Moral Stimulation in Marriage (Mature Content)


#1

Hello everyone,

My friend has a question about oral sex. He asks if it is okay to have oral sex if you have already had vaginal sex, or are intending to have vaginal sex in the same "session" (for want of a better word.) The idea here is that you are open to life by having already "sown the seed" (or intending to do so) and that it is scrupulous to try and account for every single sperm. We are, of course, talking about marital sex here.

I have a nagging feeling that this is not the case, and I can address the question in a patched way, but I would like to have a complete answer to this. There is the story of Onan in Genesis, but he was ostentatiously closed to conception and struck down for spilling his seed EVERY time. The catch with the above situation is that it is at least open to new life in the marital act and only engages in oral sex on top of that, so you could argue that you are fulfilling the procreative and bonding requirements of sex in the same "act" or "session" (not that I agree with this, but I need a sound way to reply to this.) My main concern is dealing with this question in a definitive way. Are there any solid Catholic sources that deal with this specific situation or one similar to it? I would also appreciate your thoughts and comments on the subject.

Thank you,
NS1


#2

[quote="NS1, post:1, topic:219389"]
Hello everyone,

My friend has a question about oral sex. He asks if it is okay to have oral sex if you have already had vaginal sex, or are intending to have vaginal sex in the same "session" (for want of a better word.) The idea here is that you are open to life by having already "sown the seed" (or intending to do so) and that it is scrupulous to try and account for every single sperm. We are, of course, talking about marital sex here.

I have a nagging feeling that this is not the case, and I can address the question in a patched way, but I would like to have a complete answer to this. There is the story of Onan in Genesis, but he was ostentatiously closed to conception and struck down for spilling his seed EVERY time. The catch with the above situation is that it is at least open to new life in the marital act and only engages in oral sex on top of that, so you could argue that you are fulfilling the procreative and bonding requirements of sex in the same "act" or "session" (not that I agree with this, but I need a sound way to reply to this.) My main concern is dealing with this question in a definitive way. Are there any solid Catholic sources that deal with this specific situation or one similar to it? I would also appreciate your thoughts and comments on the subject.

Thank you,
NS1

[/quote]

This has been answered multiple times in threads before this.You could do a search and read over those for resources. Each and every marital act must be conducted in such a way as to be open to life .There must be a giving and taking so as to mirror the love within the Trinity which is a life giving love. Oral stimulation is permitted as foreplay and not an end.

Reading material

Sex Au Naturel by Patrick Coffin

The Good News about Sex and Marriage- Christopher West

Holy Sex.... by Greg Popcak

spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/CatholicismOralSex.html


#3

[quote="Seatuck, post:2, topic:219389"]
This has been answered multiple times in threads before this.You could do a search and read over those for resources. Each and every marital act must be conducted in such a way as to be open to life .There must be a giving and taking so as to mirror the love within the Trinity which is a life giving love. Oral stimulation is permitted as foreplay and not an end.

Reading material

Sex Au Naturel by Patrick Coffin

The Good News about Sex and Marriage- Christopher West

Holy Sex.... by Greg Popcak

spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/CatholicismOralSex.html

[/quote]

These are the last paragraphs of the article, and I believe, the main sticking point that Catholics have with Church teachings (I jumped from the Family LIfe forum out of curiosity when this one was mentioned). To me, the Church is presuming what is in the hearts of a couple who engage in oral sex. Is the act at the time closed to new life? Yes. If you also engage in intercourse? No. But to say that to perform such acts with each other is not out of love? That is up to the couple, I believe. But to the Church, sex to orgasm outside of intercourse is banned/prohibited/gravely disordered and such. No wonder we Catholics have such guilt complexes about sex.

During the Sacrament of Matrimony, the couple commits to a free, total, faithful, and fruitful union that should strive to imitate the perfection of the Trinity. Therefore, sexual union should mirror and reinforce the sacramental promises. If a couple decides to engage in oral sexual activity to the point of orgasm, what are they saying with their acts and their marriage? How does this particular action speak of love? Certainly, this is not a free and total gift of oneself to another, but merely a partial and incomplete gift. Secondly, this form of sexual activity will be closed to the possibility of new life. So, the Church tries to help couples make their marriages the best that they can be. At the same time, these teachings point out the ways that sexual union is most fulfilling. Oral sex can never bring as much fulfillment as the total giving and receiving that happens in conjugal love.

        When couples choose to engage in oral sex, they also run the risk of seriously harming their marriage.  Sexual pleasure naturally seems to be the physical and psychological goal of oral stimulation that ends in orgasm.  As a result, one’s spouse becomes the object that gives pleasure… the means to gratification.  Instead of elevating each other as in the conjugal act, one person becomes subservient to the other.  Over time, spouses can develop a lack of respect for each other as a result of their sexual cravings and the way in which they are satisfied.  Even though John Paul II does not specifically talk about oral sex in The Theology of the Body, he makes it clear that when spouses merely satisfy the sexual needs of the other, they damage the communion that exists in marriage… 

        It can happen that one of the two persons exists only as the subject of the satisfaction of the sexual need,                          and the other becomes exclusively the object of this satisfaction.  This does not correspond to the union or                 personal communion to which man and woman were mutually called from the beginning.  On the contrary,                         it conflicts with it.  Moreover, the case in which both the man and woman exist reciprocally as the object of                 satisfaction of the sexual need, and each on his or her part is only the subject of that satisfaction, does not                 correspond to this unity of communion.  On the contrary, it clashes with it.  This reduction of such a rich                 content of the reciprocal and perennial attraction of human persons in their masculinity or femininity does                 not at all correspond to the ‘nature’ of the attraction in question.  This reduction extinguishes the personal                 meaning of communion, characteristic of man and woman.[15]



        So once again, who places restrictions on sexual intercourse… spouses or the Church?  As one can see, the teachings of the Catholic Church speak of sex in its ideal form… desiring it to be all that it can be.  Sexual union within marriage is best when it is free, total, faithful and fruitful.  The Church also realizes that men and women are created differently and oral stimulation is allowed before the conjugal act so that the husband and wife may climax together as a deep sign of their total self-gift to one another.  There is nothing dirty about the goal of mutual climax when we speak out of respect for both spouses and manifest their equality.  Christopher West describes it as follows:  “The climax of the sexual act shouts loudly and clearly, ‘Take me.  I’m totally yours.  I’m holding nothing back.’  That ecstatic moment reflects the unreserved surrender of our persons and unreserved receptivity of the other.  To the degree that we knowingly and intentionally reserve any part of ourselves from our spouse in the sexual act, we cannot speak of a total self-giving.”[16]

        After hearing this message, many people may say that the Church’s teachings are naïve, utopian, and unachievable… but they cannot deny that the goal is a fantastic challenge!  In the midst of divorce, adultery, and sexual dissatisfaction within marriages, the Church tells spouses to respect one another, communicate more deeply, and be self-giving… not selfish.  In other words, make sex the beautiful gift that it was intended to be!  When human beings reduce sex to something accomplished with one part of the body instead of the whole body, it seems clear that they are the ones who are guilty of restricting sexual freedom, not the Catholic Church.

#4

The Male organ can only be placed in the Vagina no where else at any time.It is a sin to do so.

This is clearly taught by the Catholic Church.

Antrim


#5

[quote="Antrim, post:4, topic:219389"]
The Male organ can only be placed in the Vagina no where else at any time.It is a sin to do so.

This is clearly taught by the Catholic Church.

Antrim

[/quote]

I'm 99.9% confident that this is false. The man must either finish in the woman's vagina (or not finish at all), but (as previous posters have said) oral and manual stimulation is permitted as a means of foreplay.


#6

No - you can stimulate but the actual climax must be vaginal. Since this is marked mature content I will go ahead and spell it out for you.

The issues is what happens to the sperm. Part of being open to life is making sure that the act finishes in a way that the sperm finds itself in the reproductive tract. The digestive tract or bedsheets do no leave an act open to life. However, stimulation in order to finish in the act of proper intercourse is allowed especially if it adds to the unitive aspect.


#7

Oh and I did do some research Christopher Wests works have been given the Imprimatur. So, yes, his theology is approved. So back to tab "P" must be in slot "V" at moment "O" and to over think these things really is to lend itself to scrupolousity. Remember evil is tricky and if it does not tempt us one way (sexual sin) it will try to get us another (sin of pride - thinking we know better than the Pope, Bishops and theologians due tho being overscrupolous.)

There is nothing wrong with asking the question but when we beat the question to death is the issue.

And here is a definition of Imprimatur:

Definition of Imprimatur


#8

[quote="Augusta_Sans, post:5, topic:219389"]
I'm 99.9% confident that this is false. The man must either finish in the woman's vagina (or not finish at all), but (as previous posters have said) oral and manual stimulation is permitted as a means of foreplay.

[/quote]

Bingo. And kudos to joandarc in her responses, though I feel Christopher West has been elevated to some ridiculous position as a church authority.


#9

[quote="joandarc2008, post:7, topic:219389"]
Oh and I did do some research Christopher Wests works have been given the Imprimatur. So, yes, his theology is approved. So back to tab "P" must be in slot "V" at moment "O" and to over think these things really is to lend itself to scrupolousity. Remember evil is tricky and if it does not tempt us one way (sexual sin) it will try to get us another (sin of pride - thinking we know better than the Pope, Bishops and theologians due tho being overscrupolous.)

There is nothing wrong with asking the question but when we beat the question to death is the issue.

And here is a definition of Imprimatur:

Definition of Imprimatur

[/quote]

???
Excuse me, but why are you linking to a link that doesn't even mention itself as being a definition of the term "Imprimatur" as being a definition of imprimatur? You linked to the definition of "Theological Definition."

I looked it up in New Advent, and New Advent doesn't give a definition of the word.

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/284204/imprimatur

"Strictly speaking, the imprimatur is nothing more than the permission. But because its concession must be preceded by the favourable judgment of a censor (nihil obstat: “nothing hinders [it from being printed]”), the term has come to imply ecclesiastical approval of the publication itself. Nevertheless, the imprimatur is not an episcopal endorsement of the content, nor is it a guarantee of doctrinal integrity. It does indicate that nothing offensive to faith or morals has been discovered in the work."

Heck, even fisheaters acknowledges this:
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html
"Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine."


#10

[quote="twoangels, post:9, topic:219389"]
???
Excuse me, but why are you linking to a link that doesn't even mention itself as being a definition of the term "Imprimatur" as being a definition of imprimatur? You linked to the definition of "Theological Definition."

I looked it up in New Advent, and New Advent doesn't give a definition of the word.

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/284204/imprimatur

"Strictly speaking, the imprimatur is nothing more than the permission. But because its concession must be preceded by the favourable judgment of a censor (nihil obstat: “nothing hinders [it from being printed]”), the term has come to imply ecclesiastical approval of the publication itself. Nevertheless, the imprimatur is not an episcopal endorsement of the content, nor is it a guarantee of doctrinal integrity. It does indicate that nothing offensive to faith or morals has been discovered in the work."

Heck, even fisheaters acknowledges this:
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html
"Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine."

[/quote]

Perhaps it was an accident?? I make mistakes quite often....... I've cut and pasted an address before only to find out LATER that it had been changed or didn't come out as the full address.....thus not allowing people to go to the place intended. Web sites change their content and maybe she was "pulling" from an older resource that used to contain that info....or maybe it was typo......


#11

[quote="twoangels, post:9, topic:219389"]
???
Excuse me, but why are you linking to a link that doesn't even mention itself as being a definition of the term "Imprimatur" as being a definition of imprimatur? You linked to the definition of "Theological Definition."

I looked it up in New Advent, and New Advent doesn't give a definition of the word.

britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/284204/imprimatur

"Strictly speaking, the imprimatur is nothing more than the permission. But because its concession must be preceded by the favourable judgment of a censor (nihil obstat: “nothing hinders [it from being printed]”), the term has come to imply ecclesiastical approval of the publication itself. Nevertheless, the imprimatur is not an episcopal endorsement of the content, nor is it a guarantee of doctrinal integrity. It does indicate that nothing offensive to faith or morals has been discovered in the work."

Heck, even fisheaters acknowledges this:
fisheaters.com/imprimatur.html
"Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine."

[/quote]

My apologies for messing up the link on the other thread I went directly to the Vatican for the definition - it is actually a theological permission to print. - and in this case saying that there is nothing outside of Church teaching is a big stamp of approval. If his works were against Church teaching the Imprimatur would have been removed for offensiveness and I am sure Rome would have had something to say about his own status as a theologian at this point.


#12

Just coming on with a clarification:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat

Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way")[1][2] is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.

Apart from this general sense, the phrase is used more particularly to mean an "attestation by a church censor that a book contains nothing damaging to faith or morals".[1] The Censor Librorum delegated by a bishop of the Catholic Church reviews the text in question, but the nihil obstat is not a certification that those granting it agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed in the work; instead, it merely confirms "that it contains nothing contrary to faith or morals."[1]

The nihil obstat is the first step in having a book published under Church auspices. If the author is a member of a religious institute and if the book is on questions of religion or morals, the book must also obtain the imprimi potest ("it can be printed") of the major superior.[3] The final approval is given through the imprimatur ("let it be printed") of the author's bishop or of the bishop of the place of publication.[4]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published.[1][2] Since, according to canon law, this permission must be preceded by a declaration (known as a nihil obstat) by a person charged with the duties of a censor that the work contains nothing damaging to faith or morals,[3[COLOR="magenta"]] the bishop's authorization of publication is implicitly a public declaration that nothing offensive to Catholic teaching on faith and morals has been found in it. The imprimatur is not an endorsement by the bishop of the contents of a book, not even of the religious opinions expressed in it, being merely a declaration about what is not in the book

.[4] In the published work, the imprimatur is sometimes accompanied by a declaration of the following tenor:

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.[5]

Hope that helps:)


#13

[quote="Mary_Gail_36, post:12, topic:219389"]
Just coming on with a clarification:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat

Nothing damaging to faith and morals on the subject of sexuality would basically sum it up for me. ;) I think it would be pretty hard to write in way on this subject that goes against teaching without going against faith and morals - but I could be wrong - I am not meaning to sound sarcastic unfortunately tone is difficult to discern sometimes on the internet which is why before you know it these conversations get more heated than they have to be. But that is my opinion maybe you see it differently.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

Hope that helps:)

[/quote]


#14

I daresay, this is just one reason why CAF needs a separate “Marrieds Only” section.

Okay I’m done now:cool:


#15

I was just going to say it is academic for me at this point but I have lived it. I will step out though no problem.


#16

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.