Sexuality Question

[Mayo]

I beleive that the word Intrinsically acts are sins of the flesh or if you like sins of a sexual nature which are mortal sins.
Another way of saying it is sins of imorallity.

Mayo

 

[blessedtoo]

With all due respect, what you have just offered is you opinion as the Church has never said that oral sex/oral stimulation within the marital act is immoral or evil. Actually JPII taught the exact opposite, that it is beautiful and regarded as an act of love.

Please provide for us the excerpt from TOB where JPII states that oral sex/stimulations is fine within the marital act. Supporters of this practice are quick to use TOB as a defense for something that falls under the definition of sodomy and, until about 25 years ago, was not only immoral but illegal.

Please provide this specific statement from JPII.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Please provide for us the excerpt from TOB where JPII states that oral sex/stimulations is fine within the marital act. Supporters of this practice are quick to use TOB as a defense for something that falls under the definition of sodomy and, until about 25 years ago, was not only immoral but illegal.

Please provide this specific statement from JPII.

With all due respect, I have seen the posts that you have put on the different threads concerning this issue and as it stands there is not Church document that specifically states that you can or cannot have oral stimulation as a means of foreplay before the marital embrace. Therefore, it is not disallowed. I do not have the time to find specific quotes from TOTB for you right now, but if you have the time, here is a link

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Again, I will ask, if oral stimulation is not ok as foreplay, then what is allowed? the spouses simply kiss and then start to have sexual intercourse? What, in your opinion, would then be allowed as foreplay? Everyone wants to come out against oral sex/stimulation, but there is no one yet that seems to want to answer that question for me.

Lastly, as it has been said before, if you are against oral sex/stimulation then you do not have to perform this in your marriage. But to tell others that it is wrong is not fair either. There is no document that states this and to say that the Church has that stance, you have to provide an official document that states otherwise. Granted, there is not official document that states taht oral sex is permissable and a lot of the teachings are that of Humane Vitae, Love and Responsibility, Theology of the Body and The Good News About Sex and Marriage.

From Christopher West:

“The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).”

Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, expresses the following thoughts concerning the legitimacy of oral sex (or stimulation) as a means of foreplay:

“According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration…On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.”

 

[blessedtoo]

With all due respect, I have seen the posts that you have put on the different threads concerning this issue and as it stands there is not Church document that specifically states that you can or cannot have oral stimulation as a means of foreplay before the marital embrace.

Great! I’m glad someone is reading the links I provided! And it appears that we agree that there is no official Church teaching that states such a thing. Basically, we are presenting personal OPINIONS on a very sensitive issue, and as such, we should all be careful to seek the truth and not just the easiest and most confortable answer.

We might also be able to agree that, while there is presently no official teaching on the specific acts that are considered permissable, there certainly was, at one time, a prohibition on acts that were understood to fall under the same category we are trying to squeeze our interpretations out of. Because acts of sodomy were universally condemned, both in Church teaching and civil law, and because the definition of these acts do not require “completion” in order for them to be considered sodomy, one would have to question the wisdom of so cavalierly dismissing the prohibitions against them. While you seem to favor assuming that the Church’s relative silence on the specifics indicates they would permit such acts, I lean more in the direction of caution considering that, at one time, such acts were universally considered immoral. My position continues to be that unless the Church addresses this directly (like She did on the matter of eating meat on Friday), one should thoroughly inform their conscience and approach such decisions carefully.

Again, I will ask, if oral stimulation is not ok as foreplay, then what is allowed? the spouses simply kiss and then start to have sexual intercourse? What, in your opinion, would then be allowed as foreplay? Everyone wants to come out against oral sex/stimulation, but there is no one yet that seems to want to answer that question for me.

IMO, mouth to genital activity is unnatural and immoral as is self-stimulation. As well, activities which involve the digestive system are contrary to natural law. Prior to the advent of the so called sexual revolution, people were engaging in the marital embrace quite contentedly, it would seem, without allowing all forms of sexual license into their beds. It seems they survived and flourished!

Lastly, as it has been said before, if you are against oral sex/stimulation then you do not have to perform this in your marriage. But to tell others that it is wrong is not fair either.

I have made no statement personally that it is wrong for anyone else. I have provided links that present the argument that it is not as clear cut as folks on CAF would have you believe. I have encouraged folks to thoroughly research the issue before making a decision. Like you, I believe it is not fair to blindly tell others that something is acceptable based simply on the opinions of an oft-quoted theologian. And I am not simply starting threads to express my opinion - I am responding, as are you, to honest questions posed by earnest Catholics seeking the truth.

 

[Loopy]

Intrinsically evil acts are alway immoral, regardless of circumstance or intention.

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil.

Therefore, such acts cannot be justified by calling them foreplay, nor by engaging in these acts only partially, nor by combing them with the moral act of marital relations.

The Church has always taught that intrinsically evil acts are never justified under any circumstance.

Mr. Conte,

Please consider this.

Suppose that you live in Red China, which has a 1 child policy. Your wife is pregnant with her second child, and you know that health officials, if they find out, will terminate her pregnancy. (This ACTUALLY occurs in China). Your wife separates from you and the health officials come knocking at your door asking where she lives. You know where she lives, but you also know that if you give them the address, they will force an abortion of your child. So, you have two choices:

(1) Lie to the Health Officials and tell them you don’t know where she went, and then contact her and tell her to go into hiding, or leave the country, so she can birth the child

(2) Tell the Health Officials where she lives, and they’ll force her to have an abortion.

Morally, I think everyone would choose (1). Thus, you are lying, intentionally deceiving, for the sake of the unborn baby. So, under your formula:

The Church has always taught that intrinsically evil acts are never justified under any circumstance

in this circumstance you are lying, lying is intrinsically evil, and the lying is justified. The “bad act” becomes the right thing to do, when coupled w/the intention of preserving the life of the unborn.

So, I think that logically speaking, your statement fails.

To get back to the circumstances of sexual relations, if a man and woman are having “natural” sex, and the man stimulates the woman at this time so she can experience climax, the natural sexual act is preserved as procreative and unitive, and the stimulation can be “mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” as set forth in Casti Connubii.

The natural act is preserved and the woman receives mutual aid, love, and the quieting of concupiscence. And the otherwise bad act of stimulating the organs for pleasure (2352 - By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure) is no longer bad because it is placed in context of a conjugal act and has a purpose other than solitary pleasure.

I could write more on this issue, but I hope this suffices.

 

[New_Yorker]

Loopy has an interesting point, here. It seems to legitimize stimulation of the female **during **the “conjugal act” so that it does not detract from, or replace, the procreative dimension of the act, and has a unitive quality within the act. This reminds me of an oft-quoted statement from John Paul II, before he was Pope, about the differences in the curves of sexual arousal and climax between the sexes.

It is odd that, on this basic issue, theologians and priests are all over the place, and the Magisterium has not clarified it.

 

[madacz]

Alright Alright Alright Already!!!
What If The Husband Uses His Hand For Her To Achieve ? What Iis The Difference Then?
And Speaking Of The Digestive System We Eat With Our Hands Too Not Just Our Mouth. Then The Question Of What Is Foreplay… His My Husband Not Supposed To Touch My Breast??? I Might As Well Be Fully Clothed With A Slit In My Jeans So He Won’t Accdentaly Touch Something He Shouldnt Except My Uterus
Sorry About The Caps I Cant See Small Font

 

[Traddy]

It’s totally alright for the man to do that as long as it’s in context of the total event of sex. He can stimulate her to climax before, during, and after since her orgasm is not directly related to the procreation of human life.

His My Husband Not Supposed To Touch My Breast??? I Might As Well Be Fully Clothed With A Slit In My Jeans So He Won’t Accdentaly Touch Something He Shouldnt Except My Uterus

Who said a husband can’t caress his wife’s breasts? They’re sexual as well as food producing. I don’t know where you came out with the clothing part in your post…

 

[gam197]

originally posted by Goldy
he couple can’t currently have sex because she recently gave birth, and her doctor said no sex until at least six weeks after delivery.

I agree it is not long to wait but I didn’t wait. I would go about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks postpartum and I was fine. Also before pregnancy they would say wait one month. I never had a problem going closer than that.

I understand why they want women to wait but sometimes it is difficult on the husband.Maybe I was wrong not to wait but I felt pretty healthy.

 

[Loopy]

Still no answer from Mr. Conte? Have I changed his opinion?

 

[Seatuck]

I agree it is not long to wait but I didn’t wait. I would go about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks postpartum and I was fine. Also before pregnancy they would say wait one month. I never had a problem going closer than that.

I understand why they want women to wait but sometimes it is difficult on the husband.Maybe I was wrong not to wait but I felt pretty healthy.

You weren’t wrong not to wait but you might have been at risk for an infection. Every woman is different but for most it’s closer to the 4 week mark for things to heal and see a return back to normal of the ability to fight infection in that area . You can’t really observe the little tears that occur in the uterus .You of course had the right to make a decision on your own course of action.

 

[justaperson]

i agree with madacz, stimulation can occur without the act ending in intercourse. What about during natural family planning and it’s the no-go time, that doesn’t mean the man and woman cannot enjoy one another and thier bodies.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

i agree with madacz, stimulation can occur without the act ending in intercourse. What about during natural family planning and it’s the no-go time, that doesn’t mean the man and woman cannot enjoy one another and thier bodies.

If your referring to “mutual masturbation”, no, they can’t. If it’s “no go time” during NFP, you abstain, period. You can kiss and hug, and be intimate in nonsexual ways, but not getting each other so worked up someone climaxes.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[justaperson]

I dont understand why that is, when we hug and kiss we get worked up anyway, and when we touch each other we get more worked up. why is it bad for two married people loving each other to enjoy one another with out it ending up in intercourse. some people actually teach that you should not always end that way because it teaches you how to please your partner.

 

[peary1]

I had asked this question in another forum but didn’t see what happened to it, so here goes: Does the Church have an official teaching regarding sexual acts (masterbation, oral sex, etc.) WITHIN a marriage? The situation is unique: The couple can’t currently have sex because she recently gave birth, and her doctor said no sex until at least six weeks after delivery. Is this a sin? Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.(Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. **

 

[kage_ar]

He Won’t Accdentaly Touch Something He Shouldnt Except My Uterus

Ummmm, if your husband is touching your uterus, I’d hope he is a surgeon.

 

[Julianna]

Whatever goes on in your marital bedroom in none of anyone’s business, period.

It is futile to ask such questions when it comes to the marital bed. Some people on here love nothing more than to tell how everyone is sinning.

 

[onmyknees]

Mr. Conte,

Please consider this.

Suppose that you live in Red China, which has a 1 child policy. Your wife is pregnant with her second child, and you know that health officials, if they find out, will terminate her pregnancy. (This ACTUALLY occurs in China). Your wife separates from you and the health officials come knocking at your door asking where she lives. You know where she lives, but you also know that if you give them the address, they will force an abortion of your child. So, you have two choices:

(1) Lie to the Health Officials and tell them you don’t know where she went, and then contact her and tell her to go into hiding, or leave the country, so she can birth the child

(2) Tell the Health Officials where she lives, and they’ll force her to have an abortion.

Morally, I think everyone would choose (1). Thus, you are lying, intentionally deceiving, for the sake of the unborn baby. So, under your formula:

The Church has always taught that intrinsically evil acts are never justified under any circumstance

in this circumstance you are lying, lying is intrinsically evil, and the lying is justified. The “bad act” becomes the right thing to do, when coupled w/the intention of preserving the life of the unborn.

So, I think that logically speaking, your statement fails.

To get back to the circumstances of sexual relations, if a man and woman are having “natural” sex, and the man stimulates the woman at this time so she can experience climax, the natural sexual act is preserved as procreative and unitive, and the stimulation can be “mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” as set forth in Casti Connubii.

The natural act is preserved and the woman receives mutual aid, love, and the quieting of concupiscence. And the otherwise bad act of stimulating the organs for pleasure (2352 - By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure) is no longer bad because it is placed in context of a conjugal act and has a purpose other than solitary pleasure.

I could write more on this issue, but I hope this suffices.

Loopy,

I am trying to make sense of all this. Did you read the entire link from Ron Conte? What about this part?

“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: ‘Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man’ ” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; quoting Humanae Vitae, n. 14)

This thread has me confused and worried.

 

[John_mickle]

many people disagree for this law.

 

[Dredgemate]

Whatever goes on in your marital bedroom in none of anyone’s business, period.

It is futile to ask such questions when it comes to the marital bed. Some people on here love nothing more than to tell how everyone is sinning.

All we have for direction is to keep it unative and procreative. So long as those two requirements are met, what you do in the bedroom is between you, your spouse, and God.