Busted Halo
feature
January 6th, 2009

What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?

Some surprising answers to a common question

 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

oralsexpicinside

One of the most common (and frequent) questions Busted Halo gets from people is, What exactly does the Catholic Church teach about oral sex? It is an understandable question that is not easily answered with a simple yes or no response. The fact is, the Church’s teachings can’t be compartmentalized into questions on only one form of sexual expression. In order to understand what the church says about oral sex, one must first be aware of the Church’s teachings on the nature and purpose of all sexual expression.

First and foremost, the Church reserves all sex for marriage. This is not simply a way to restrict our natural sexual impulses, but rather to use them for what they were properly intended, namely for procreation of children and to build unity between husband and wife. Even Pope Benedict has spoken openly of his concern that limiting the Church’s attention on sex to “just moral prohibitions” can lead people to “have the impression that the church’s real function is only to condemn and restrict life. Perhaps too much has been said and too often in this direction—without the necessary connection to truth and love.”

While you won’t read any definitive lines in the Catholic Catechism when it comes to oral sex, the church does draw some directives from its traditional teaching on sexuality to provide some guidance. Many people are surprised to hear that even within marriage, the church makes a distinction between oral “sex” and oral stimulation. If we define oral sex as orally stimulating the male partner to orgasm, then the church would prohibit that even for married couples.

Getting Specific

Two books that offer specific directions about the Catholic Church’s teaching on oral sex are Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000) and Vincent Genovesi’s In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996).

Christopher West is a popularizer of the “Theology of the Body” based on Pope John Paul II’s book Love and Responsibility. He has written several books and articles on the subject, and in Good News About Sex , which is a practical summary of this theology, West offers some instances in which oral stimulation (stimulating genitals but not to the point of ejaculation) is perhaps acceptable within marriage:

  • Foreplay: If it is used in the act of foreplay that leads to sexual intercourse where the male climaxes into the female, then oral stimulation is certainly permissible for a couple to engage in within marriage.
  • The Big O: If a man was able to orgasm during sexual intercourse but his wife did not, he may bring his wife to orgasm after intercourse in whatever way he chooses (manual or oral stimulation). West writes, “Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration.”
  • No substitutions, please: Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse, but oral stimulation can be used to lead a couple to vaginal intercourse. Pope Benedict also points couples towards discovering love within sex instead of settling for substitutions for the real thing, stating: “No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery.”
  • Men: No sex 4u: The reverse, however, is prohibited. A man’s orgasm is always tied to his fertility so therefore the church states that oral sex that would end with a male orgasm outside of sexual intercourse is not permissible.
  • Intimacy Over Arousal: Not every single sexual act, per se, need be procreative, but within a “sexual session,” if you will, there needs to be openness to procreative activity. So there can certainly be oral stimulation throughout sexual activity within marriage, but if one is using oral sex simply to avoid pregnancy yet achieve orgasms, then one is limiting their sexual union to merely give arousal rather than intimacy.
  • Premature ejaculation?: For something to be sinful there needs to be both intent and full knowledge of that intention to do evil. If one were to get very turned on and orgasm prematurely, that indeed is not a sinful act. Accidents happen. One needs to be mindful of their intention to sin.
 
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail
The Author : Mike Hayes
Mike Hayes is the senior editor for the Googling God section at BustedHalo.com.
See more articles by (241).
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.
  • George

    This false doctrine that oral sex in marriage is a sin is one of the results of the work of a man who replaced God with the pagan philosophical Aristotelian idol of the “natural law”; enter Thomas Aquinas. Thomas’ works are well thought out by Aristotelian standards, and his Summa Theologica writings were literally used side-by-side to the Bible during the Council of Trent. Pope Leo XIII stated that “this is the greatest glory of Thomas, altogether his own and shared with no other Catholic Doctor, that the Fathers of Trent, in order to proceed in an orderly fashion during the conclave, desired to have opened upon the altar together with the Scriptures and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas whence they could draw counsel, reasons and answers.” The best lies are chockfull of truth, and the best liar is Satan. So the combination of this last statement, the impact Thomas’ works have had and the consequences of the work on the RCC make me suspicious of him.
    Satan wants us to hate God. God grants humans relief from some of His rules when He knows we cannot meet them, and more harm than good will come from us trying to meet them due to our sin nature. So He picks the lesser evil out of love for us. Thomas’ works calling on the natural law sometimes eliminate the relief that God has granted, and in doing so risk humans hating God due to the difficulty of meeting His rules. If God grants relief, He knows why He does it, and for anyone else to go and say that such relief is not available is to push humans harder than God Himself has found wise to do.
    The catechism contains certain teachings regarding sex in marriage that potentially leave a spouse burning in lust, and the natural law(Thomas’ pagan Aristotelian contribution) is used to justify restricting sex to only certain acts that allow procreation in the marital bed. However, there are sex acts that may be completely acceptable to both parties, and yet the church teaches these acts are not allowed, which potentially goes against what God revealed to us through St. Paul that believers should marry lest they burn in lust and are exposed to sin. The natural law partially removes this relief granted to humans by God by potentially leaving a spouse still burning in lust after marriage. The natural law argument is based on the procreative aspect of the sexual act, but if you apply it to certain situations you end up with some unusual outcomes; women that have an operation due to endometriosis, cysts or other conditions that remove their womb or ovaries would no longer be allowed to have sex(at least not moral sex) because there is no possibility of reproduction in the sex act, choosing celibacy is not a moral choice based on the natural law since men are naturally designed to marry women and produce offspring, certain sex acts(like oral sex on a man) in the marital bed are not allowed because they result in ejaculation somewhere where procreation is not possible(and this may leave a spouse lusting for sex if he/she is unlucky enough to want something that is forbidden by natural law), men who are sterile cannot have moral sex because they don’t have the possibility of procreation, etc…
    There are conflicts between divine law and natural law, and the catechism sides with natural law in at least some of those cases. I will name two:
    1. Natural law applied to celibacy.
    Divine law: God revealed to St. Paul that celibacy was acceptable and encouraged for those who could do it without burning in lust.
    Natural law: Choosing celibacy is an immoral act since the person choosing celibacy is living a lifestyle that is closed to the procreative aspect of a man and a woman.
    Side note: There is really no moral difference between choosing to remain celibate and choosing to wear a condom; in both cases one is choosing to go against the natural process of a man and a woman procreating. So if Condom use is immoral and sinful as the Catechism teaches, then Celibacy should also be immoral and sinful. Somehow this inconsistency has been ignored, but it is clear to those who are watching.
    2. Natural law teaching on sex in marriage.
    Divine law: God revealed through St. Paul that those who could not be celibate should marry instead of burning in lust. God also revealed that once married, both spouses owned each others bodies and should fulfill their sexual obligations to each other.
    Natural law: The natural law teaches that certain (even mutually acceptable) sex acts that result in ejaculation outside of the vagina are not allowed under any circumstances, even if that leaves one or or both of the spouses burning in lust.
    Final notes:
    Aristoteles, Socrates, Plato, etc… all lived at least 300 hundred years before Christ, and their works were known in the Roman empire that ruled Israel in the time of Jesus’ life. Yet, our Lord never quoted a greek philosopher to justify any of his teachings. Food for thought.
    One of the main purposes RCIA was instituted in the 3rd century was to avoid pagan philosophy entering the RCC. Somehow, in the 13th century the RCC found it acceptable to be submerged in the pagan philosophy of Aristoteles via Thomas Aquinas.

    • Clinton Lowell Ufford

      Comparing Onan to chaste celibate priests ???

      • George

        You said that, not me.
        Onan is used by some to justify their views on contraception. Ask them how they do that.

      • Clinton Lowell Ufford

        Spilled seed? Well, I can partially understand how it could be used as an example as to a mans seed is a precious “things,” therefor “waisting” it in non-procreative methods can be biblically viewed as an example for anti-contraception.

  • Rebekah Yegneswaran

    So glad I’m not a Catholic :-)

  • miamordios

    From Theology of the Body, it is explained that since the beginning the marital act was to be a foreshadowing of our union with God in heaven. Not in the sense that we will have orgasms in heaven, but rather we will be united to God. One flesh. Being open to life will also be reflected in our union with God as God is the source of all life. This is why the marital act here on earth must be open to life and unitive regardless of whether or not conception will take place. Even marital intercourse while pregnant can be open to life. Clearly the woman is not about to become pregnant again, but the openness between God and the couple can still exist.

    That is the other thing I want to point out. When a married couple is performing the marital act out of love, not lust He is there smiling down at them and they are being blessed. I think knowing that would make couples re-think their motives and the acts they choose to perform.

    Please remember God did not create sex for pleasure only. That is what the devil wants us to believe. God always has more complexity to everything He does. He is too amazing to create something so powerful for such a petty reason.

  • PetiePal

    Being open to the procreative act means being open despite the fact that it is likely (perhaps even certain) that no child will result from this method. That is why couples who cannot have children even at a young age are also required to be open to procreation.

    Again this has nothing to do with Augustine, as it’s in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…the manual for what Catholics are to believe and follow. Simply because we think it’s antiquated doesn’t give us free purchase to do whatever we wish.

    The Church is comprised of her people, however that doesn’t mean they make up, break or change the rules at will

    • kalbertini

      Read up on Conscience formation in your catechism

      • PetiePal

        Know it well. The Catechism states that “lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

        Also “2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

        2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

        Bear in mind, the use of NFP can be sinful, venial or mortal, if done with a contraceptive mentality. It depends on the will of the couple and their culprability. For instance, people who were not married and who were not intending marriage- ever- and who only want to use NFP for health reasons. They broke the guidelines straight away, fell pregnant and planned for a termination. Sadly she miscarried but the intention was still bent on an anti-life mentally.

        Many “good catholics” can tend to be lazy or uninformed as well.

      • kalbertini

        And many Catholics like you are uninformed that Pius IX hailed slavery as morally licit in the name of natural law,Pope Sixtus,Innocent,Siricius & more hailed sex in marriage a necessary evil tainted with sin,Pius IX condemned democracy,Pope Clement & Council of Vienne hailed charging interest on a loan as a xcommunicable offense etc. Yeah I know about conscience & its right to reject nonsense where applicable

      • PetiePal

        Not the same thing – you’re comparing apples to oranges. Popes post Pius denounced denounced that, this doesn’t have have to do with papal infallibility.

        The church will never renounce such acts which are disordered or immoral. At the end of of the day there’s no moral justification for them them and it’s not like church doctrine of that serious a matter (where grave and mortal sins sins are involved ) would be changed since since these these rules exist exist to free us from sin not enable us.

      • kalbertini

        USURY was condemned BIG time as IMMORAL..Pope Urban VIII mentions Luke 6:35 in condemning Usury & Matt 5:42 in his Bull of 1745 “and if anyone thinks in this manner he will no doubt be in opposition to the divine scriptures & judgement to the Catholic church”. Councils Lateran,2nd Lyon,Vienne all condemned Usury as gravely immoral,with one council refusing Christian burial for practices of usury.As the people(the church) rejected this as usury became profitable in commerce & economic change,the holy office by the late 1800s stated”those who charge interest in moderate amounts are not to be disturbed”. Marital sexual ethics are non existant in the scriptures. Conscience holds supreme

      • PetiePal

        What does that have to do with immoral or disordered sexual acts that have no unitive or childbearing possibility? The original discussion had to do with why masturbation, things like homosexual sex, anal sex, fellatio and the like are wrong. They remove the purpose of sex in the first place, and replace it with selfish reasons instead.

        One of the greatest gifts God bestowed upon man was a conscience, and the logic to determine right from wrong.

        Highly urge you to look further into these issues because plenty of research, discussion and material exists on it, and picking and choosing the parts of the Faith we want isn’t really something we can do!

      • kalbertini

        Cant u bloody see that nature DOES NOT allow for every marital act to be unitive/procreative ??? That’s why the seed is wasted in intercourse most of the time.Procreation doesn’t take place

      • PetiePal

        You’re still misunderstanding the point.

        Pope Paul VI in his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” stated, “Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11). The Holy Father continued, “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (“Humanae Vitae,” No. 12).

        Open to the transmission of life does not equal “a baby must be conceived every time you have sex.”

        Sex is procreative, but it’s also unitive. Even if a woman doesn’t get pregnant you’re two flesh becoming one. That doesn’t happen any other way.

        Suggest you read up on Theology of the Body and Humanae Vitae.

      • I know Spam when I smell it

        yea…um…spam!

      • kalbertini

        Get a life.If u can^t contribute to legitimate discussion,lame empty comments won^t cut it.

  • kalbertini

    Bad biology breeds bad theology.Most of the time when the man ejaculates in the vagina conception doesn’t take place.Nature doesn’t allow most acts on intercourse to result in conception. Point ? who cares if a couple ejaculate or orgasm at times outside of the sexual relationship.Most Catholics(the Church is the peple) don’t follow antiquated paranoid views on sexuality.A hangover from Augustine who hailed sex in marriage a necessary evil. Good God whats the rate of Couples using contraception 85,95 % ?

    • Salvelinus

      This is bad theology, that smacks in the face of what truth is and can be reasoned as a nonsequiter by anyone with a child’s level of catechesis.
      One cannot think the Church is some kind of democracy, “majority rule” institution. Truth is truth regardless of the pressures inside and outside the Church.
      Even if 100% of Catholics were in disagreement with a particular truth, doesn’t mean the truth now becomes “untrue”.
      Some things are non-negotiable, and define Catholic teaching, oftentimes coming directly from our Lords words (divorce and remarriage) while others allow prudential judgement (death penalty), and others, while not in sacred scripture, nevertheless are big t tradition.
      Contraception is of the latter and cannot be accepted, as its divinely revealed truth.
      Nobody said this would be an easy ride… pick up that cross and Dominus vobiscum

      • kalbertini

        Contraception has Absolutely nothing to do with Big T tradition.You don^t know what your talking about. Neither is the church ruled by one person(pope) who disregards consensus & dumps needless burdens.Just remember Pope Gregory 16th hailed the building of the railroad as the work of the devil.History shows popes can blunder & blunder Big

      • Salvelinus

        .. umm okay. Please expand how contraception, or “wasting” of ones seed is okay or confusing to you with its relation to Catholic tradition… semantics adide, This wasting of man’s seed is , although again, absence in sacred scripture doesnt preclude doctrine from being truth (ie solo scriptura heresy).
        But interestingly the condemnation comes from the old testament. .Onan was struck down for “spilling” his seed (cf. Gen. 38:9)
        Onan spilled his semen on the ground for the purpose of making the act sterile. His sin was not the waste of semen—semen is often “wasted” in the sense that, during relations, its presence does not always result in pregnancy. Onan’s sin was acting in such a way that intentionally sterilized the act. 
        Tradition is doctrine passed down, although not always present in scripture, but like all Catholic tradition, never contrary to it.

        Catechism? Yup, its there too… “Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil. (CCC 2370)

        Humanea Vitea (although sadly, widely dissented by Catholics was not only prophetic with objectification of women) is quite clear:
        Humanae Vitaeclearly states[T]hat the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children…Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one…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—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, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. (Humanae Vitae14).

        Lastly….

        All Christians (not just us zany Catholics) were in total agreement on the condemnation of artificial contraception until the Anglicans allowed it in rare cases for married (obviously) couples.

        This “rare permission” was granted following the Lambeth conference in 1932. This paired with the wasteland of time (aka, the 1960s) started the ball rolling. Shortly after, the Catholics in the pews began their widespread dissent even though the Church itself never wavered in her beautiful teaching.

      • kalbertini

        Pope Paul VI had to abandon the Onan reference because modern biblical scholarship revealed Onan was killed not for contraception but failing to provide a heir for his deceased brother^s wife.Nowhere in the Catechism or in any document on contraception after Vatican II is Onan mentioned.As far as the protestant reformation goes Luthor was against contraception but also taught sex in marriage was holy & pleasing to God,that was against Catholic church teaching & the views of popes for centuries.Gregory the Great hailed sex in marriage a defilement that made a man unworthy to enter a church till he got cleansed,Pope Innocent II declared at Synod of Clermont in 1130 “since priests are suppose to be God^s temples…it offends their dignity to lie in the conjugal bed & live in impurity”. No reference to contraception just a man having marital relations with his wife being described as impure,this is but a small list of popes holding sex in marriage as evil.Why don’t u defend this tradition that so conveniently gets forgotten.Read up what the catechism says on conscience(the aboriginal vicar of Christ). As the Scandinavian bishops stated after humanae vitae “that no catholic is to be considered a inferior catholic who comes to a different conclusion’. The german bishops after Humanae Vitae hailed that ultimately CONSCIENCE decides. Now go back to old papal statements of popes holding the sun goes around the earth according to scripture & that galileo is a heretic because he goes against the teaching of the church.

      • Salvelinus

        Your “conscience” (likely an aging throwback, yearning for the “spirit” of Vatican II to return) appears to be shining bright.
        From your comments you also appear better suited to be reading rags like commonweal or the national schismatic (er, Catholic) reporter.
        Since you also appear to be a proabortion faux Catholic (ie pelosi, biden) I’ll end it here. Your arguments are nonsequiturs

      • kalbertini

        You are a misguided Catholic.The Church which is the people have rejected that every act of artificial contraception is not inherently evil.The Church evolves non historical catholic.Pope pius IX hailed slavery as moral & proper in the name of natural law & divine law,but Vatican II condemned slavery & JPII also in veritatis splendor.Pius IX hailed democracy as illegitimate but Paul VI approved democracy in the Vatican II document church in the modern world that hailed people have a right to choose & elect leaders.This nonsense about schism or spirit of Vatican II is illusionary.Go back to the church of Inquisition & there tortures

  • doll

    When a married couple agree on anything in the bed, it makes for a much better marriage: but when you start giving them restrictions, you can cause guilt and problems in a marriage!

  • doll

    It’s all hog wash!!

    • I know Spam when I smell it

      spam.

      • kalbertini

        I Know Spam when I smell it….yes your smelling yourself Spamhead

  • Bob

    My wife and I have practiced Natural Family Planning for the 16 years we have been married. The greatest gift it has given us is a desire to be open to children. This has promoted deep communication each month as to whether we have a good reason to NOT have a child. We understand that whenever we choose to make love, I as the man, I must ejaculate inside of her. If she conceives a child it is because God worked through our consciences that he directed through our communication. During our love making we both understand the end result is my orgasm must occur inside her. She, on the other hand, cannot orgasm through traditional intercourse. We both interpret the churches teaching about oral sex and orgasm in general to allow me to bring her to orgasm during our love making sessions by whatever means as long as it’s not brought about with artificial means (i.e. vibrators, toys etc). She doesn’t desire foreplay and/or orgasm every time we make love. When she does I usually bring her to orgasm before me but sometimes it’s after and we believe this to be in line with the Church’s teaching. We also believe any stimulation she provides me prior to intercourse to be in line with the Church’s teaching providing similar artificial means referred to earlier are not used and it doesn’t result in ejaculation outside her vagina. Accidents can happen but it’s rare when you are both on the same page. If they do we don’t freak out about it. To be sinful there must be intent.

    I find it interesting how some think this approach is boring or controlling by the Church. The communication this approach takes between my wife and I brings about a level of excitement, arousal and love that is indescribable and that seems to get better and deepen the more we practice it. Before you knock it, I would invite you to try it. I will be honest and open by admitting I am a sinner and always have been, especially when I was younger. I experienced many sexual encounters that were sinful and are very traditional by todays standards and go completely against the approach my wife and I follow today. The sexual feelings, arousal and fulfillment I experienced from those sinful experiences don’t come close to what I experience today with my wife. I am very grateful for the sacrament of confession and God leading my wife and I to the right ideal. God bless all who are looking for His direction in this wonderful gift of physical and spiritual love we married couples share.

  • Mike Hayes

    The thread is getting a bit repetitive…we’ve already covered a lot in this conversation thread and in the article. But it seems that there may be more questions on this. So please e-mail questionbox@bustedhalo.com with additional questions. And let’s be sure we’re being charitable toward one at all times — even in the comments section of websites. Thanks!

    • Salvelinus

      Thanks for the article, Mike.
      As a man, these specifics are not something I’m comfortable bringing up in discussions with my confessor.
      This piece really helped… a lot!

      Yet again, I’m fascinated on the genius our Catholic faith contains. As a fairly recent revert it helps getting the specific info!
      Pax vobis!

  • James Witter

    “Is oral sex OK?” or “My husband wants to make a video of us in the bedroom. Is this a sin?” The reason we get so many of these questions probably has something to do with the fact that the Bible does not specifically speak to everything that a couple can do sexually. Many couples don’t talk about these things, and it’s not uncommon for both husband and wife to want to try something new, but each is afraid the other will be upset or offended. Our aim here is to provide a way for a couple to discuss these issues.
    Where scripture is silent, we must look at Biblical principles to build outlines for what is, and is not, good for our marriage bed.
    Let’s start with what the Bible does say.
    We are to abstain from immoral sex. The Bible indicates the following are sin:
    fornication/unmarried sex (Galatians 5:19, 1 Corinthians 7:2 & 36)
    adultery (Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:27)
    homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22 , Romans 1:26-27)
    bestiality (Leviticus 18:23 & 20:15-16)
    prostitution (Leviticus 19:29, Deuteronomy 23:17, Proverbs 23:27, 1 Corinthians 6:15-16)
    incest (Leviticus 18:6)
    We are to have sex only in marriage; one man with one woman. (Matthew 19:4-5, 1 Timothy 3:2 & 12)
    We are expected to lovingly meet the legitimate sexual needs and wants of our spouse (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 – see Sexual Responsibility and Sexual Stewardship).

    The preceding are all direct biblical commands. In addition there are requirements set out for us as believers (which we can apply to our roles as husbands and wives), which add the following restrictions:

    Love for our spouse, and respect for the bodies and minds God created, requires us to avoid anything which can cause problems: (Ephesians 5:29 & 33, 1 Corinthians 6:19)
    physically
    medically
    emotionally
    mentally
    spiritually
    relationally
    We should never push our spouse to compromise their beliefs. (Romans 14:1 & 14 & 23)
    We should not be controlled by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23)

    Anything that does not violate these principles should be okay within the marriage bed.

  • James Witter

    Oral Sex

    Oral sex is using the mouth to sexually stimulate your spouse’s genitals. Oral can be done as foreplay, or to bring about orgasm. As with manual sex, there are no hints of prohibition in the Bible, and many scholars of the Song of Songs are convinced that several passages describe oral sex being performed on both the man and the woman. (Song of Songs 2:3, the woman performing oral sex on the man, and Song of Songs 4:16 and possibly 8:2 for the man doing it to the woman).

    One common concern is cleanliness. In reality the genitals of a healthy man or woman are actually “cleaner” than our mouths. The taste or odor of the genitals may put some off, but often this is more of a mental response than a physical one. In fact, many are aroused by the smell of their partner’s clean genitals.

    Some folks have a strong aversion to the idea of oral sex. Often this is the result of some teaching that is less than accurate, or a negative feeling about the genitals or sex in general. Pressuring such a person for oral sex will only result in arguments and hard feelings. On the other hand, there are those who think they are missing one of the best things sex has to offer if they don’t experience oral sex. This is probably due to the influence, directly or indirectly, of pornography. While oral sex can be very enjoyable, it is not the end-all of sexual acts, and there are other ways of producing similar pleasure. Couples who are at odds over oral sex need to give each other some room, and they should each privately examine their feelings about oral sex.

  • James Witter

    It is important that our sexual activities benefit our sense of intimacy and oneness as a couple. It’s also important for a couple to have regular intercourse, if they are able to. While the Bible does not speak to this, science has shown that all sex is not alike, and intercourse has effects on our bodies, minds, and emotions (and we believe our spirits) that no other sex act can match1. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who say it’s a sin for a man to ejaculate anywhere other than a woman’s vagina. We find nothing in the Bible which says this, and nothing which seems to even hint this is the case; therefore, we see no reason to limit sex or climax to intercourse. However, a couple who frequently avoids intercourse is cheating themselves out of something God intended them to have. To help us understand the variety of sex acts possible, and the fact that each couple will engage in a different subset of these sex acts, we like the analogy of a playground; the marriage bed playground. There is a fence around the playground – a fence that separates a couple from sex acts that are dangerous, sinful, or otherwise unacceptable. Inside the fence are a great number of pieces of playground equipment (sex acts) that a couple may enjoy if they so desire. What each couple enjoys varies just as preferences in playground equipment vary. If he gets dizzy and sick on things that spin, the merry-go-round is not a good choice. If she is uncomfortable with heights, that very tall slide is a bad idea. If they both enjoy him pushing her in the swing, but neither is big on her pushing him, that’s just fine. Start with a few things and over time test out others. If something is not enjoyable to either of you, leave it. However, do come back around to things you didn’t like the first time – our tastes chance, and some things we didn’t enjoy early on may be a lot of fun years later.

    But where is the fence? What is inside the fence, and what is outside? Let’s consider some specific bedroom activities and apply the principles above. Please keep in mind that we are not recommending any of these activities, we are only trying to give couples a framework for deciding which sexual activities will build their marriage, and which may damage it. How you feel about these things will be influenced by personal preferences, past experience, and your understanding of the Word.

  • James Witter

    Manual Sex

    Manual sex is using the hands to sexually stimulate your spouse’s genitals. It can be done as foreplay, or as a way of causing orgasm. Manual sex does not violate any of the principles we have given, and there are even strong hints of it in the Song of Songs. We can see no reason not to use our hands to arouse each other before intercourse or to have an orgasm before, after, or instead of intercourse.

    Manual sex can be a good way to deal with seriously mismatched sex drives. While some people think of manual sex as a “juvenile” act of limited pleasure, it’s possible to become very skilled at giving a great deal of pleasure with your hands.

  • James Witter

    I love your answer…. you are right on and speak the truth…The couple needs to be able to have a healthy sexual relationship no matter how they bring each other to climax.. your answer is right on and correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • PetiePal

    I’m sorry naksuthin, but you’re not speaking the truth that the Catholic Church believes. They do not condone oral or manual stimulation for ANY reason.

    • James Witter

      WHO CARE WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE MARRIAGE BED.

      • PetiePal

        Catholics and Christians, who come to a Catholic and Christian website to find out the answer of what their Faith says regarding the subject do. If you don’t like it there’s plenty of other websites out there.

    • naksuthin

      You are misreading your own teachings. According to the church there is nothing wrong with oral or manual STIMULATION as long as the act of EJACULATION is performed vaginally.
      That’s how religious teachings get misinterpreted. Someone sets a principle and then forgets what the principle was for….and condemns the act.

      • PetiePal

        No sorry. I am right about this. According to a writer who was DENOUNCED by the Catholic Church, (who wrote I believe a Love Filled Marriage or whatever it was called), anything was ok as long as it culminated in vaginal ejaculation. The Church has never come out and said this officially EVER.

      • PetiePal

        Also…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.

        Further, the procreative and unitive dimensions of sexual activity are inseparable; any action of the sexual organisms lacking in these dimensions is wrong. However, an action of the sexual faculties outside of the marital act would be lacking in any procreative dimension and consequently in any unitive dimension; it would be “sexual pleasure…sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2351), i.e. lust.

        There’s a big difference between life-giving and life-OFFERING, which is what must occur. Also there is much discussion that EACH sexual act must be looked at separately and objectively. If it’s not life-offering, in can be inherently evil.

  • naksuthin

    So if a couple is infertile and cannot bear children…oral sex is totally acceptable with the church, right?

    Say the husband doesn’t produce good sperm or the wife has had a hysterectomy.

    If the couple CANNOT bear children for any reason then they are free to have whatever kind of sex they want: oral, mutual masturbation, anal etc. since no form of sex will produce offspring for them

    • PetiePal

      No, oral sex is never ok even when they cannot bear children due to infertility. I highly suggest you read Humana Vitae and the Theology of the Body for more info on this.

      • naksuthin

        Instead of forming your MORAL opinions and beliefs based on the writing of other people…why not just come to your own conclusions.
        God gave you a brain. Your school taught you how to reason.
        USE THOSE TOOLS

        Morality will vary from person to person and culture to culture.
        There is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL book you can read to tell you how to behave.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        you are really desiring to win a battle with your conscience, not with us. We are using our brains, our conscience, our hearts where God Makes His Home. Through His Wisdom, His Teaching by Bible, by Spirit by Conscience and by Church, yes we think for ourselves, and in doing so we AGREE to God’s way. Sex is for transition of life. It’s stupid to think otherwise. As the Bible Says Christians shouldn’t live for the world, their natural selves, but for GOD. Duh. It is so brain dead to think otherwise and claim to know God in truth. God in truth = we agree naturally to this teaching. It’s not a challenge for us. You’re convicted and unhappy because God won’t be how you make Him out to be and how you want Him. He doesn’t agree to this evil, the end. So those who are His don’t.

    • Mike Hayes

      Incorrect. Being open to the procreative act means being open despite the fact that it is likely (perhaps even certain) that no child will result from this method. That is why couples who cannot have children even at a young age are also required to be open to procreation.

      • PetiePal

        Mike’s got it here.

      • naksuthin

        If God CREATED a couple that is infertile or IF GOD decides to end a woman’s ability to ovulate and produce children when she is old, why would God then STILL insist on them having only vaginal sex (or being “open to the procreative act”)
        God has already decided the couple WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE CHILDREN.

        It’s like God creating a man who is unable to walk and then having God insist that the cripple person not use a wheelchair or crutches to move around…but has to continue to go through the motions of “walking”

      • Lauren

        The Bible is full of examples of couples God allows to conceive despite age and infertility. That is what is meant by ‘open to the procreative act’… accepting the will of God. Just because a doctor says a couple is infertile, does not restrict the power of the Lord. I personally know a woman who was told she could never have children who is now expecting her second child within a Godly and prayerful marriage.

    • James Witter

      I feel that any form of sexual activity is good and fun for both partners.. I am not sure anal sex is a good idea though. God has intended for the husband and wife to pleasure each other and have extreme fun together. I do not think God intended for sexual intercourse to be the only form of the sexual act. I also feel that God did not intend for the woman to be with child after every sexual encounter. Intercourse is not only meant for making babies, It is also fun to have wild passionate sex and not intend to make a baby. like I said before the womans clit is put there for her to have extreme pleasure only. It has no other purpose. read the song of solomon in the bible and it talks about all forms of sexual pleasure including oral sex.

    • James Witter

      YYYeeeesssss … have fun in the marriage bed and make each other happy.

      • Cj Mon

        The sexual act needs to be completed, meaning, actual union of the bodies through penetration. Please remember that this is a discussion board, and that the best person to ask about Church mandates is your local priest. You can always start with the Cathecism but remember that popularity or human opinion doesn’t mean that it is right/natural. It’s not about feelings. It’s about Truth.
        Please see Mike’s and Pewdie Pie’s response on infertility in couples and the sexual act below.

      • naksuthin

        There are couple that cannot have sex through vaginal penetration. The coupe may have physical challenges to penetration or find it impossible of physically painful.

        God created the sex drive in order to guarantee the survival of the species….just as he created “hunger” in order to direct us to seek nutrition for our bodies.

        But that doesn’t mean we can only eat when our bodies tell us we are hungry. That doesn’t mean it is a sin to eat lunch right after you’ve eaten breakfast. Even though you are not hungry. It doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy a buffet even though you may eat more than your body requires.

        It doesn’t mean that it is a sin to eat something that has no nutritional value like coffee or sugar loaded sodas or twinkies. Or an oreo cookie loaded with preservatives and transfats.

        Yes. The main purpose of eating is to provide nutrition and energy. Just as the main purpose of sex is procreation. But eating (like sex) is also a form of entertainment and pleasure and it’s perfectly fine to indulge in a Coke or eat potato chips or an Oreo cooking….even though they contribute nothing to nutrition and are even BAD for your body.

        So it is with sex. Sex is not only for procreation. It is truly a form of pleasure and entertainment. And any mutual sex act that gives pleasure and entertainment is , like eating , perfectly acceptable.

        The real reason the Catholic church is against oral sex and contraception is that it leads to LESS CATHOLICS in the world. And the fewer Catholics, the less power the Catholic church will have.

      • PetiePal

        This has been addressed in comments below on this page. Sex can be used for pleasure but not unnatural or immoral sex or sexual acts.

        Catholicism is the biggest religion in the world, I doubt they’re worried about loss of power.

      • naksuthin

        “Sex can be used for pleasure but not unnatural or immoral sex or sexual acts.”
        “UNNATURAL” , “IMMORAL”???…and who determines what is unnatural or immoral?
        Don’t tell me. The Pope.

        News flash!

        Millions of people around the world enjoy anal, oral and homosexual sex. For them it is totally natural and moral.
        They are free-thinkers, determining for themselves behind the closed doors of their bedroom…what is moral and natural.
        They don’t need to read a list of Catholic church “DO’s and DON’Ts in the Bedroom” before they decide what is right and wrong. And No priest is looking into their bedroom to see if they are having “correct sex”

      • PetiePal

        Good point CJ. Popular opinion doesn’t mean it’s what’s moral or right.

      • kalbertini

        Yes opinion matter,Popes taught slavery as moral,condemned girls & boys educated in same class,hailed sex in marriage evil,condemned democracy.As a Catholic conscience holds primacy because just because the pope says it does not make it right.

    • James Witter

      Oral sex , mutual masturbation and etc is totally acceptable anytime in the marriage bed, but I also think there should also be a balance of oral sex and regular sexual intercourse. You also need to have regular intercourse for the bonding and becoming one. As far as just intercourse being the only way to have sex is wrong. If there is an issue where the wife can not receive the husbands penis then it is okay to do what makes the couple happy and is okay by either spouse. just enjoy your married life and make it hot and passionate and WILD. make love anyway you feel free. the church is not is not here to tell us how to make love to our mates. that is our own liberty

      • PetiePal

        Not for Catholics it’s not. This has been definitely taught by the Catholic Church, so Catholics who truly want to adhere to what is taught by their religion and not be hypocrites can’t do it.

        The Church can’t make you do anything but you sure can choose to do it if you see fit. They are guidelines and rules meant to keep you from distancing yourself from God. If you don’t care about God, why be on a site called BustedHalo?

      • naksuthin

        The trouble with many religious people is they refuse to use the brains that God gave them to determine what is best for THEM.
        Instead the rely on a “one size fit’s all” where someone tells them what to believe and how to think and they follow like lambs.
        Whenever someone tells you LISTEN TO ME. I KNOW THE TRUTH. Watch out.
        His purpose is to use you to achieve HIS ENDS.
        He prefers that you do not reason, think or question.
        He prefers blind obedience
        He prefers to tell you HOW HE WANTS YOU to think.

        That is the reason the Church has had such a checkered history throughout the ages since Christ died. Inquisitions, burning a the stake, crusades, immoral priests, bishops and POPES, slavery, stealing of native lands, burning of native books. No surprise that the western hemisphere was settled by Colonist and Priests at the point of a bayonet.

        My advice to any Catholic reading this:

        If you want to follow Christ….You can read the Bible for yourself and come to your own conclusion. You don’t need some priest telling you what to believe and how to live your life…when to have sex and what kind of sex to have.

        If people like Galileo had relied on the teachings of the Church we would till be taught that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.
        Thank God he stood up to the teachings of the Church and challenged them…even to his own peril

        THINK FOR YOURSELF

      • PetiePal

        I’m sorry I don’t agree with that.

        I think plenty of religious people use the brains they were given. However we are creatures of free-will which means we have the ability to act in our own selfish interests. You see it every day.

        The Church is compromised of Humans…not perfect beings.Hence the Inquisitions, crusades, immoral priests and even heretical popes. The Western Hemisphere was settled…by those escaping religious persecution for their beliefs. You may want to revisit your historical views and information on that.

        Your advice may deem well for a “Christian” but if you are to follow the papal succession which leads back to St. Peter, who was entrusted with the Church on Earth, then the tradition, even with its mistakes and lessons learned are what is to be followed.

        If we didn’t have the Church you also wouldn’t have the Scientific Method. As well as Galileo who was a devout and pious Catholic. Or Pasteur. Mersenne, Agricola, Lavoisier, Copernicus, Grimaldi, Riccione. All branches of science are pretty rooted in Catholicism. Mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics etc.

        The Church encourages all to think for themselves and find out the truth. The more we learn from science the more it will support not oppose Church beliefs in a Divine Creator and Intelligent Designer.

      • kalbertini

        Peter was resisted by Paul when he wanted to impose circumcision on male adults to be initiated into the church.We^ve had popes condemn interest on a loan,democracy,hold slavery as moral.You don’t check your brains outside the door being catholic

      • Salvelinus

        Good stuff petie. Its daunting sometimes defending our holy mother, the Church in these comboxes. But you are doing it with clarity, charity and true grit.
        Keep fighting the good fight my friend.
        Dominus vobiscum!!

      • PetiePal

        Amen!

      • Salvelinus

        “Thinking for ones self” is encouraged in the Catholic church. However there is an obvious need for a magesterium. 30,000 protestant denominations would disagree on the need of a magesterium, but I suppose that’s why there are so many protestant denominations and ONE Catholic church.
        Your statements on the crusades, inquisition and Galileo are all standard run of the mill “talking points” (and lies) linked to historical anticatholic bigotry.

        “Read the bible yourself”? Amen… totally agree. But the problems come when one forgets about magesterium and tradition and relies on bible alone (sola scriptura heresy). This is why thousands of protestant denominations can read the same bible (compiled by the Catholic church) and come to radically different interpretations.

      • kalbertini

        3,000 protestant denominations.Buddy the Catholic church today doesn’t teach the same things as 60 years ago let alone 600 years ago.One pope taught that a monk who committed adultery & had a abortion was not guilty of sin because the abortion took place before ensoulment which he put at 3 months.St Antoninus Of Florence a moral theologian hailed abortion before ensoulment to save a mothers life as fine.The Council of Vienne hailed heresy to charge interest on a loan but the Vatican bank charges interest on a loan today.The Catholic church changes & evolves & when it comes to mral decision making conscience ultimately guides.Newman stated I drink to the pope,but conscience first.was he protestant ? How about JP II condemning slavery when Pius IX hailed it as good & moral.Catholicism hold a legitimate pluralism but were united by the creeds,eucharist,sacraments. Popes in the past would collapse in shock if they saw what the church teaches now.Luthor was condemned for saying burning heretics was against God will. Does the Catholic church hold burning heretics now as being proper ? get Real

      • Salvelinus

        Remember, unless s council or its documents relate to faith and morals the lsity can ignore then.
        Lumen Gencium is a fine example thst has caused huge problems.
        Sancrosanctum, or thr Bugnini mass has caused massive problems cardinal Burk has clarified thks.
        Your exAmples, while wrong, are of mand inherren error… Thats all. And I dibt mean to don’t mwwn ti sound unchartitable but the ,”biological sollutio will bring the Catholic mass more reverant and respect to the one true faith.
        Domiusrbe Cardinal.Bufj
        Ke

      • kalbertini

        At the Council Of Trent according to Father john O Malley they recognized that the Mass liturgy in the holyland was celebrated under every language under the sun.People love the real liturgy of Vatican II which is a restoration of a earlier liturgy.The latin mass had the priest turned against the congregation mumbling the words.People would say the rosary or look at their watch,they were non participants.Vatican II said Hey! you the people are the Church ! there is as Peter stated “a priesthood of all believers”.

  • James Witter

    As far as I am concerned the husband and wife are free to do what ever sex act that they would like to do in their marriage. Just read the song of solomon in the Bible teaches that they enjoyed Oral sex as husband and wife. my wife and I enjoy sexual intercourse very much but we also climax with manual stimulation also. I would really enjoy if the wife would give me oral and I would also like to give her oral as well but she says no just because. she will not give me a good reason not to give an receive oral… I think it is awesome to smell and taste a woman down there and to bring her to climax with my tongue.

    • PetiePal

      Be careful James as if you consider yourself a Catholic you can’t truly live up to being one if you actively do things with full knowledge that they are wrong.

      • James Witter

        Wrong to the church or wrong to what the bible says?
        by what the bible says in the song of solomon the scripture talks very openly about what they did to each other by the way of oral sex.. sexual intercourse is not just for procreation it is for times of pleasure and fun and wild passionate sex as a couple . the womans clit has nothing to do as far as procreation is concerned it is there only for her pleasure because God only put it there for pleasure. there is nothing in the bible that says oral sex is wrong.

      • PetiePal

        The Bible is not the be all end all for the Catholic Faith. You’re on a Catholic sponsored website where Catholics, and those are interested in learning more come to discuss.

        The Song of Solomon is from the Old Testament more attributed to Judaism. Also if you look closely it’s a poetic piece that can’t be literally taken. The main purpose of intercourse IS procreation, the pleasure is an added benefit. God was smart enough not to make sex a painful thing.

        If the BIble, particularly the New Testament were the ONLY resource available for Catholics you’d be right. However the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that perverse or abnormal sex isn’t moral and is also a sin for Catholics.

        Hence the entire discussion this article hinges around, whether oral sex is right or not for CATHOLICS, is simply a no, no matter how your past experience, opinions or leanings towards it may be.

        What you do yourself is your own business, but as we’re on a Catholic/Christian website it’s apt to not be the same for others.

      • James Witter

        who says the oral sex is immoral. the bib le is the bible and it does not change so to what song of solomon says in the bible oral sex is okay. you say it is a poetic piece so what all you have to do is think a little and you can see the husband and wife having oral sex. so what you are saying is that if song of solomon was put in the new testament it would be okay for oral sex and mutual masturbation.

      • PetiePal

        This book is really seen primarily as
        an allegory describing the love relationship between God and His people, not
        between a husband and wife. “The early Jewish rabbis taught that the
        book pictures God’s love for Israel. Early Christian writers took the same
        approach, but they replaced Israel with the Church. One writer in the third
        century wrote a ten-volume commentary on Song of Solomon, telling how the book
        describes God’s love for Christians.” (Estes) Trapp expresses this perspective:
        “The chief speakers are not Solomon and the Shulamite . . . but Christ and his
        Church.”

      • James Witter

        whatever . as far as I am concerned oral sex is okay and so is mutual masturbation as long as it is done in the marriage

      • Matthew Abid

        I guess my question comes is the Churches teaching has been explained and you continue to refute it, where are your sources? You cannot have oral sex or masturbastion without being selfish. There is no love (ie sacrifice) in those acts. You are only trying together off and that’s not biblical (ie love is NOT self serving!) And husbands must love their wives like Christ loved the church (ie death). Just wanted to put the churches teaching in complete context not just a picking and choosing of things in the bible.

      • naksuthin

        “You cannot have oral sex or masturbation without being selfish.”
        Purely a meaningless judgement call.
        To call millions of loving committed couples that you do not know or have never met “selfish” says more about YOU than about them.

        Sex is about personal pleasure. That’s the way God intended it.
        If sex were not pleasurable, if people derived no personal euphoria out of the sex act….no one would have sex and we would become extinct.

        Sex is not a “duty”. You don’t have sex to do a favor for your wife. Husbands don’t love their wives because the Bible says they have to. Sex is not about sacrifice.

        100 years ago women were taught by their church that sex was a duty. That they had to submit to their husbands sexual needs.
        Many women were taught that sex had to be “endured” in order to have children. They were taught that to enjoy the sex act wasn’t becoming of a woman.

        I’m sure many women are thankful that the women’s liberation movement helped to change all that.

      • Matthew Abid

        God saw fit to allow sex to be pleasurable, but that doesn’t mean it’s a flipping free for all. Masturbastion is selfish. Your whole aim is to have an orgasm, it doesn’t unify or procreate-pretty much what the discussion is. Love is about sacrifice-mr bible quote (love is patient, love is kind, love is not self seeking). This women’s liberation theology that you speak of (which is poor sexual theology and isn’t singled out to women) has increased divorce, has pushed the homosexual movement, has lead to a huge list of sexual sins. As pope Paul xi talked about in humane vitae-these sins are a result of birh control.

        The Catholic Church is the only church that is completely consistent in its sexual theology. All sexual acts must be unitive and procreative-this is why masturbation, homosexual activity and oral sex are all our of the guidelines of the church.

      • Matthew Abid

        Oh and I know you’ve got your opinion and know amount of sound catholic logic is going to help you understand.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        yes, I imagine that we can only leave God to Judge them, we can’t teach them, take a miracle for God to Teach them.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        and when you do what the Church teaches and God Leads in the Heart and Spirit, when you unite it’s powerful intense profound and glorious. From the Soul, as it should be. God bless you.

      • kalbertini

        I agree.We^ve had popes uphold slavery as moral(Pius IX),condemned democracy(pius IX), hailed charging interest on a loan as immoral(Council Of Vienne hailed it heresy & excommunicable),now the Vatican bank charges usury.Whatever is mutually acceptable & loving in marriage is legitimate.Not the dictates of celibate men who hailed sex in marriage a necessary evil(many popes did)

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        Absolutely true, Matthew. GOD BLESS you!

      • naksuthin

        “As far as I am concerned oral sex is OK”
        It’s refreshing to hear from a Catholic who can come to his own conclusions without the need to depend on what other people have told him to believe.
        There is no biblical prohibition against oral sex. Protestants worship the same God and follow the teachings of Christ and St. Paul yet come to a totally different conclusion than the Catholic Church.
        To most Protestants there is absolutely no problem with oral sex as long as it is within marriage.
        If you are a Christian, look to the teachings of Christ for direction and you won’t be misled.
        It’s when “religious authorities” start trying to ‘interpret” what Christ said (or even things he never said at all) for everyone else, that is when we get into this legal wrangling over what kind of sex is permissible between married couples.
        and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        When the bedroom door closes…. the only rules are the rules two loving couples make for themselves.
        That is true intimacy.

      • James Witter

        I totally agree with everything you said. I really like this that you said…….When the bedroom door closes…. the only rules are the rules two loving couples make for themselves.That is what love is about

      • naksuthin

        Yes. Catholic can’t agree among themselves what the limits of oral sex are.
        For some, oral sex if fine as long as the males orgasm occurs vaginally…oral sex for stimulation

        For other Catholics, the oral act itself is prohibited…it’s dirty, disease ridden and selfish.

        For other Catholics oral sex to orgasm for a woman is perfectly acceptable but not for a man since a woman’s orgasm does not involve sperm ejaculation

        That’s why Catholics are constantly confused about oral sex. Everyone has his own answer and everyone knows the TRUTH.
        Just look at the varying reposes of Catholics on this thread and you can see how much confusion there is.

        My advice. Rely on your own judgement. You and your wife know what works for you. And if you already have children fell confident that you have successfully fathered as many children as you can afford.
        So I’m sure God wouldn’t accuses you of trying to avoid parenthood through oral sex.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        you are not Catholic if you go against God and Church. Duh. Leave. and by the way, the Bible says “And LET the marriage bed be undefiled, because God WILL hold all accountable who commit sexual immorality.” Which is easy to read for true Christians that there is a immorality clearly possible even within marriage. Protestants read this verse as “so long as you marry her, do whatever you like to her.” You follow them, could end in a Bad Place.

      • kalbertini

        The Catholic Church hailed slavery as morally right & in tune with the natural law(pope Pius IX) who also condemned democracy.Council of Vienne hailed it heresy & a excommunicable offense if u charged interest on a loan.Today the Vatican bank charges interest as well as many catholics receive interest in their savings.Paul^s reference to defilement involves adultery,fornication,not what a loving couple decides to do.For crying out loud popes hailed sex in marriage a necessary evil tainted with sin in times past

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        Very true. God bless you.

      • kalbertini

        Modern Biblical Scholarship holds the Song Of Songs as a true celebration of married love

      • kalbertini

        Modern biblical Scholarship holds the song of songs as a true celebration of married love,sorry

      • PetiePal

        Sorry, but the Catholic Church is pretty clear on what disordered or unnatural sexual acts are. There’s no unitive nature to oral sex, and there’s also no life-allowing chances, so it’s pretty clearly a sin.

        Not everything in the Bible was literal, there are plenty of metaphors and allegories.

      • kalbertini

        Theres no procreation in restricting sex to infertile periods(Rhythm,NFP),theres no procreation in sex after pregnancy or when the Mother breast feeds her child as ovulation stops,theres no procreation after menopause.All of these the “church” permits. The obsession with the seed is based on out of date biological laws.In Aquinas time the seed was bekieved to be human like(there was no discovery of female egg till 1826. The Church is the People Of God(Vatican II)

      • naksuthin

        Caution. The Catholic church is constantly changing its views and modifying its practices and beliefs.
        Catholicism isn’t a consistent faith. Church teachings on morality varies from age to age.
        For example, several hundred years ago when slavery was popular, the Catholic church insisted that slavery was normal, biblical and moral…especially when it came to making slaves out of non Catholics.
        That’s how the Spanish Catholic colonialist were able to build many huge Cathedrals and fortresses in far off foreign lands.
        Here in Mexico the Catholic priests used slave Mayan labor to tear down Mayan temples and construct huge Churches on top of the ruins.

        Today the church teachings on slavery have changed…due in no small part to the separation between Church and State.

        So what the church teaches today about oral sex…will probably not be what they teach 100 years from now when new life will be created by new method (cloning, invitro fertilization, artificial insemination , artificial genetics etc) besides vaginal intercourse

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        TRUTH.

      • Salvelinus

        Sola scriptura (protestant heresy) much?
        Bible alone leaves one wide open to error. Ask the 30000 protestant ecclesiastical communities, all reading the same bible with completely different interpretations

    • Courage Hope-Ember

      its because it’s disgusting you urinate through that thing and if it isn’t for sex you’re rancid and degrading. God have mercy on your marriage. Not good. Me and my husband connect so powerfully we need nothing but each other and it’s profound, intense and always fulfilling. we are in sync and highly blessed. We love each other so much that he loves to just hold me and visa versa. if you’re Catholic, you won’t degrade your wife. How can you enjoy someone when they are on their knees. Duh. And there is no child possible from that and that infuriates GOD.

      • James Witter

        When the wife is giving oral sex she does not have to be on her knees. both can be on the bed giving and receiving mutually. have you heard of 69. I just feel sorry for you all. Marriage can be rewarding and fun and you can do whatever you want on the marriage bed ass long as everyone is okay with it.

    • Salvelinus

      Pushing the envelope a bit… in vase a kid reads tthis you may want to edit and/clean this up a bit

  • jim knox

    What about older couples(>55)? Is intercourse always required? What about men who suffer from erectile dysfunction? Is the wife allowed to be brought to climax even if they cannot achieve intercourse?

    • James Witter

      if they are married then they can do what ever they are comfortable with in doing to each other. oral sex, masturbation. what ever they enjoy

      • PetiePal

        This isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches.

      • James Witter

        the church has been way to restrictive on the way people have fun sexually. the couple needs to see what works for them and go at it with gusto when it comes to sex. God wants us to have hot passionate sex with our mates and please each other to the fullest.

      • PetiePal

        Whether or not people think or feel it’s restrictive has no bearing on what the Catholic Faith is supposed to believe. Who better to know what works for a couple than the God who created and brought them together and gave them the gift of sex?

      • naksuthin

        “Who better to know what works for a couple than the God who created and brought them together and gave them the gift of sex?”

        Hmm.

        When it comes to the senses and pleasure, the best authority is YOU.
        God may have created red hot chili peppers as food…but who knows best if they taste good? You…or the the one who created Chili’s?

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        That isn’t what the Catholic religion teaches. If you don’t adhere to it, get out. At least have respect of God and His religion enough to leave and stop teaching your errors and rancid stuff.

      • James Witter

        I have a respect of God . I just do not believe that the church needs to tell me how to have sex with my wife. As long as both parties involved are married and that they have a mutual consent then almost anything is permissible in the marriage bed. All of you people need to lossen up and enjoy what God gave you and have fun in the marriage bed. I think God enjoys watching us have sex and likes to see variety and I also thinks he sometimes laughs at us because of how we try to please each other

    • PetiePal

      According to the Church oral sex/manual stimulation are never ok, even in cases of ED.

      ED medication however is just fine.

    • James Witter

      YYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSS !!!!!!! have fun and enjoy the sexual being you are and the way God made you to be. Bring each other to climax any way you can and have fun doing it.

    • James Witter

      Oral sex , mutual masturbation and etc is totally acceptable anytime in the marriage bed, but I also think there should also be a balance of oral sex and regular sexual intercourse. You also need to have regular intercourse for the bonding and becoming one. As far as just intercourse being the only way to have sex is wrong. If there is an issue where the wife can not receive the husbands penis then it is okay to do what makes the couple happy and is okay by either spouse. just enjoy your married life and make it hot and passionate and WILD. make love anyway you feel free. the church is not is not here to tell us how to make love to our mates. that is our own liberty

  • Cj Mon

    Petie Pie, thank you for your work clarifying issues.
    You are only reinforcing what the Church teaches. God created sex and he’s the only one who has the right to define its use. The Church gives voice to God’s commands in this world. Too bad too many people think that Christianty (Catholicism) is a matter of opinion. It is not, it is about Love and obedience to the Creator so that all our relationships can be in order and respond to Love. Love is not the gushy feelings. Love is to will the good of the other and care about the salvation of their souls (and one’s soul) first and foremost. See Galatians 5 for the fruits of the Spirit and the fruits of the flesh.

    • PetiePal

      Thanks :) I’ve discussed and researched this all recently so you could say I’m pretty fresh on it!

      • PetiePal

        And Amen you’re right, when you look at love and sex in terms of selfish acts (what brings you pleasure) versus what brings you BOTH pleasure and is open to Life, it’s pretty easy to discern.

      • Cj Mon

        You are right but many people want to find answers to justify themselves in not obeying. Reality is, God’s laws are the only ones that allow for true freedom. Everything else leads to addiction/self-love and use of others which is disordered.

      • naksuthin

        Cj Mon.

        You may follow God’s laws and obey God like an obedient servant.

        But please don’t pass judgement on the way other people live just because they don’t follow your rules.

        When I was young I felt I had all the answers. It wasn’t until I grew a lot older and could look back on my life that I discovered that there is no one answer that fits all. Everyone is different. Even Catholics won’t agree on right and wrong.
        Let everyone follow their own path. They’ll know sooner or later if they’ve made the right choice.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        very true. God bless you Cj Mon. I feel sorry for people who are so wrong- because they’ll never know what my husband and I have, what so many Adhering Catholics have. Soul Connection, from the soul through every layer and level of being. That’s addictive, that’s LOVE. That’s the way it’s meant to be between husband and wife. It’s a massive blessing every time :)

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        Yep, and it is completely worthwhile and fulfilling doing it the right way, it because COMPLETLELY and gloriously even MORE obvious!

    • naksuthin

      CJ Mon.

      The Catholic church has only been around for 2 thousand years.
      People have been practicing sex for MILLIONS of years.
      All kinds of sex. Masturbation, oral, anal, etc….and without a pope to interpret what was Good Sex and Bad Sex.

      Humans were fine BEFORE the Catholic Church came on the scene…and they will continue to enjoy all kinds of sex long after the Catholic religion becomes another “extinct religion” like the religions of ancient Egypt or Sumeria.

      • Courage Hope-Ember

        yeah, so LEAVE. At least have respect for God and His Religion to leave. It is a religion. Adhere to it, or get out. Honestly.

powered by the Paulists