Catholic Online Forum

Just wondering why oral sex is wrong when a married couple is pregnant and can't procreate? Can anyone help me with this question. For some reason my last post was removed? I don't find this to be an inappropriate questions.

_________________
Michael C

Moderator Comment

Michael,

The post was removed because the moderators agreed the wording of the post might spark prurient interest. This follow-up is better.

Regards,
Dean C.
COL Forum Staff

Thanks, thats understandable.

_________________
Michael C

I have often wondered why hitting onself in the head with a hammer is wrong when a married couple is pregnant and can't procreate? Sometimes I too wonder why it is wrong to commit adultery when a married couple is pregnant and can't procreate?

Do you see any moral relative reasoning in these statements?

It is my understanding that what you speak of is not wrong as long as it is leading up to and or supporting the sexual activity between man and wife that remains open to procreation EVEN if pregnant...

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

I cannot believe a Catholic Forum is discussing these things

_________________
Maria

Not sure if I am exactly getting what you are saying Daniel. Can you or someone else clarify a little. I know oral sex is wrong because it does not allow for possibility of procreation when one can concieve. However, when the wife is pregnant, it is not possible to make another child. Sorry, I just need some guidance.

_________________
Michael C

Dean, my objection to this whole thread is the fact that it is posted on a Catholic forum where anyone of any age has access to the material.

Shouldn't topics like this be discussed in private with one's pastor?

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

I wouldn't ask someone I really love to give "oral" sex, much less my wife and mother of my children. I would only do it if I knew my wife would do it out of love and affection and fully knowing. Anything less than that would simply be creepy. And I still think it is weird. That said I'm not married, but this is what I'd think. I'd say no under almost every circumstance.

God bless,

Jesper

_________________
Jesper B

Moderator's comment:

The overall principles may be discussed. The specific mechanics may NOT be discussed. That is the difference between appropriate and inappropriate content in this thread. Regarding unbelief that such a thing is discussed in a Catholic forum, it is a big part of people's lives, including Catholic lives, and it is also one of the most misunderstood areas of morality, an area on which many pastors lead their flocks astray. It is therefore an important topic to discuss.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

A good question. This seems the sort of thing that is best handled by consulting a priest in private. That said, not all of us have good, faithful, educated, and orthodox priests accessible to us with whom we would be comfortable talking. So sometimes it is appropriate to discuss such issues in this format.

Michael,

The critically important principle to keep in mind about human sexuality is that it should ALWAYS be oriented toward procreation; toward participating with our God in creating new life. Even when it is not (humanly) possible, the proper ORIENTATION is toward procreation. Note the use of that term; orientation. Frequently we think of orientation as "pointing in the direction of". It is similar in this case. Even though it is not seemingly possible for procreation to occur, the proper orientation remains toward procreation and acts which are pursuant thereto.

Thus even in the circumstance you propose, such an act to full completion would be disordered and sinful, because it does not orient toward procreation.

I might give other examples which may illustrate the fallacy of thinking that the (apparent) lack of ability to procreate might make otherwise prohibited sexual activities acceptable:

"I am unmarried, so I cannot procreate, thus [any full sexual activity] is permissible"
"My wife is past menopause, so we cannot procreate, thus [normally prohibited sexual activity] is permissible"
"I am unable to father children due to some biochemical deficiency, so we cannot procreate, thus [normally prohibited sexual activity] is permissible"

I think you see what I'm getting at.

I would encourage you to discuss this with a good, orthodox priest who is well versed in Catholic sexual morality when you can, so that your questions can be fully answered.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Because it's not just about procreation.

The marriage act is for the unification of the marriage. What you are asking about is designed for the gratification of one without any consideration for the other. It's not unititive, it's selfish.

I would suggest that you look into the writings of Christopher West. I know a few people on other boards who have found him to be helpful. I'm afraid I don't have a reference for a link or anything. Maybe someone else knows of a reliable website.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

If a person is legitimately confused about such issues, he needs to have a reliable source of information.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

I am totally in agreement with Rose on this one.

I have noticed it is not generally women asking these questions, like this one or the thread on NFP instead of chemical birth control. Is it women are more bashful or...?

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

Totally agree.

_________________
Mary-Love

Jesus, I trust in You.

Jeff seems to have answered this and along with the answers of others you should have a pretty good grasp in general on this..

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

I asked this question years ago since my wife and I are infertile. The straight dope is that you can do it as long as you complete the act within the marital embrace, which is within God's will. Any conclusion/act outside of the marital embrace is contrary to God's will and thus cannot be justified.

_________________
Andrew McAllister

Respect for the dignity of every innocent human being from conception/fertilization, without exception, without compromise, without apology.

My wife doesn't really care.

_________________
Andrew McAllister

Respect for the dignity of every innocent human being from conception/fertilization, without exception, without compromise, without apology.

As I recall some of the intelligentsia at Catholic University tried to use this as a way to legitimize homosexuality just after Humanae Vitae. They argued something to the effect that since it was not procreative it was not covered by that encyclical. [As I once heard a 3-star general comment on a contractor's attempt to collect on a failed mission: "Give them A for effort, and D for smarts."; and he filed a claim against the contractor for failure to deliver.

_________________
- Joe Kelley

Death is only a shadow across the path to Heaven.

This is the standard answer that I have seen from Catholic sources. As I understand it, this also applies to fertile couples. The question of fertility is not relevant. What matters is that the marital act be completed in a way that is open to life.

_________________
Jayne
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour's thoughts, words and deeds in a favourable way." CCC 2478

I do not understand how the act can be "open to life" if there is no possibility of conception.

_________________
David L (CA)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx

Is it also wrong then for a woman to arouse her husband by massaging his chest or with caresses? Is all touch wrong, if it is a means to arouse the husband? Is hugging wrong? Is arousing touch of any kind wrong? Is a man equally forbidden to arouse with touch? Of any kind?

How should sex work if one follows this principle fully?

God bless.

Jesper

_________________
Jesper B

David,

It would mean allowing the possibility of a miracle that God could work.

_________________
Ian DC
Blessed Ever Virgin Mary -- Sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe

OK Dean, point taken.

I just find these issues very personal between two people.

I still have to learn that although I may be right for myself, doesnt mean others are wrong.

It is part of life as you say, and there are people I know who talk about it as though Iwas a freak because I dont go along with it and dont want to talk about it.

I guess some Catholics want to genuinely learn as to whether or not it is OK by the Church.

For me it is wrong and I am happy to agree to differ.

_________________
Maria

David,

I think the point is that oral sex would be a kind of foreplay that leads ultimately to intercourse. When it is intended as an end in itself, it is no longer procreative either in its "design" or in its application to a particular couple.

By its very nature, oral sex is not procreative. By its very nature, intercourse is. That's the distinction. Even for infertile couples, the expectation is that the culminating act of the marital embrace would be, by its nature, both procreative and unitive.

_________________
Kris H.

"He is Your best servant who desires not so much to hear from You what may be comfortable to his own will, but rather to conform his will to whatever he shall hear from You."--St. Augustine of Hippo

The marital act has 2 purposes, neither of which is met by the means described in the original post.

When openness to life is not an issue, we should look at the unifying aspect of the marital act. Whatever happens along the way, the final act is two equals coming together as such, not one person serving the other.

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Jesper,
There is nothing wrong with pleasure during marital intimacy. The Church teaches that it is a good thing. There is a problem, however, when pleasure becomes a goal in itself. The couple should focus on expressing their love and closeness rather than seeking pleasure. But there is plenty of pleasure that will occur unsought.

_________________
Jayne
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour's thoughts, words and deeds in a favourable way." CCC 2478

Because GOD can make an ovary that doesn't work kick out one more egg, and he can make a uterus that "cannot" function, function, because God can make Sarah pregnant in her 90's and Abraham over 100 and because NO sexual activity is licit if it fails to complete the act in a way that cooperates with whatever GOD might decide to allow to happen.

So quite simply if one cannot have intercourse for whatever reason (high risk pregnancy perhaps? or just discomfort of pregnancy) then no sexual act is licit.

All excuses that say "but it is impossible" inherently take God out of the equation and are thus a form of justification for sin whether the speaker recognizes that fact or not.

God can make pregnancy even where it is "impossible" so man must never treat sex as anything but potentially fertile.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

Now this is just disingenuous. It seems to assume all physical affection is sexual in nature which it clearly is not.

This particular discussion is based on the example in the first post dealing with a question about the licitness of oral sex; the query being if it is OK for a spouse to pleasure the other to ejaculation/orgasm with no intention of intercourse. This objectifies the persons involved and is not licit for that reason; this is not procreative and thus is not licit for that reason; and this is selfish and thus not unitive and is again, not licit for that reason.

The answer is NEVER.

As for your examples, if these things led to a completion of the sexual act in any manner other than intercourse--then no, it would not be licit.

_________________
K. Ann Seeton

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." --Aristotle (but the concept is found in John Paul II's books The Acting Person and Love and Responsibility as well.)

Quicksilver to Gold
http://hg2au.com

I think we've taken this as far as we can, since the more graphic aspects are best left to other websites.

I would suggest that anyone wanting additional information on this and related topics should look for good, reliable writings on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body

_________________
Rose West
"May God help us not to spoil His work" (Bl. Mother Theresa)

Moderator's Comment

Let me add... good posts everyone who answered the questions posed! Job well done. Thanks.

Dean C.
COL Forum Staff