You are so right . Ill take that into consideration with my future posts
St. Alphonsus Doctor of the Church said that oral stimulation (not oral sex where it does not lead up to procreative sex) is morally wrong
No only in couples with HPV. There is no health danger besides this that I have found as this was a concern of mine as well.
Being safe to teach does not mean it’s the definitive position of the Church that must be taught. Has the opposite opinion ever been condemned? I don’t think it has.
Point being, it is not morally wrong to abstain from oral stimulation, so there’s nothing unsafe about teaching the opinion that it is morally wrong until the Church passes definitive judgment.
I’ve actually never seen a saint or doctor express that such things are permissible, and the argument that I had seen concerning it was that it is inherently against the natural law for this type of sexual arousal, regardless of the intention of the end.
In my opinion this just isnt a good argument only a preference on how to have sex. How is it against natural law? Some people think its obvious and others (most people in my experience) think it is natural and helpful to the arousal of both partners often times.
The great Saint and Doctor of the church gives reasons that do not seem reasonable to me, however the only reason I heed his words and search for truth is because of the title the church gave him.
Further more why didnt I learn this in catechism when we got to the section on Sodomy. Why not have a fancy name for Oral stimulation and make it common knowledge that it is disordered . Ya know.
Actually, oral was considered sodomy under sodomy laws, though that was I imagine the completed act and not mere stimulation.
It goes something like:
- Natural law would say such relations is only lawful if it is vaginal.
- Otherwise it is inherently disordered.
- This inherent disorder is then considered to mean that acts contrary to such, even if intentioned to end in this state, means that it is disordered even in foreplay.
This would be an outline of the main argument, without being specifics. I believe most are in consensus with 1 and 2, but the argument may lie with 3.
The saintly doctor also adds that it makes it possible to accidentally emit in the mouth, which is agreed to be disordered by all parties. Not to mention it may entice one to this disordered act.
As to why it is not taught, it is not necessarily defined by the Church in such a manner, and not all teachers of RCIA or such may agree or know about it.
The Church is neither looking into people’s bedrooms as closely as some prefer, nor is She as laissez-faire as some demand.
That’s right. One example is Saint Augustine of Hippo, who once claimed that life began a few months after conception.
I didn’t know about that.
I’ll probably get cancer either way.
I don’t practice this anymore myself because some say it’s a sodomitical act and is unatural.
Really has nothing with doing it in of itself some guys don’t like doing that I never had a problem.
it’s just I don’t want my wife or I committing a mortal sin.
Plus there’s more chance of objectifying the other person as an object with oral sex.
I would also add that during stimulation or before sex men can excrete pre-ejaculatory fluid which acts as a lubricant but also contains sperm in it.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.