Question about oral

[brendenseth]

Me and my wife have decided to abstain from sex for the time being because she just had a baby and we don’t want anymore right now. My question is am I allowed to give her oral sex but not receive it? I know it’s a sin for me to receive it but what about her? Thanks for the help.

 

[Allegra]

I think it’s still a sin, even if it’s a woman.

 

[AdriannaJean]

Yes, it is still a sin. Any sexual act has to be 1) open to procreation (which oral sex is not) and 2) within the context of marriage and 3) unifying for the couple in order to not be sinful. Oral sex is fine as foreplay to vaginal intercourse without contraception, but on its own it isn’t. Sorry but good on ya for wanting to please your wife!

 

[Ron_Conte]

USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

Pope Paul VI: “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life… the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which ‘is on the side of life’ teaches that ‘each and every marriage act must remain open “per se” to the transmission of life.’ ‘This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.’ " (CCC 2366; inner quotes from: Familiaris Consortio, n. 30; Humanae Vitae, n. 11; Humanae Vitae, n. 12, cf. Casti Connubii.)

If a sexual act is non-marital, or non-unitive, or non-procreative, then that act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. No intention, purpose, circumstance, or context can justify an intrinsically evil act.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Me and my wife have decided to abstain from sex for the time being because she just had a baby and we don’t want anymore right now. My question is am I allowed to give her oral sex but not receive it? I know it’s a sin for me to receive it but what about her? Thanks for the help.

Yes, it’s sinful.

NFP can be rather effective and it is acceptable to the Church

 

[James_Miller]

No it is not a sin if she is nursing.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

No it is not a sin if she is nursing.

I’d like to see your sources on this.

 

[James_Miller]

In this case the man is practicing periodic continence. The wife while nursing is infertile.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 and 2375

 

[GraceDK]

Me and my wife have decided to abstain from sex for the time being because she just had a baby and we don’t want anymore right now. My question is am I allowed to give her oral sex but not receive it? I know it’s a sin for me to receive it but what about her? Thanks for the help.

No these things are not allowed. Sexual genital stimulation must happen within the context of full marital embrace. This is clear in the catechism.

 

[searching04]

Yes, it is still a sin. Any sexual act has to be 1) open to procreation (which oral sex is not) and 2) within the context of marriage and 3) unifying for the couple in order to not be sinful. Oral sex is fine as foreplay to vaginal intercourse without contraception, but on its own it isn’t. Sorry but good on ya for wanting to please your wife!

Ditto on the wanting to please your wife, but the bigger question is do you think you can go there and not want or need release yourself? Don’t set yourself or your wife up for heartache and temptation.

Unfortunately, yes, it is OK as part of foreplay, but not on its own.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The intention (or purpose) to use one act as a preparation for a moral act of natural marital relations is not sufficient to justify that preparatory act (i.e. that act of foreplay). The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each act must have three good fonts of morality:

1. the intention or purpose for which the act was chosen.
2. the moral object (intrinsically evil acts have an evil moral object)
3. the circumstances, especially the good and bad consequences.

So a good purpose, by itself, cannot justify any act. Foreplay is only moral if it has three good fonts, not only one.

As for non-procreative sexual acts, these are explicitly forbidden by Catholic teaching:
USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

In Catholic moral teaching, an act is a knowing choice. Each decision, each free choice, each deliberate choice is a separate act. Each act must be evaluated on its own merits as to its morality.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” (CCC, n. 1749).

 

[searching04]

The intention (or purpose) to use one act as a preparation for a moral act of natural marital relations is not sufficient to justify that preparatory act (i.e. that act of foreplay).

Says who, and exactly what, and where? By your interpretation, no foreplay of any kind whatsoever would be allowed.

The Magisterium teaches that, to be moral, each act must have three good fonts of morality:

1. the intention or purpose for which the act was chosen.
2. the moral object (intrinsically evil acts have an evil moral object)
3. the circumstances, especially the good and bad consequences.

So a good purpose, by itself, cannot justify any act. Foreplay is only moral if it has three good fonts, not only one.

As for non-procreative sexual acts, these are explicitly forbidden by Catholic teaching:
USCCB Catechism: “Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child.” (p. 409)

This is talking about acts leading to climax for the man; not foreplay. Nowhere is anything forbidden if it is foreplay (except for where the man climaxes), leading to intercourse.

In Catholic moral teaching, an act is a knowing choice. Each decision, each free choice, each deliberate choice is a separate act. Each act must be evaluated on its own merits as to its morality.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.” (CCC, n. 1749).

 

[ouioui]

It is not allowed. I recommend the book “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. You can find the answers you are looking for and more. It is a great resource for married Catholics.

 

[kelvinf]

This act is simply unnatural. Period.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is not just a sin to divorce foreplay from the marital act. It would ultimately be an extraordinarily frustrating habit, and not a frustration suffered towards a good end, either.

 

[twoangels]

Me and my wife have decided to abstain from sex for the time being because she just had a baby and we don’t want anymore right now. My question is am I allowed to give her oral sex but not receive it? I know it’s a sin for me to receive it but what about her? Thanks for the help.

Yes, it would be sinful. That said, you should not have to abstain that long. I would suggest looking into LAM. Its a little less strict than ecological breastfeeding, but ecological breastfeeding is pretty insane. I would then encourage her to resume NFP charting. She needs to learn how to monitor the return of her fertility. It’ll be tricky as her body prepares to ovulate as you have two competing hormones that can create very long mucus patches as she gets closer to ovulation. Once she starts ovulating again, it should be more straight forward.

 

[El_White]

Oral sex is, by its very nature, not procreative. It is, by its very nature, foreplay.

Foreplay is part of God’s plan. I mean, after all, you’re not some pervs who never do coitus and only do “porn star” oral and anal, right?

So stop worrying so much and enjoy each other.

 

[Carmentalis]

I am pleased by some of the answers here, the ones that are CORRECT.

No. It is always wrong. Just because you make sure it ends in the SOLE right sex act doesn’t make it less sinful. The unnatural, filthy act alone stands alone to be judged, in the end you only corrupt the one mutually, equally, fully giving sex act by adding in unnatural, sinful sex acts. It will prove it’s nature is SIN by what it ends up doing from the very soul within. Marriages break and many priests dismay when they try to counsel them from the brink. They all say that there is no one in those sessions who’d dare try to kid themselves or anyone else further that it is unitive somehow to do those rancid things. It is disordered and feral. It is not natural nor is it in accordance of practicing Christian basics. Christianity always values chastity and abstinance. Christ was chaste. Mary was Chaste. Nuns and Priests are chaste. Your wife doesn’t want sex? Then don’t do unnatural gravely sinful sex acts, respect and honour her, and require that from the one who is supposed to love you yourself.

A few loud ‘catholics’ want to teach that its fine and good so long as eventually you do the one sole moral sex act, but this is profane. They try to circumvent and corrupt true teaching, morality, conscience and how God created sex= procreation.

The unitive, mutally and fully giving sex act as is pleasureable and enriching and fulfilling to the degree that there is no desire for anything but the joining together from the souls all layers of being, and become one. In fact, it is so wonderful and glorious as God intended that I feel sorry for those who could imagine doing anything else. Yuck. That’s not what that is made for. It’s either made to be joined together or to expel that which the body doesn’t need anymore. Should value people as Temples of the Holy Spirit and if the Spirit of God lives in you, then you would have the same instinct as many Catholics do that these things are sinful and gravely so. They aren’t even desireable when you love truly fully and desire uniting souls and bodies into one.

but the simple thing is that we practice moderation as Christians in marriage or otherwise. We value morality, love, chastity, and frankly, The Spirit of God in us forbids us to do sinful things and He is always teaching and improving us to do good and avoid wrong.

The act stands alone judged, whether or not you eventually do the right act, this one is wrong. The right thing should always be what you are doing, and it should be enough for you. if not, i truly pity you and hope that you’ll look for the answers and improve rather than sin. The end doesn’t justify evil means. I will not soothe your conscience and kid you into believing that it is less than a sin just because you eventually do the one right act. It stands alone. That’s trying to be evasive and fool yourselves and God.

Easy. The act itself is sinful = yes.
sin = don’t do it.

Natural Sex= The act itself is unitive, procreative, mutually and equally giving and sharing. =Do that.

Don’t indulge other things or you’ll find out the bad way that their nature was not merely sinful, but gravely so. These things always prove themselves to be poison.

Out of loving concern for the spouse the man should make sure that their wife is into sex. This is what the Chatechism says. And visa versa I shouldn’t wonder.That means you take the time to love her. For me and my husband, that means just to pamper and love me. I’m rarely not in the mood because we connect from the soul level into all layers of our being. That is enriching, fulfilling and the way God intended sex to be, for marriage to be. We have no desire to do anything other that what is correct. Even after my child. If either of us, and we’ve both had occasions, where we’d rather abstain, then the other respects that happily and easily. We don’t degrade each other or even imagine doing anything than what is right, natural, morally good. We have a trigger anyway, his idea and from the first time, so that merely hugging and kissing is merely hugging and kissing. Nothing means sex but sex. And that trigger by association is quite powerful. And that isn’t fiddling around with each other. It is simply kissing each others wrists. And if either or us isn’t in the mood, if he has had a long day or myself, then we simply hold each other in love. We’re not slaves of anything. We need and love only each other, not sex. And unnatural sinful sex acts? He was offended and didn’t even know that they exist. Neither of us are anything short of disgusted they exist.

And in truth those catholics who try to dull teaching to suit themselves are not so stupid nor their conscience dulled enough that they don’t get on some level the fact that those actions are self indulgent and immoral. You merely try to get around that FACT by eventually doing the right act. That only just shames yourself and your partner ultimately. If God is with them in their heart, then they’d have a natural instinct that these things are vile and undesireable and not practicing virtue.
Lie to yourself and indulge in sin if you want.

As for my husband and myself, we have a magnificent happy marriage based on Church teachings and on God’s lead. We didn’t even know these things existed, and now that I do I am disgusted. As Christians, we prefer to cultivate virtue.

So by my shock and dismay I warn you. Such things are grave. Now you know.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I am pleased by some of the answers here, the ones that are CORRECT.

No. It is always wrong. Just because you make sure it ends in the SOLE right sex act doesn’t make it less sinful. The unnatural, filthy act alone stands alone to be judged, in the end you only corrupt the one mutually, equally, fully giving sex act by adding in unnatural, sinful sex acts. It will prove it’s nature is SIN by what it ends up doing from the very soul within. Marriages break and many priests dismay when they try to counsel them from the brink. They all say that there is no one in those sessions who’d dare try to kid themselves or anyone else further that it is unitive somehow to do those rancid things. It is disordered and feral. It is not natural nor is it in accordance of practicing Christian basics. Christianity always values chastity and abstinance. Christ was chaste. Mary was Chaste. Nuns and Priests are chaste. Your wife doesn’t want sex? Then don’t do unnatural gravely sinful sex acts, respect and honour her, and require that from the one who is supposed to love you yourself.

A few loud ‘catholics’ want to teach that its fine and good so long as eventually you do the one sole moral sex act, but this is profane. They try to circumvent and corrupt true teaching, morality, conscience and how God created sex= procreation.

The unitive, mutally and fully giving sex act as is pleasureable and enriching and fulfilling to the degree that there is no desire for anything but the joining together from the souls all layers of being, and become one. In fact, it is so wonderful and glorious as God intended that I feel sorry for those who could imagine doing anything else. Yuck. That’s not what that is made for. It’s either made to be joined together or to expel that which the body doesn’t need anymore. Should value people as Temples of the Holy Spirit and if the Spirit of God lives in you, then you would have the same instinct as many Catholics do that these things are sinful and gravely so. They aren’t even desireable when you love truly fully and desire uniting souls and bodies into one.

but the simple thing is that we practice moderation as Christians in marriage or otherwise. We value morality, love, chastity, and frankly, The Spirit of God in us forbids us to do sinful things and He is always teaching and improving us to do good and avoid wrong.

The act stands alone judged, whether or not you eventually do the right act, this one is wrong. The right thing should always be what you are doing, and it should be enough for you. if not, i truly pity you and hope that you’ll look for the answers and improve rather than sin. The end doesn’t justify evil means. I will not soothe your conscience and kid you into believing that it is less than a sin just because you eventually do the one right act. It stands alone. That’s trying to be evasive and fool yourselves and God.

Easy. The act itself is sinful = yes.
sin = don’t do it.

Natural Sex= The act itself is unitive, procreative, mutually and equally giving and sharing. =Do that.

Don’t indulge other things or you’ll find out the bad way that their nature was not merely sinful, but gravely so. These things always prove themselves to be poison.

Out of loving concern for the spouse the man should make sure that their wife is into sex. This is what the Chatechism says. And visa versa I shouldn’t wonder.That means you take the time to love her. For me and my husband, that means just to pamper and love me. I’m rarely not in the mood because we connect from the soul level into all layers of our being. That is enriching, fulfilling and the way God intended sex to be, for marriage to be. We have no desire to do anything other that what is correct. Even after my child. If either of us, and we’ve both had occasions, where we’d rather abstain, then the other respects that happily and easily. We don’t degrade each other or even imagine doing anything than what is right, natural, morally good. We have a trigger anyway, his idea and from the first time, so that merely hugging and kissing is merely hugging and kissing. Nothing means sex but sex. And that trigger by association is quite powerful. And that isn’t fiddling around with each other. It is simply kissing each others wrists. And if either or us isn’t in the mood, if he has had a long day or myself, then we simply hold each other in love. We’re not slaves of anything. We need and love only each other, not sex. And unnatural sinful sex acts? He was offended and didn’t even know that they exist. Neither of us are anything short of disgusted they exist.

And in truth those catholics who try to dull teaching to suit themselves are not so stupid nor their conscience dulled enough that they don’t get on some level the fact that those actions are self indulgent and immoral. You merely try to get around that FACT by eventually doing the right act. That only just shames yourself and your partner ultimately. If God is with them in their heart, then they’d have a natural instinct that these things are vile and undesireable and not practicing virtue.
Lie to yourself and indulge in sin if you want.

As for my husband and myself, we have a magnificent happy marriage based on Church teachings and on God’s lead. We didn’t even know these things existed, and now that I do I am disgusted. As Christians, we prefer to cultivate virtue.

So by my shock and dismay I warn you. Such things are grave. Now you know.

Again, I must ask you to show me where the Church says oral and manual stimulation are sinful. You can’t. Why? Because the Church has no problem with these things. I also sense that you are a troll and am going to start ignoring every one of your posts if you don’t start responding and answering my questions.

 

[Rau]

I am also perplexed by those who seek to rule out foreplay. How fine grained do the rules of sex need to be? Must we specify where one can touch? For how long? And how? I understand the church teaches all foreplay is fine so long as the ultimate objective is the man finishing in the woman. If someone believes the teaching is otherwise, please show me this teaching.