. Therefore, in order for it to be procreative the husband must orgasm inside his wife or it cannot be procreative.

What is the line that triggers this requirement?

Yes, my question is what triggers the requirement for a male orgasm. I have no idea how that question leads to your comment.

If a husband and wife participate in any foreplay that will be a part of the marital act, of sexual intercourse it must end with the husband’s orgasm inside of his wife or it is a sinful act.

(Mind you there are circumstances that are unforseen like a child knocking on the door or something like that that may interupt the act, but then you must fall back on the intent of the act. Did the husband and wife intend to complete the sexual act in the manner specified above? Or did they intend to just have foreplay and not complete the act?)

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

There are no “rules” in the Catechism regarding specific non-coital sex acts. As far as I know, there has never been a Pope who has spoken dogmatically on specific non-coital sex acts. The USCCB has never released any documents about specific non-coital sex acts.

Anything else that is written by apologists, theologians, priests, individual Bishops is simply opinion. There are equal numbers of opinions, written and voiced, to support either side of this debate.

I am assuming that you have not read the Theology of the Body where Pope John Paul II talked specifically about this? You may want to look into it. Or you can simply review Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners that summarizes this teaching.

Again the Church has not said that such acts are morally wrong, if you stay that they are, the burden of proof falls upon you to provide documents that state your position.

Are you trying to say that the husband and wife are to simply get into bed and have sex and then it is over? No other physical act is allowed in this act?

 

[blessedtoo]

So we should just let the man do his thing, roll over and go to sleep? How unfulfilling and unfair is that? There is nothing inherently evil about it which is why the church has no official teaching on it.

I’m sorry but this sounds like it’s right out of the pages of some Betty Friedan manifesto. It sounds like the twaddle you hear on Oprah or Donahue. If physical satisfaction is what determines whether the marital act is fulfilling, or fair (whatever that means) then I think our priorities are terribly confused.

Are you saying that *you *know how Jesus would react to a husband and a wife engaging in oral sex?

I know how He would react in my bedroom. I have always known, even the very first time this “act” was tried.

You say that this post speaks volumes about how people are attached to the idea of what the marital act should include. Don’t you think you’re being a bit hypocritical?

How?

If it bothers your conscience then don’t do it. I think the problem is that some see oral sex as “dirty.”

Sorry. Never said that. I think it’s unnatural and un-holy. Entirely different.

 

[JFonseka]

I think JPII stated in the theology of the body that it was not ok for a man to receive it from his wife, but ok the other way around, i’m not entirely sure about this though, the reason being women take a lot longer to orgasm, and pleasure of course is an important of sex, not just procreation

The man however does not need oral sex for climaxing, and is therefore rather seen as lust, not love, because he doesn’t need it for climax.

 

[Nepenthe]

If it’s a matter of promoting human warmth and understanding, I would pay so much more.

Fortunately, I never have to be concerned about sexual gratification and fulfillment. Both Mirdath and I would no more deny each other such than we would let each other starve.

 

[NoxSineStellae]

If it’s a matter of promoting human warmth and understanding, I would pay so much more.

Fortunately, I never have to be concerned about sexual gratification and fulfillment. Both Mirdath and I would no more deny each other such than we would let each other starve.

:clapping:

I’m disturbed that, for some people, believing in God makes them think they are also omniscient, so that they can tell others that what they’re feeling and know isn’t really love, but idolatry.