Busted Halo
Loading

feature
January 6th, 2009

What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?

Some surprising answers to a common question

  • (67)

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.
  • (67)
The Author : Mike Hayes
Mike Hayes is the senior editor for the Googling God section at BustedHalo.com.
See more articles by (200).
  • Nidia Fierro

    As a Catholic married to a Muslim I can say I used reason to explain to my husband about my beliefs regarding sexuality. i completely agree with the Church’s reasoning that was used to make this argument and it was the same reasoning I used to explain to him why oral sex could not take place in our marriage. though he doesn’t agree with many Catholic teachings, this is one that made perfect sense to him. To the people that say this choice is between the couple, of course it is. the church doesn’t set up cameras and monitor your life. the Church is there to guide, not to make your choices for you….

    • PetiePal

      Excellent excellent response. This is exactly right.

  • Laura

    Wow this article sounds a bit silly to me. If the people are married and the act is consensual then who the hell cares….

    • PetiePal

      If it’s not life-giving, the Church cares.

  • Dan

    What a disappointingly insulting and prejudiced article. Not only is it laughably anti-intellectual in its depth and breadth of understanding, it is enormously sexist against men. To insinuate that simply because the man’s seed (provided he is healthy) is always secreted in orgasm not only makes him the vanguard of fertility for the couple but also entirely restricts him to the venue of his wife’s vagina for his climax is unbelievably offensive to me as a man. Ladies, let’s reverse the scenario so that you understand my annoyance. Imagine if this article claimed that you could only climax on your man’s penis, lest ye sinned? Would this not offend you? This article also lazily and dangerously blurs the line of restriction for the female to constrain herself and her sexual powers, which is two-fold: to reproduce through fertility and climax through stimulation. This article makes the audacious claim that men’s two-fold powers of procreation and climax are inextricably linked and therefore cannot be separated, while a woman’s are not linked and therefore can be separated. That theology is so transparently flawed to me, because it essentially justifies female masturbation, which is defined as achieving sexual climax for its own end, rather than being open to the simultaneous result of procreation. Using lazy catch-all phrases such as “overall context of an act of intercourse” to justify a woman’s climax just for the end result of climax does not remove its nature as pure and simple masturbation. And guess what folks? The church condemns masturbation, whether female or male. And don’t even try to refute with “women can’t always climax through vaginal intercourse.” Guess what? Sometimes, neither can men! So this article cannot claim to be dispensing “church teaching” on the matter without addressing the enormous holes in its logic and theology first. And even if by some hilarious notion it is doing justice to the church’s “teaching,” why the hell is the church addressing this matter? How invasive does the church think it can be on sexual matters? I mean, if it goes this far, perhaps it should go a little further and begin promulgating restrictions on depth and velocity of thrusting, volume of ecstatic wailing, and appropriate levels of invoking God’s holy name during the throes of passion. See how ridiculous this is? That there is “foreplay protocol” by the church is hilarious to me. However, the fact that it is grossly biased against men is not humorous. In summary, to make this issue truly fair to both sexes, people need to stop basing this theology on “emissions” and start basing on it on dispositions. Love is mutual giving and receiving in the marriage bed. If life results, wonderful. If not, then life still was enriched for the lovers through their mutual giving and receiving. Beyond that, stay out of it.

    • PetiePal

      Nowhere does it say that they’re a “power.” If you read closely you’ll see the point is that the COUPLE are life creators.

      Doing something for a “climax” in and of itself is selfish.

  • Charles

    What if the wife is unable to have intercourse? Would oral sex still be sinful?

    • PetiePal

      Yep.

  • Jim

    Oral sex should not be a substitution for intercourse. Women can orgasm through oral and still have intercourse, men cannot.

    For all the “unusual cases” about impotent elderly people and other cases where regular sex cannot happen due to reasons that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy, talk to your priest.

  • Beauty of Sex in Love

    Good article. I think some people are missing the point though. Ultimately, God wants a husband and wife to become one and be open to procreation as a way to mimic the Holy Trinity. Our priest spoke of this in homily a few weeks ago. At first, everyone was embarrassed by the topic, but as he spoke, he clarified that God does not tarnish sexuality but pop culture, secularism. Sex has become a commodity, not a special union between husband and wife. As stated in the article, it is not required to fully have sex and create a baby every time a couple (husband and wife) engage in intimacy, but instead the beauty of our bodies, created by Him, to share with each other, done with love, for love, to deepen our feelings as we become one. Sometimes full intercourse doesn’t happen, but were you open to it, truthfully, and did the interaction between you and your spouse spring from love for each other? The intention, deep in your heart, makes the difference. Let’s not sell ourselves cheap by not at least trying to experience sexual intimacy as intended, full of love — it is a far greater high than anything else and one that cannot be replaced so simply.

  • Really!

    What a load of garbage! This has to be a joke, Right? I see that the Catholic church and it’s followers have not evolved one bit, I will keep my SINFUL ways, you guys can all have this!

    • PetiePal

      Have fun with that.

  • Mich

    Christopher West has been severely criticized and, our local priest says, some of his writings are against Church teaching. Oral sex is very degrading. We receive Communion in our mouths. I don’t think oral is permissable.

  • Bobby

    I don’t see why you can’t occasionally do oral sex if you are being open to life the rest of the time. For example say you had normal sex 5 days a week and oral one day a week, maybe even an hour after vaginal sex. You would still be open to life. I also think oral during pregnancy should be allowed. I think it would be wrong to just do oral in an attempt not to get pregnant.

    • PetiePal

      Because 5 rights don’t make a wrong right. Each and EVERY sexual act is to be looked at objectively in that there is intent for life. Oral isn’t intent, it’s directly oppositional.

  • Bobby

    interesting article

  • Ethan

    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.

  • quilty

    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?

    • Nidia Fierro

      Because our teachings aren’t just based on Scripture alone. If they were, the word “trinity” would not exist as it is not found in the Bible either. They can teach just as a doctor can teach about cancer without being a cancer patient….

      • PetiePal

        Good reply.

  • quilty

    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.

    • Nidia Fierro

      If you do some research you will find that profiles exist in every religion. there is an estimated 5% of pastor sex offenders compared to a less than 2% priest sex offenders. catholic priests are on the spotlight for being celibate. hence the reason you hardly ever hear of rabbis, pastors, sheikhs and imams…. Because these guys get married and therefore are on the “already living a sexual life anyway” so these offenders are never in the media

    • PetiePal

      They’re not “involved.” They steer, and you do what you will. But it’s pretty clear what God and Jesus’ intentions were. Has nothing to do with sex scandals…

  • George

    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?

    • PetiePal

      Yes.

  • Rick

    @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.

  • Rick

    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?

    • PetiePal

      Rick…really?

  • pedro

    So my wife giving me a hand job in the shower is sinful? Mortal or venial?

    • PetiePal

      Mortal sin if you well know it’s wrong and go along anyway.

  • ELIZABETH

    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..

    • PetiePal

      He leads you astray from what your religion says is the just thing God would want…

  • Love

    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.

powered by the Paulists