Busted Halo
August 9th, 2009

What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?

Some surprising answers to a common question



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.
The Author : Mike Hayes
Mike Hayes is the senior editor for the Googling God section at BustedHalo.com.
See more articles by (271).
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.
  • Samantha

    Who in the heck is PetiePal? Does this person have authority in the church or just someone giving her belief about the church’s position?

    • PetiePal

      I’m someone who works for a Catholic Evangelization center sanctioned, funded and started by the Vatican. What I’ve been speaking is the Catholic Church’s truth

      • naksuthin

        Hmm. Perhaps you should leave the answers to someone in authority in the church…a priest or bishop, perhaps

        It is possible that you are misinterpreting or misrepresenting some of your responses.
        Do you know for sure if all your answers are officially approved by responses?
        Could some of the answers be just “your opinion” of what the Church teaches?

      • Salvelinus

        Nope. I assure you that everything petiepal states in this cobox is correct per 2000 years of Catholic church teaching.
        Other “catholics” (think Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden) may tell you other things but they,like some of the serious errors here are completely wrong and wreak of dissent

      • Johnm

        Why should he? The Catholic Church teaches that ALL people are to evangelize. Including lay people. Besides, when priests or bishops are the only ones who teach the Truth which God gave us in terms of chastity and sex, people complain about how they don’t experience what they teach (although what they preach is the truth).

      • Johnm

        By the way, I know that this thread is years old… I just had to give my two cents :P

    • Courage Hope-Ember

      He’s speaking the way Catholics are taught, because it’s an actual religion. At least have enough respect for God and His Relgion to Leave rather than teach your rancid errors. Do what you want, but don’t say you are Catholic when you aren’t. You know them by their fruit, and if you practice these rancid disgusting things, it won’t go well for you and you are certainly not Catholic. God have mercy on you, may He somehow manage to teach you all. you just want what you want and you argue here because you try to settle your conscience that says it’s festy and rancid, and offensive against God and to the person you’re supposed to love better than to have them on their knees giving you pleasure. Lucky I have someone who never imagined such evils with me. That’s honour, that’s love, that’s GODLY.

  • 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.

    • naksuthin

      You failed to read the article. Oral sex for stimulation is perfectly acceptable. It is oral sex for MEN that leads to ejaculation outside the vagina that the church objects to.
      Your husband can give you as much oral sex as you want. Oral sex for a woman doesn’t matter. Only for the husband.

      • James Witter

        this is a double standard.. If oral sex is okay for the woman then why is it not okay for the man… the bible says in the song of solomon that the man and woman had lots of oral sex. If oral sex is okay and good for the woman then it is okay and good for the man. the idea that sex has to be only intercourse is foolish as long as the wife and husband have fun it can be mutual masturbation, oral sex, or whatever form of stimulation they want to have and it does not have to always be intercourse.

  • 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.

      • naksuthin

        Sex between a 60 year old couple is not life giving either.
        So perhaps they should refrain from having sex.

      • PetiePal

        It’s not that it HAS to end in a life being created, only done in the fashion that life IS created. Oral sex will never create a life.

      • James Witter

        Who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • naksuthin

        You make God out to be a silly lawyer.
        If God created a couple physically incapable of bearing children, why would God continue to insist that they continue to practice vaginal intercourse when he has already made it impossible for them to bear children.

        You are sounding like the legalistic Pharisees and Sadducee that Christ spoke so harshly against.

        It’s like saying “God gave us legs” for the purpose of mobility….so it’s a sin to sit in the Pope mobile or its a sin to travel to Brazil in an airplane

      • PetiePal

        Not really. I make God out to be the Supreme and Divine Creator of everything we see and know, and treat Him with the reverence and respect due to such a figure.

        Procreative sex is UNITIVE sex, where two become one flesh. That’s the idea. You take away the unity and it becomes simply a selfish act. You’re focusing too much on the child bearing aspect, it has to do much more with using it how it was intended whether a kid happens or not. Not every sexual act ends in a kid right?

        In your reasoning then why have sex at all if it’s not a 100% chance?

      • James Witter

        I like that comment. be free and open to have the most passion filled sex life there is to have. oral sex is talked about in the song of solomon in the bible. it is the most hottest passionate sex book in the bible

      • Matthew Abid

        No they aren’t stopping life-the act must be open to life. A 60 year old can have a child although unlikely. Oral sex can’t produce child.

      • naksuthin

        The oldest verified mother to conceive naturally (listed currently in the Guinness Records is Dawn Brooke (UK); she conceived a son at the age of 59 years in 1997 while taking oestrogen.
        So I repeat a 60 year old couple is NOT LIFE GIVING

      • James Witter

        since when does the church have the authority to tell you how you need to have sexual intercourse. I feel if the husband wife are wild about sex and almost any form of it there would be less divorces and less men going to strip clubs. I also feel that the church should teach the husbands and wives in the church how to have wild hot passionate sex and that it does not always have to be in the bedroom. take it to other rooms of the house when the kids are not home or are sleeping. If you have a private property then go have sex outside under the stars.

  • 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.

      • naksuthin

        So a couple where the woman has had a hysterectomy can’t enjoy a selfish “climax”??

      • PetiePal

        Yeah that’s correct.

      • naksuthin

        I feel sorry for all the millions of Catholic women who have had hysterectomies.
        They are now condemned to a life of frustration and deprivation.
        What a sad sad religion

      • James Witter

        SURE SHE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God made us to enjoy each other and to have fun together

  • Charles

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

    • PetiePal


      • naksuthin

        Please explain.

        If a wife cannot have vaginal intercourse for physical reasons why would oral sex be sinful. She can’t have sex through penetration. God has made it physically impossible for her to have vaginal sex.

        Do you think God would then say “Tough luck. I made you so you can’t have vaginal sex. I gave you a sex drive. Now YOU and your husband figure out how you are going to have vaginal sex. Hah ha. ”

        Get real PetiePal. You are sounding more and more like a legalistic Pharisee trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        If God created something like allergies or cancer. Why would it be a sin to try to find a cure for them?? God intended it. End of story??

      • PetiePal

        Finding a cure for vaginal sex isn’t a sin in that line of thought.

        The Church, the Catechism and the Theology of the Body is very clear on it. You do as you please but if you’re Catholic and truly want to adhere to the religion you put your faith and beliefs in, you can’t pick and choose things just because of personal viewpoint or feelings

      • kalbertini

        Please you have the right to act acoording to conscience & freedom in the catechism

      • Salvelinus

        Provided that conscience is properly formed. Yes, we are all given free will to sin but one cannot rely on their conscience with respect to communion with the catholic faith unless that conscience is properly formed (see fake Catholic nancy Pelosi)

    • James Witter


  • 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.

    • naksuthin

      Why would you talk to a priest who has probably never

      1.had sex before
      2.been married
      It’s like getting a recipe from someone who doesn’t know how to cook.

      • PetiePal

        Because if they follow a religion, you don’t pick and choose the pieces you like. Priests are those trained specifically to understand all facets of the religion. If you wanted to do right by God as a Catholic it’s the only way.

      • naksuthin

        People don’t need inexperienced priests or popes to tell them how to live and what to believe.

        Remember this from the Bible.

        “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him (Christ) a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is
        the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love
        the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
        thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

        —Matthew 22:35-40

        God really doesn’t care whether we have long hair, work on Sunday, wear a bra or have oral sex instead of vaginal sex.

        He cares that we LOVE GOD and LOVE OUR FELLOW MAN.

        You can hold all your theology up to the light of those two commandments and find the answer to all your moral questions.

        In truth, God doesn’t care if we have oral sex or vaginal sex….just as he could care less that you drove to work in a car instead of walking to work on the two legs that he gave you for that purpose.

  • 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.

    • PetiePal


    • naksuthin

      Sex is no different from Hunger.
      We have sex to procreate. But we also have sex for entertainment ,pleasure and intimacy.
      We eat for nourishment and energy. But we also eat for entertainment and pleasure.
      It’s all legitimate. God doesn’t condemn us for eating when we are not hungry or eating something harmful to our bodies like a soda or an Oreo cookie

  • 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.

    • naksuthin

      Oral sex is a common and pleasurable sex act practiced by billions of people around the world in every culture and of every religion.
      The fact that you find it degrading indicates a problem on your part…perhaps a very austere , sheltered and Victorian upbringing.
      It doesn’t not reflect on the billions of people who enjoy oral sex everyday

  • 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.

      • naksuthin

        I really think what the Catholic church is concerned about is the numbers.

        In order to stay relevant and powerful the church needs to have lots of Catholics.
        The more Catholics who practice forms of sex that don’t lead to pregnancy, the fewer Catholics there will be.
        That’s why Catholic countries are generally the poorest of countries: Central and South America,The Philippines, Spain , Portugal.
        Families in these countries are big…6-7 children or more. With that many children the families are condemned to live in poverty. They cannot afford to feed, clothe and provide educational opportunities for their children.
        I live in Catholic Mexico. Last week the dishwasher at our restaurant was killed by someone who ran a red light. He left a widow with 5 children. Even when he was alive he earned only $150 US dollars a month. You can imagine what will happen to his family with no income and 6 mouths to feed. Do you think The Catholic church will step in and provide them with the $150 per month? Forget it.

        In economically advanced Protestant countries like the US, Canada, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany people have fewer children because they all practice birth control and couples can have sex but limit family sizes.
        Look at even China. 40 years ago China was a poverty ridden country. Typical families had 7-10 children. Then the government decided that it would have to solve their population problem to lift the nation out of poverty. So they established the “One Child Policy”. Couples were not allowed to have more than one child. Result: Today China is a wealthy country, the second wealthiest country in the world by GDP. China has the longest high speed rail system, the biggest building, the longest bridge, the biggest dam. If you are born a grandchild in China today you have 4 grandparents who will pass their inheritance on you ALONE. You will get the best education money can buy and have all the advantages…because you are the ONLY grandchild.

        The Catholic church only cares about the numbers. That’s why people in strong Catholic countries are generally poor, hungry, and poorly educated

      • PetiePal

        This really isn’t true. The Catholic Church is not about power-mongering, or extending their “power.” The fact that some think it’s about power at all shows the gross misconception occurring.

        Catholic Countries are not always the poorest countries BECAUSE they’re Catholic. It just so happens those who DO have less have less to HOLD ON TO selfishly and more easily realize their dependence on God. In countries such as my own USA, we are so driven by greed, selfishness, power, popularity, sex, media and technology (not to mention trash tv lol) we are distracted and end up making ourselves our OWN gods.

        The Catholic Church is on every HUMANs side, and also in getting YOU into a closer relationship with God. Countries such as the “advanced” US, Canada, Norway and Germany historically abort more lives (which really is murder at the end of the day) which I wouldn’t call very civilized at all. It’s quite sinister to turn murder into a an “acceptable choice.”

      • naksuthin

        When did you ever hear a Catholic priest in a poverty ridden country teach their parishioners about the disadvantages of having TOO many children? NEVER. (Even though common sense tells us that a man who earns $150 a month SHOULD NOT HAVE 5 children.

        Even in poverty ridden countries like Mexico, the church actively discourages poor people from finding ways to limit the size of their families.

        It’ all a numbers game to the church.

        The poorer and more uneducated the people are…the more religious and loyal they will be to the Catholic church. Look at the power of the Catholic Church is poverty ridden South and Central America

        Advanced Catholic countries like France have only been able to advance economically by SECULARIZING their society and limiting the role the Catholic church plays . Since the French Revolution France they have enshrined the idea of “laïcité” , strict separation of church and state

      • PetiePal

        It’s not about how many children you have. It’s about if you’re going to have sex, for which we’ve established the biggest purpose is to procreate, you cannot use contraception or a means to deny life. It’s a sin.

        Now the Church does INDEED teach NFP, or Natural Family Planning. If you truly earn $150 a month, and cannot use NFP effectively, there’s a simple solution to not bringing a new life into this world. Abstinence. The Church actively encourages people to make good decisions regarding the lives of their family and children.

        The poorer people are, the less bs materialistic things they have to hold on to and obstruct their relationship with God. Those who are rich have plenty of distractions keeping them from the realization they need and depend on something bigger than themselves.

        South America the Church isn’t powerful…the drug cartels and governments are. Look at the USA. We have strict separation of Church and State, and the the REAL limiting power on how many children you can have? Government. State. Taxes. Industry.

      • naksuthin

        I can’t believe you actually wrote:

        “The poorer people are, the less bs materialistic things they have to hold on to and obstruct their relationship with God.”

        So there you have Catholic Game Plan in a nutshell.
        Keep the people poor and living in squalid unsanitary conditions, THAT WAY THEY WILL BECOME BETTER CATHOLICS.

        You may disdain the US and it’s separation of Church and State. But think of this: You don’t find Protestants slipping across the Mexican borders trying to find a job and a better life.
        It’s Catholics hiding out in cargo containers trying to slip into secular USA seeking a better life for their Catholic families in a country where even most Catholics don’t bother to listen to what the Pope has to say

      • PetiePal

        This has nothing to do with keeping people “poorer.” It’s a simple fact. Those who have less value what they have MORE.

        No we find protestants having abortions, premarital sex, lying, cheating, stealing like many other denominations or non-religious in our country.

        You’ve completely misinterpreted what I’ve said. Good luck to you out there, we’ll say some prayers for you.

  • 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.

    • naksuthin

      So I guess the Catholic church should not allow 60 year old people to marry since they won’t be having children so they won’t be “procreative’

  • 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.

    • naksuthin

      At one time the Church believed that the earth was the center of the Universe and that the sun revolved around the earth as described in the Bible.
      Galileo’s telescopic observations taught him differently.
      Nevertheless, Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633 and found him “gravely suspect of heresy”,
      sentencing him to indefinite imprisonment. This was subsequently
      commuted to house arrest, under which he remained for the rest of his
      There’s a good lesson here. Learn from it,

    • Salvelinus

      That’s not Catholic tradition. Where in the bible does it state “unless its in the bible its not true”?
      This is the heresy of Sola scriptura

  • 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

      • naksuthin

        Even many of the popes had illicit sexual affairs and secret wives.

    • 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…

      • naksuthin

        “it’s pretty clear what God and Jesus’ intentions were.”
        That’s a ridiculous statement.
        God’s intentions are totally UNCLEAR.
        That’s why the Pope says he’s the ultimate authority on matters of faith.
        If God’s intentions were “clear”, why do you need a pope to interpret matters of faith. You would clearly understand all matters of faith and there would be only one religion in the world.

        It’s pretty universally clear that cutting off your finger would be painful. That’s why no matter where you go people feel the same way about cutting off their fingers. They don’t do it

        But matters of faith are NOT CLEAR…hence the need for even Catholics to discuss among themselves the pros and cons of oral sex.

      • PetiePal

        Go forth and be fruitful and multiply. Pretty clear.

      • PetiePal

        Also thou shalt not kill. Clear enough?

      • naksuthin

        Not clear at all”
        Can you kill animals for sport?
        Can you kill someone you suspect is about to harm you
        Can you assassinate an “evil” dictator like Hitler
        Can you kill someone in war?
        Can you kill a bug that is crawling on the ground minding its own business?
        Can you kill someone for food if you are hungry?
        Can you execute a spy?
        Can you burn someone at the stake because he disagrees with your theology?

        Everyone will have different answers to those question depending on where they are from, what age they lived in and what religion they practice.

        When it comes to morality THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED ANSWER

      • PetiePal

        Animals don’t have souls. Thou shalt not kill refers to man and women.
        You can’t kill someone under suspicion.
        You shouldn’t assassinate Hitler. We didn’t. He killed himself to be historically accurate. We should have jailed him for life.
        Catholics don’t believe in killing, even in war.

        Bugs don’t have souls.

        You cannot kill someone for food even if you’re hungry. (Are you allowed to do that in your country?)
        Spies cannot and should not be executed.

        When it comes to morality there is Natural Law, which is the simple right and wrong. It exists as a universal answer. It is not universally accepted on the other hand by humans.

    • PetiePal

      Apparently because so many Catholics make the wrong choices due to thinking they know best as opposed to tradition.

  • 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


      • naksuthin


        You state earlier that the purpose of sex is procreation.

        She is already performing her role as procreator by being pregnant

        In that case, she is just like the man and should be able to climax orally while she is pregnant

        Since she is already pregnant , having more vaginal intercourse will no longer lead to children.

      • PetiePal

        It is not a contradiction naksuthin. Whether the wife is pregnant, past menopause, has had her uterus
        removed, or has any other condition that you know she cannot get
        pregnant is irrelevant to the fact that in the marital act the male has
        to climax in the vagina. We are not always fertile and a new life will
        not come out of every single marital act (ask any married couple), but
        this does not mean we do not have to give ourselves to each other
        completely in each act. This does not change regardless of the state of
        the female or the male. If you would like biblical evidence, in (Gen.
        38:8–10) you can read about how God was not pleased with Onan for
        spilling his seed (semen) and slew him.

      • naksuthin

        You are just contradicting yourself.
        First you say Vaginal sex is important because IT IS OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF CONCEPTION (or something similar).

        A woman who is in advanced pregnancy is no longer open to the possibility of conception. It is impossible for her to ovulate during her pregnancy. God doesn’t want another competing fertilize egg to compete with the already growing fetus

        So a pregnant woman is already performing her god giving functions as a mother. She can’t produce more fetus’s through vaginal sex.

        Therefore it makes no difference from then on where her husbands sperm end up.

        Of course now you seem to be saying “this does not mean we do not have to give ourselves to each other
        completely in each act.”
        So you are adding a new wrinkle.
        “You can only “give ourselves to each other” through vaginal sex. Any other sex is not “giving ourselves”

        Do you see where your twisted theology has landed you.
        Now you need to have the church define “giving ourselves to each other”

      • PetiePal

        Vaginal ejaculation is still life offering. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or do some research on the subject.

        Heck go speak to a priest who will give you all the valid answers backed up with their reasoning and existence.

        Sex does not have to culminate in a pregnancy. It has to be life-offering however.

        Any sex besides life-offering sex is not giving yourself completely. Getting oral is actually just a selfish act.

  • 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


    • Cj Mon

      God is the creator of Life. He made sex because He is the one that made us male and female. The genders complement each other naturally. The natural act of sex leads naturally to intimacy and pregnancy. That is what sex is about.

      • naksuthin

        Hunger and eating is natures way to provide the human body with nourishment.
        But does that mean we can’t eat when we are not hungry or eat more than our body requries?
        Does that mean we can’t enjoy eating or drinking simply for pleasure?
        Does that mean we cannot eat things that can actually harm the body like drinking soda or fatty fried foods?

      • PetiePal

        However doing things that distance you from God and destroy your personal relationship with him do not nourish your soul.

        Eating more than you need or when you are not hungry is generally considered being a glutton. Especially negative things to excess. If your body is a gift, should you actively be doing things to disgrace it or cause it harm?

      • naksuthin

        So if you eat when you are not hungry you are sinning?

        Be careful, you are about to condemn yourself every time you eat at a buffet, every time you eat lunch 2 hours after breakfast, the moment you sip on a sugar ladened Coca Cola or eat at KFC, every time you drink a caffeinated coffee, every time you buy cotton candy, every time you give out treats at Halloween.

        Don’t make life difficult for yourself ….and just admit that eating is for
        1. nourishment and energy

        But also for

        2. pleasure
        3. entertainment

      • PetiePal

        No not really.

        The Church does not state that eating things that aren’t good for you is a sin. Indulging in TOO much of something that can be harmful may though in a way be sinful.

        Pleasure and entertainment can be derived from eating but it is not the purpose yet again.

  • 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.

    • James Witter



    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…

      • naksuthin

        PetiePal. You are contradicting yourself.

        You write: “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.”

        The woman in question is 81 years old. VAGINAL SEX WILL NO LONGER LEAD TO PROCREATION.

        Therefore, it is permissible under Catholic teaching.

        Otherwise the Catholic church would refuse to allow couples pass childbearing age 1. to marry 2. to continue to have sex (since any sex they have will no longer produce offspring)

        Your answer shows what happens when you make a rule…then forget why you made it.

      • PetiePal

        Unitive sex naksuthin. You are repeatedly ignoring what the Church teaches on this.

        Whether the wife is pregnant, past menopause, has had her uterus
        removed, or has any other condition that you know she cannot get
        pregnant is irrelevant to the fact that in the marital act the male has
        to climax in the vagina. We are not always fertile and a new life will
        not come out of every single marital act (ask any married couple), but
        this does not mean we do not have to give ourselves to each other
        completely in each act. This does not change regardless of the state of
        the female or the male. If you would like biblical evidence, in (Gen.
        38:8–10) you can read about how God was not pleased with Onan for
        spilling his seed (semen) and slew him.

        This page, article and discussion are directly regarding the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex. And they do have something to say about it, as does the Catechism of the Catholic Faith, which is the collection of beliefs pretty much summarized.

      • naksuthin

        “we do not have to give ourselves to each other”

        Where does it say the only way to “give ourselves to each other” is through vaginal intercourse?

        You are starting to stray from your original premise to an area for which you can show no Biblical justification.

      • kalbertini

        Pope Paul VI had to drop the Onan reference because Onan according to modern biblical scholarship was not killed for contraception but failing to give a son to his deceased brother^s wife.Nowhere does JPII or the catechism refer to Onan

    • James Witter

      I AGREE

      • Salvelinus

        Dear James Witter.
        This is your psych meds writing.
        We miss you very much, and are in your medicine cabinet wondering why we havnt seen you for so long? Please step away from the keyboard and come meet us as soon as possible.
        Warm regards.
        James Witters psych meds.

  • 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.

    • PetiePal

      There’s nothing unitive about manual stimulation, nor is it life giving.

      • naksuthin

        “a new life will not come out of every single marital act ” I’m Quoting YOU

      • PetiePal

        You’re also ignoring all my other replies. Life-OFFERING, not life-generating.

powered by the Paulists