I think you know what I am asking... delicately.


Does the church teach that any sexual expression of love between a husband and wife that cannot lead to conception is inherently sinful?



I think, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, that the intended act should NOT hinder procreation. The Church, as far as I know, does not teach that you can’t enjoy relations with your spouse; but, rather, it has to be for the purpose of conjugating the marital bond.

Does that make sense?



Hi Pyro,

If my guess as to what you are refering is corrcect, go to: " Examination of Conscience", scroll down to #6 and read what’s listed underneath.

Hope this helps.

God Bless!


Thank you Denise.


I’m wondering where you got that examination of consience?


About three years ago, I stumbled on a rather conservate Catholic web site (in union with Rome, of course) that included: An “Examination of Conscience” - long version, An “Examination of Conscience” - short version and An “Examination of Conscience” for children.

I even ordered it in booklet form from the site.
Well, my old computer crashed, and I couldn’t remember the name of the site, and after studying the booklet, I gave it to a friend of mine.

Anyway, I had to do a Google search for: Examination of Conscience, Catholic. And I posted what I found in my reply.
While it’s not the original site I found a few years ago, their “EoC” is identical to that of the original conservative RC site.

God Bless!


My pleasure. I’m glad I was able help you. :slight_smile:
God Bless!


If it involves that special part of your or her body, then yes. The church teaches you nor can she use alternative practices.


See this article:




Hi Ron,

WOW! Would please tell me where you got the “Q & A’s”?
I’ve been looking for something like that for a while, now. (Actually, since our pre-Cana class back in 1985) But I was unable to find anything so explicitly specific and concrete.

Also, may I have your permission to print out the “Sexual Sins within Marriage” page?

Thanks and God Bless!

[INDENT]P.S. – That’s a wonderfully comprehensive site you have![/INDENT]


No offense Ron, but your personal website would not even agree with JPII’s writings in his book Love and Responsibility that even says explicitly it is licit and a good if the husband were to help his wife achieve climax after he has so long as its part of the the one whole marital act. You discuss natural law as being important to follow, but it fails to show how such actions that foster the unitive aspect and are not contracepted (acts that prevent or render the act sterile) violate natural law. Yes such acts would be wrong if they lead to climax apart from the natural union, but acts that help facilitate that union are not wrong so long as they are a means to that union, or in the case of the wife sought immediately afterwards if she has not before.
I do not think the websites views could be reconciled with his teachings of Theology of the Body and since these teachings seem to coincide with the Bishops, then TOTB understanding of marriage and sex would go under moral doctrine. I suggest the OP read Christopher West’s book, Good News About Sex and Marriage to get a good understanding of marital chastity and what is and isn’t permitted.


Yes, you may print out any of the pages on the site.
This article is part of a book I am working on concerning sexual ethics.
There are not many good books on the subject. Even many of the
orthodox works have significant moral errors in them.

The questions from the Q and A are based loosely on many different online discussions and questions that I have read, as well as on some of the erroneous points made by some moral theologians.



Certain acts are intrinsically disordered and therefore always immoral regardless of when climax occurs. So an act that is intrinsically disordered when it is separate from the marital act cannot become moral by being combined with the marital act.

“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the ‘creativity’ of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67)

“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)

Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body is often used to support views and conclusions that he never stated. Similarly, Vatican II is often used to support views that the Council never stated. There is no such statement in the writings of JP2. But if you think that there is, then quote the exact wording.

Unnatural acts are intrinsically disordered, so they cannot be justified by any circumstances, neither by completing the act in an act of marital relations, nor by preceding, being combined with, or following the marital act.

To say otherwise is to deny that such acts are intrinsically disordered, or to deny that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral.



Ron, many moral theologians, marriage prep counselors, and others have commented on what is natural and unnatural. They see unnatural are acts that render the marital act infertile, such things that aid (manual or oral stimulation) the act are not wrong as long as they do not make the marital act (an act including foreplay, penetration, and resolution) infertile which is linked to male fertility in particular. You seem to think unnatural, “touching and kissing certain areas”, but other areas are fine. In the end, the sources you quote only mention unnatural acts as wrong, not specifically defining them to include oral or manual stimulation that aid the unitive act, but do not sterilize it. The Book Catholic Sexual Ethics by respected Moral Theologians Rev. Ronald Lawler O.F.M Cap, Joseph Boyle Jr., and Dr. William May mention on pag 164 that mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and similar acts in which orgasms are sought apart from natural intercourse are gravely wrong percisely because they are sought apart from intercourse and are a type of contracepted sex (not because touching those areas are ‘unnatural’). I see that you have argued this a lot with others so I refuse to get in a long back and forth discussion about it. Unless you have specific wording from Magisterial Sources which claim that all these actions even as merely stimulation to facilitate the act are wrong, its basically your interpretation of unnatural vs. many others. Otherwise I think its a moot point to continue the discussion.


Can anyone tell me where I can find a more progressive Catholic discussion board? I am beginning to realize that I don’t belong here. To many people who believe they only have the truth and speak as if they have papal authority. They remind me of the fundamentalist protestant ministers of my youth. I am starting to be reminded of why I became an inactive Catholic. I just recently came back to the Church. Maybe I better leave before I am run off again.



I understand being shy about posting specifics about what you want to know–absolutely understandable.

Have you tried doing a “search” for the term within the “Ask an Apologist” forum here? You will be more likely to find your question answered, and with solid references, not just personal opinions.

Good luck, and stick around! But by all means, don’t allow your faith to be shaken by a few posts on an anonymous internet forum board. Stay on the path to the truth of the Magesterium, and when you get frustrated, say, "Lord, I believe; help me to understand."


Since marriage is ultimately about sacrifice and giving to each other’s spouse, ask yourself if you would be happy to do whatever it is you are doing if when doing it you received absolutely no pleasure from it (physical, rather than the joy of pleasing one’s spouse).

If the answer is no, then perhaps you could refocus on why you are doing the action?

God Bless,


No need to run off to a “progressive” board. Ron Conte is simply incorrect, and what he says flies in the face of John Paul the Great’s teachings in Love and Responsibility. The article he links to also shows a deep ignorance of the biology of a typical female human. Statistically speaking, most women would leave the marital embrace without “finishing” most of the time, by his rules. The most respected orthodox apologists of our time (like the ones on our Ask an Apologist forum) do not agree with Mr. Conte. I’d stick with them.


Ron, we are all awaiting your citation of Magisterial sources to take your personal conjecture out of the realm of personal opinion and to locate your thought in the mainstream of orthodox sexual morality as taught by those under the jurisdiction of proper Church authority…


Before you consider running off again, ask yourself honestly what you are running away from and why?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.