Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Apr 2, '06, 6:11 pm
gogogirl gogogirl is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 1, 2006
Posts: 96
Religion: can't call myself Catholic anymore
Default Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

I read an article that states that oral sex can actually help you achieve and maintain pregnancy. If you practiced it in this context, would it still be a mortal sin? Is there any room for interpretation to the rules regarding oral sex?

Here is an excerpt from the article:
GENTLE PERSUASION by Douglas Fox
New Scientist; 02/09/2002, Vol. 173 Issue 2329, p32, 3p

Quote:
Robillard's studies make an excellent case for the medicinal virtues of
semen exposure. But it was Dekker, then at the Free University of
Amsterdam, who took the studies one eyebrow-raising step further when he
looked to see if the same goal could be achieved with oral sex or more
specifically, fellatio.

It's well known that our immune systems tolerate things better when they
enter the body via the mouth. This is why we're not usually allergic to
our food even though it's always genetically foreign, and why girls with
nickel braces on their teeth are less likely to develop nickel allergies
after their ears are pierced than girls without these braces.

Sure enough, when Dekker compared 41 pregnant women with pre-eclampsia
and 44 without, he found that 82 per cent of those without pre-eclampsia
practised fellatio, compared with only 44 per cent of those with the
disorder. And in keeping with the "condom effect", the protective effect
of oral sex was strongest if the woman actually swallowed the semen
rather than coughing it onto the pillow. True, it's only one study, but
for some couples who can't seem to carry a pregnancy to term, a little
fellatio can hardly do any harm, suggests Dekker. "I tell them, 'semen
exposure's good, and you could think of oral sex.'"
  #2  
Old Apr 2, '06, 7:50 pm
ComradeAndrei ComradeAndrei is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2005
Posts: 947
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Scientific studies don't trump moral theology, so no it would still be a mortal sin.

All sexual acts must be in themselves open to procreation, as described in your article it would not be therefore it would not be licit.
__________________
"Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators"-G. K. Chesterton
  #3  
Old Apr 2, '06, 8:25 pm
the-3rd-parent the-3rd-parent is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 143
Religion: Catholic
Send a message via Yahoo to the-3rd-parent
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

As far as I'm aware, oral can be permitted as a part of "foreplay" but the man must finish inside the woman. However, people who claim this are usually very attached to the act. I'd pray over it if you really think it can be permitted. I know that Steve Wood thinks its ok.

I can say that the idea of it disgusts me and that I can't imagine how it does not violate the dignity of the one giving it.
  #4  
Old Apr 2, '06, 8:57 pm
m134e5 m134e5 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2004
Posts: 3,499
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

The title of this article may be "Gentle Persuasion"- but my reaction to it is anything but gentle. (I think it's a bunch of ****!). Oral sex has NOTHING to do with achieving or maintaining pregnancy. By definition it makes pregnancy impossible- at least that time. Honestly, Douglas Fox should be ashamed of himself for associating his name with such bogus research. I checked out the website of this magazine. From what I can tell it looks credible, but I never found a contributor where it is specified that he has an academic Doctorate- and it doesn't say anything about where any of them teach, if they teach at all. Usually, credible research journals will say things like this (as the research they do, and base their articles off of are usually affiliated with a school).
  #5  
Old Apr 2, '06, 9:15 pm
Pug's Avatar
Pug Pug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Posts: 7,072
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

The type of study cited does not show causality. It cannot demonstrate that certain sex practices reduce the incidence of pregnancy complications. It can only show association. But things can be associated for underlying, hidden reasons, which means that if that is the case here, it will be a total waste of the person's time to try these practices to get the benefit supposed. What would be of benefit to them would be to change the underlying, hidden reason, assuming it is changeable.

I mean, for all I know it is certain ethnic groups that are more susceptible to certain complications and simultaneously also those ethnic groups dislike fellatio.
  #6  
Old Apr 2, '06, 9:51 pm
Flopfoot Flopfoot is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2005
Posts: 1,600
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by the-3rd-parent
As far as I'm aware, oral can be permitted as a part of "foreplay" but the man must finish inside the woman. However, people who claim this are usually very attached to the act. I'd pray over it if you really think it can be permitted. I know that Steve Wood thinks its ok.

I can say that the idea of it disgusts me and that I can't imagine how it does not violate the dignity of the one giving it.
The idea of whether it's permissible as foreplay has been discussed on these forums before. One good point was that if all sexual acts were considered separate then of course it would not be permissible because by itself it is a non procreative sexual act. But if that was the case, then almost nothing that people do would be permissible, except for a very basic "man puts his appendage inside woman and ejaculates". Obviously this is not the case. So oral sex as foreplay is part of the entire sexual act, if it finishes with proper intercourse then it is a part of a sexual act that's between validly married people, procreative and unitive - hence permissible.

As for how it does not violate the dignity of the one giving it - it's because it is voluntarily given out of love and a desire to please one's spouse. It's like, if a woman gets on her knees and scrubs the floor of her house, so that it will be clean and hence more hygenic for her family, then does that demean her? If someone was forced to do it as a slave, then scrubbing floors on their knees would be demeaning. But if it's done out of love for their family, it's not demeaning. (I know it's a poor analogy, but hopefully it helps).

PS It's not something I think I'd participate in anyway.
  #7  
Old Apr 2, '06, 10:05 pm
gogogirl gogogirl is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 1, 2006
Posts: 96
Religion: can't call myself Catholic anymore
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

If one were to assume that this study is accurate and that there is true causality, would it be permissible. BTW, I found a link to the full text of the article here: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/c-men.html#

I originally found the article on a database at college while looking up stuff on pregnancy. I was just wondering if this study were correct, would it make OS morally permissable in the context of marriage to help achieve pregnancy. It is not like it is an artificial hormone treatment. Nobody has to collect samples of anything else. Of course, the wife would have to be willing to do it.

Quote:
Scientific studies don't trump moral theology, so no it would still be a mortal sin.
For example, people have said the use of artificial birth control is acceptable if it is used for medicinal purposes only. Someone taking birth control pills for severe endometriosis would still be committing mortal sin? It seems as if there is a contradiction somewhere. Can someone help me understand?
  #8  
Old Apr 2, '06, 10:15 pm
Flopfoot Flopfoot is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2005
Posts: 1,600
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

As far as I know, using ABC (artificial birth control) would only be okay if you didn't have sex while the ABC was still in effect. So yes, you should be able to use them for medicinal purposes. It's like, when is it okay for a man to wear a condom? Only while he's not having sex. Not sure what he would use it for though... would it keep him warm?

However, oral sex is in itself a sexual act. It's not the same as taking ABC. It doesn't matter what end you're trying to achieve, it is the means which are wrong. So even if the study is correct, it wouldn't be morally permissible. If it is used as foreplay for a licit sexual act then it is okay, as discussed above. But by itself, it is not okay for any end (except maybe saving your life, if you were forced to do it at gun point, but of course that is an extreme case and hopefully not very common).
  #9  
Old Apr 2, '06, 11:09 pm
gogogirl gogogirl is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 1, 2006
Posts: 96
Religion: can't call myself Catholic anymore
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

I am not trying to compare apples and oranges but I am having a difficult time understanding why some procedures are considered OK while others are not. Tons of Catholics allow their children to be injected with vaccines that are made from the cells of aborted fetuses. Why is this OK but OS in order to help achieve/maintain pregnancy is not? I am not promoting OS per se nor am I advocating it. I am just trying to understand how the church incorporates medical knowledge in determining mortal sin. If the emphasis on the marital union is procreation and a natural way of encouraging/aiding procreation is found, then why is it not morally permissable. The couple is open to life, the OS is unitive, and they are in no way using it as a means of contraception.

Quote:
As far as I know, using ABC (artificial birth control) would only be okay if you didn't have sex while the ABC was still in effect.
A husband and wife could not participate in the marital act if she is suffering from severe endometriosis because she was prescribed BC pills? They would have to abstain indefinitely? I guess they probably shouldn't have gotten married then. What if this didn't become apparent until after she got married? Would this render the marriage invalid?
  #10  
Old Apr 2, '06, 11:36 pm
Flopfoot Flopfoot is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2005
Posts: 1,600
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Just because tons of Catholics do something doesn't make it okay... tons of Catholics use ABC too. However, not necessarily saying that them having their children vaccinated is wrong, just pointing out the principle of the thing.

I'm not entirely sure about the vaccinations. Even if it was wrong, parents who didn't know what it was made from (and I think that's most of them) wouldn't be sinning (like using asbestos in the days before it was discovered to be cancerous, of course it's not your fault since how are you to know).

But I think that maybe using the vaccines is okay since it may be only remote material cooperation with the sin (ie, using the vaccines which someone else made and from which someone else again killed the baby, removes you a long distance from the sin of abortion - using the vaccine does not make you responsible for the death of the baby). Like I say, I'm not sure, maybe someone else can clarify.

The church doesn't need medical knowledge in this case to determine if it is a sin. It is very simple. Oral sex by itself is a sexual act which is not procreative, like I said in my last post. They may not be using it as a means of contraception but it still is a means of contraception - like if a couple had sex with a condom on, not as contraception but to protect from AIDS (or even, if it was just once to see what it feels like), it would still be contraception and still be wrong. Or a man masturbating because he heard that it helps to prevent prostate cancer, still wrong. A sexual act must be procreative. Helping to procreate in a later sexual act (intercourse), doesnt make this first sexual act (OS) procreative.

If a natural means of aiding conception was found, and this natural means was not sinful, then of course it would be okay.
But we can't do evil so that good may come out of it. In this case you need to consider the issue of what the couple is actually doing (the means), separate from their intent and the results of that act. When something is objectively a grave matter, such as OS, then it is still wrong whether you're doing it just for fun, or for good reasons.
  #11  
Old Apr 2, '06, 11:44 pm
LittleDeb LittleDeb is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 2,225
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by gogogirl
I am not trying to compare apples and oranges but I am having a difficult time understanding why some procedures are considered OK while others are not. Tons of Catholics allow their children to be injected with vaccines that are made from the cells of aborted fetuses. Why is this OK but OS in order to help achieve/maintain pregnancy is not? I am not promoting OS per se nor am I advocating it. I am just trying to understand how the church incorporates medical knowledge in determining mortal sin. If the emphasis on the marital union is procreation and a natural way of encouraging/aiding procreation is found, then why is it not morally permissable. The couple is open to life, the OS is unitive, and they are in no way using it as a means of contraception.
OS is immoral because by its very nature is contraceptive. One can behave in a contraceptive manner even while pregnant. The only reason it does not have the contraceptive effect is because there is a current pregnancy. The concern of women being allergic to semen has a lot more to do with regular condom use. That would be a much more interesting study. Do women with regular condom use suffer a higher incidence of preclampsia due to semen allergy? Doubt that one will be researched. Oh no we might find that contraception really is bad for us! God forbid!

OS cannot be used to maintain a pregnancy. We cannot use immoral means to promote life. The "natural way" referenced here is in fact quite unnatural. A similar arguement is used promoting homosexual acts. Since the puzzle pieces can be made to fit together in an immoral manner some hold that it is therefore "natural." My 1 year old son could insert a pencil up his nose quite easily. That does not mean it belongs there, even if he thought it was "beneficial."
Quote:
A husband and wife could not participate in the marital act if she is suffering from severe endometriosis because she was prescribed BC pills? They would have to abstain indefinitely? I guess they probably shouldn't have gotten married then. What if this didn't become apparent until after she got married? Would this render the marriage invalid?
Some medical practitioners believe that BC pills help endometriosis. But since birth control pills cause abortion, abstinence while on them is the only moral answer. A woman on BC for endometriosis is not on them forever so the abstinence is temporary. Usually a married woman with the condition is treated for a time with BC pills then advised to try to seek pregnancy.
__________________
In Hope,
LittleDeb

"...it is indeed of the utmost importance that the faithful should be well instructed concerning matrimony; ... by means of plain and weighty arguments, so that these truths will strike the intellect and will be deeply engraved on their hearts." --Casti Connubii 105
  #12  
Old Apr 2, '06, 11:49 pm
Rand Al'Thor Rand Al'Thor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2005
Posts: 2,326
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by gogogirl
A husband and wife could not participate in the marital act if she is suffering from severe endometriosis because she was prescribed BC pills? They would have to abstain indefinitely? I guess they probably shouldn't have gotten married then. What if this didn't become apparent until after she got married? Would this render the marriage invalid?
Pax tecum!

Actually, Jason Evert said in one of his talks that he spoke with a ginacologist(sp?) about this subject. The doctor told him that there are so many more hormone drugs out there that can do the same thing as ABC (the medicinal purposes, that is, not as a contraceptive), and BETTER, that no woman really needs to be on the pill for medical reasons--there are many other drugs she can take. So no, the couple would not have to abstain indefinitely--the woman could take another medication and not worry about being on ABC.

In Christ,
Rand
__________________
XP IHS

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis.
Sancte Michael Archangele, ora pro nobis.
Moses et Elias, ora pro nobis.

In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritvs Sancti. Amen.
  #13  
Old Apr 3, '06, 12:26 am
gogogirl gogogirl is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 1, 2006
Posts: 96
Religion: can't call myself Catholic anymore
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDeb
OS is immoral because by its very nature is contraceptive. One can behave in a contraceptive manner even while pregnant. The only reason it does not have the contraceptive effect is because there is a current pregnancy. The concern of women being allergic to semen has a lot more to do with regular condom use. That would be a much more interesting study. Do women with regular condom use suffer a higher incidence of preclampsia due to semen allergy? Doubt that one will be researched. Oh no we might find that contraception really is bad for us! God forbid!
The article I am referring to actually does talk about condom use and semen allergy. Here is what it says:
Quote:
"What's more, another study found that using condoms, which naturally prevent
women from coming into contact with semen, increases the risk of
pre-eclampsia."
  #14  
Old Apr 3, '06, 12:40 am
LittleDeb LittleDeb is offline
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 2,225
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by gogogirl
The article I am referring to actually does talk about condom use and semen allergy. Here is what it says:
Cool!! So it seems the solution for these people is "stop using condoms," NOT "start using oral sex!"

Thank you for providing that reference. I have been looking for more medical research about the dangers of condoms. I don't really want to use this one because their "solution" of using OS seems really silly. This situation reminds me of the old joke:

Patient: "Doc, it really hurts when I move my arm like this. Do you have a cure?"

Doctor: "Don't move your arm like that."
__________________
In Hope,
LittleDeb

"...it is indeed of the utmost importance that the faithful should be well instructed concerning matrimony; ... by means of plain and weighty arguments, so that these truths will strike the intellect and will be deeply engraved on their hearts." --Casti Connubii 105
  #15  
Old Apr 3, '06, 12:55 am
gogogirl gogogirl is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: January 1, 2006
Posts: 96
Religion: can't call myself Catholic anymore
Default Re: Oral Sex and Mortal Sin

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDeb
Cool!! So it seems the solution for these people is "stop using condoms," NOT "start using oral sex!"

Thank you for providing that reference. I have been looking for more medical research about the dangers of condoms. I don't really want to use this one because their "solution" of using OS seems really silly.
I completely agree that it sounds silly. Like I said, I am not really promoting this. It just raised some questions for me about sexual intimacy within marriage and what is permissable. I had preeclampsia during one of my pregnancies and I think I would do just about anything to prevent it again. I ran across this article while doing some research and thougt it would be interesting to get other's perspectives on it.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8304Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5071CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: mountee
4358Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4035OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: 3DOCTORS
3853SOLITUDE
Last by: Prairie Rose
3617Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3264Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3212Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3203Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3069For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: Theresa DeSensi



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 7:00 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.