What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?
Some surprising answers to a common question
- (29)
- Follow us:
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.
- (29)
- Follow us:
Nice article, very informative.
Yes…Nice Article Mike. I’m still not sure though why the church is so concerned with procreation. Would it be a sin (in the eyes of the church) for a married couple to never have kids? I think in oral sex (while neither supporting nor criticizing it), if a man climaxes outside of a woman, he neither provides opportunity for life nor kills any life. This seems to very closely related to the church’s position on condoms. Are all married couples supposed to either have 10 kids or have sex twice in their lives? I guess that’s where NFP comes in….but even that would be an action with the intention of preventing procreation! Let’s be honest…I’m confused.
Excellent piece, Mike! Something that all readers of my Pure Sex, Pure Love column should consult as well…
Very informative article, but seems to assume that procreation is always possible. What if the wife is unable to conceive or, as happens, is unable to have intercourse? Why should lovemaking that leads to ejaculation in these circumstances be sinful?
But what is wrong with bringing your wife to orgasm if we do not have intercourse? No fertility is lost. Pleasure cannot in itself be evil. This is truer when is oral sex is an expression of affection and passionate devotion.
Great article Mike. Marc to respnd to your comments. NFP is not preventing creation. All necessary elements are present God can still act to create a human soul even when a man and woman are sure that they are not fertile at the time of intercourse. Many will attest that he He does still create even when couples are using NFP methods that are 98 – 99% effective in avoiding pregnancy. Think of it this way if God intended a woman to conceive everytime a husband and wife have sex then why didn’t He make woman fertile all the time as men are? It is because He wanted husbands and wives to enjoy the unitive nature of the marital embrace even when a child is not the product. NFP allows the option to avoid pregnancy when we discern, through prayer, that having a child at that particular time would not be prudent, but is still open to creation.
My wife is not Catholic and had her tubes tied when she was in her early twenties. We had all the children she could comfortably raise and decided she did not want to have any more. So, since it is impossible for her to have any more children (and is now in her 60′s), does that mean that any kind of sexual climax is OK for me, including oral sex since procreation is not humanly possible in our situation?
What about the mental attachment that a person can have after giving oral sex. Example, become mentally obsessed with your wife genitals? (I think this should be also considered, because it can be enslaving). Also women can get obsessed with the man’s genitals. There is a lot of evidence of that (sex addicts, etc.).
I think if it is OK to perform oral sex, it should be discontinued if it is becoming a vice for anyone of the couple.
Sorry. Isn’t there a source where the Church says what is a sexual perversion and what isn’t?. Because any perversion is bad (is demonic in its origin). I think it would be important for the Church to clearly define this. Officialy. (Sorry for not putting all my comments in one).
Tom and Gerardo–
Tom the answer is no here. There is the unitive aspect of sex that needs to be part of this as we said above: “Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse. Stimulation is another matter.
And Gerardo, we’re not specifically talking about addiction here, but you make a good point, but there’s lots to consider. See our series “Skin Deep” at http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/skin-deep-part-1/
It seems a little restrictive if the male, despite using medicine to overcome impotency, that a married couple’s days of intimacy are over because male penetration is not possible and oral sex is the only way to achieve a climax for both of the couples. But, it appears that if the male ejaculates while trying to have sex it is all right to perform oral sex on the spouse. Am I missing something?
Scenario: An aged couple, man 79 and woman 83, both lost their spouses, meet and fall in love, and the man is impotent but can ejaculate with stimulation. With procreation not possible is it premissible for them to have oral sex as an act of love and devotion between them before their marriage or when they are married as per the Catholic Church? Since procreation is out of the question, I cannot see why this would be sinful in either case as long as it is an act of love and devotion for one another.
Is kissing, hugging, petting, making out, oral or otherwise by definition considered sex? I am a bit confused by this.
so Oral stimulation in marriage is ok by the Catholic Church as long as the man (husband) does not climax outside his wife.
right?
This is a Church teaching that I cannot agree with. (I have thoroughly educated myself on the topic – so I am not uninformed!) I understand that procreative sex needs to be a part of a marriage. However, I do not believe that every sexual act/encounter must procreative. I don’t think God meant for sexual pleasure to be such a source of burden and worry. Spouses should love each other & seek to please each other. To reiterate: procreative (vaginal) sex should absolutely be a part of marriage, but I don’t see any good reason to limit ourselves to just that form of sexual expression!
Jane, the teaching concerning a man’s orgasm during oral sex is in place to teach that vaginal intercourse is the fullness of sexual expression between a married couple. In JPII’s book “Love & Responsibility” he says that men should try to delay their orgasms so that their orgasms may be simultaneous with their wife’s orgasm. This is all taught because vaginal intercourse is the literal moment that “two shall become one flesh”. However this can only apply in a licit manner when there is an openess to new life. Performing acts of sexual expression that seek to limit the openess to new life is contrary to natural law. As it states in the article a man’s orgasm is directly tied to the creation of new life and any use of it that is contrary to its main purpose is contrary to God’s Will. There also happens to be Biblical Proof in the story about Judah and Tamar, the part that has to do with Judah’s son, Onan. Read Genesis 38:9.
Jane and Andrew,
The church’s teaching is actually that each act must be procreative AND unitive–meaning that sex is not merely for procreative activity but that that activity must spring from love.
More importantly each act needs to be OPEN to procreation–so procreation need not happen such as having sex during an infertile period or if you are infertile yourself.
Jane, it’s not about being a burden–that’s exactly the teaching’s point. The point is giving one’s self fully and completely without fear in sexual expression to your partner.
Where would the Church stand on the question of oral sex without vaginal intercourse while a woman is pregnant? I think that the teaching would be the same, i.e., that it would not be permissible outside of a complete sex act. However, my husband thinks otherwise and argues that if you cannot conceive while you are pregnant, why the prohibition on oral sex? Any clarification you can provide would be much appreciated.
OK, let me add another factor to the debate. As our good Catholic couple enters their 60′s & 70′s, some physical changes begin to take place. At times, not everything works the way you want it to. Sometimes the male may not be able to achieve a full erection. Other times the female may experience painful intercourse. This couple still has urges and wants those intimate moments, but “full intercourse” is not always possible. Under these circumstances, what are they permitted to do? If anything? Admittedly, I do have a vested interest in the answer to this.
Thanks
I think oral sex is wrong and unhealthy, on the other hand manual manipulation is fine.In the Bible Jesus used his hands many times to show love and affection. Of coure this was not of a sexual nature.
My partner is not Catholic, I am. I am 81 years old and enjoy intimacy very much, surprise for some one my age? My partner is impotent, and he sees nothing wrong in us engaging in oral sex. He says we are not hurting anyone, why should we suffer the few years we have left..
So my wife giving me a hand job in the shower is sinful? Mortal or venial?
But we know that sex doesn’t come from God. Sex evolved because it gave those animals a survival advantage. So, if sex doesn’t come from God, why can’t couples choose for themselves when to have sex and how to have sex?
@Garth: ” NFP allows the option to avoid pregnancy when we discern, through prayer, that having a child at that particular time would not be prudent, but is still open to creation.”
It seems like looking at your finances is a better way of deciding whether it would be prudent to procreate, rather than praying.
My wife is pregnant. How does the church view oral sex for the husband in this case? Is he still required to climax in his wife?
This is all between God, my husband, & me. because it comes down to “personal relationship with God”. Why are church fathers even involved in this. People have different degrees of sex drive. Married couples can decide for themselves what is right in their beds. I thought this site was wonderful and I was going to share it on facebook until I read this stuff. This is what alienates me from truly embracing Catholicism after the sex scandals.
I also agree with Brenden B. and Elizabeth. Jesus did not establish these rules and it is nowhere in the Bible. God gave us our sexuality. How is it that celibate people establish these rules anyway?
quilty, I’m guessing the celibate people you are referring to are the Magisterium. Well, first of all, they devote their lives to the Church, namely us, for her well-being. I agree with you that the sexual relationship of a married couple is theirs to share among themselves and God. However, just because the couple is married doesn’t mean they are free from sin concerning matters of sex. In marrying in the Church the couple agreed to give themselves to each other to become one body and to raise child. The marital act is therefore also founded on being both procreative and unitive. The Church teaches this because it is for the good of the couple. Sometimes couples may think that they have only themselves to worry about and therefore why not do whatever pleases us in bed? Well, while they gave themselves to each other in marriage they also pledged to raise children and therefore must also think about children, even if as in your case it is unlikely that they should conceive. However, think about the women in the Bible who conceived when they were thought barren: Sarah and Elizabeth. What would have happened if they and their spouses thought of only themselves while in bed? The bottom line is nothing is impossible without God. The married couple promised God that they would give themselves to each other in a way so that God would be able to bring about life through them if He so chooses. Then I suppose that participating in the marital act in a conceivable way is the best way to keep your sexual relationship between you, your husband, and God.
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.