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 (249).
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.
  • BNY_NRS

    Just wanted to add a comment about the female orgasm in pro-creation. You talk about the male orgasm and that is obvious the way it leads to pro-creation. The female orgasm is still involved in pro-creation though, it creates pressure and sucks the sperm into the cervix to help the sperm reach the egg for fertilization. Twas just an interesting fact I acquired in nursing school. Would still work if the female orgasm occurred after the male.

  • 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.

      • George

        Using Onan’s story to justify the teaching against contraception is like saying that cooking with peanuts is a mortal sin because someone once used peanuts in food to kill someone who they knew was allergic to them. It’s a logical error, but it is also a mystery how so many people are not smart enough to realize it.

      • gooder1

        When Onan spilled his sperm on the ground, he effectively performed withdrawal, one of the earliest types of contraception. The sin of Onan was understood very clearly by the Reformed churches. It was only in the 20th century that those churches began to permit contraception. The sin of Onan is a crime against the natural law, a sin against nature itself, the nature that God created.

      • JuliePurple

        From what I read, it seemed that the point of the myth was more that Onan wasn’t willing to raise a child that wouldn’t bear his name rather than simply not trying to procreate. And for that, according to the story, he was killed. Sheesh. Talk about … er… overkill. :-).

      • gooder1

        Later in the Bible the act that you state as the reason for Onan’s being struck down by God, was not understood with the gravity of what happened to Onan (i.e., death). Read Deuteronomy 25:5-10. We must conclude that Onan was struck down and killed by God for grievously violating the Natural Law. A quick note: the story of Onan is not presented as a myth in the Bible. That necessarily would be your take on it.

      • JuliePurple

        Gooder, I *think* I made sense of your syntax in the way you intended… . (And I did read Deut. 25-10.)
        What I get from the story is that he was killed because he wouldn’t try to impregnate his deceased brother’s wife. Nothing there about “natural law” at all. It’s all about his not wanting to have a child that wasn’t his own heir. Selfishness.
        As for it being a myth, well, okay, then call it moral fable, or a cautionary tale, or illustration of desired behaviour at the time it was written.

      • gooder1

        Sorry about the syntax issue, Julie. Many do look at the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a type of historical compression, a way of summing up history in a way that is true, but without timeline, hard sequence, or properly named persons. However, the latter chapters of Genesis are considered by nearly unanimous agreement to be historically true, but jumping in a sense, from one story to the next. Anyway, getting back to your original point that Onan was struck down by God because he failed to continue his brother’s line: My response was that we have a reference in Deuteronomy, where the sentence paid for such a thing was humiliation, and not death. So, one has to conclude that there must have been more to Onan’s sin than just refusing to continue his brother’s line. That was the point I was trying to make. And of course when we look deeper at the text, we see that he was additionally violating the natural law. But as far as contraception in
        general is concerned, we probably just need to read and digest Chapters 6&7 of the First Letter of St Paul to the Corinthians: “1Cor 6:13: …The body is not meant for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But
        he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”

        So we can see from the above reference that true sex is holy, it makes a man and woman “one flesh” before God, both physically, as well as, spiritually. With that in mind, we must ask ourselves, is using contraception an expression of the holiness we share in? A little common sense must be applied here: Let’s take for example, condoms. Will the husband and wife who are having sex
        become “one flesh” if there is a barrier between the man and the woman each and every time they have sex? And what if they did that throughout their entire marriage, effectively cutting off the possibility of life, never having children, wouldn’t that man and the woman be frustrating the work of nature, of
        which, God intended for us cooperate with in order to be “fruitful and multiply?” I know this is an extreme
        example, but I think it makes a point.

      • JuliePurple

        Thanks for your explanation, Gooder, but I do have a bit of difficulty with the use of the word “true”. If it is not
        historically accurate, then it is not true. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that it is a parable about
        belief systems?
        Anyhow, about Onan…(remember, it’s all *according to the legend* — or myth, or parable, or whatever) maybe he did do something else bad, but it’s not mentioned, and the only direct reference given as the reason for his having been killed, is to his not providing an heir for his brother.
        (The rest of the message is not relevant to the point I was trying to make about Onan. A lot of people believe you are right, and a lot don’t. Because you must know that widely differing and mutually exclusive views are supported by biblical passages.)
        As for “frustrating the work of nature”, well, then, how do you regard artificial insemination or fertility drugs?
        Those certainly are not natural, in exactly the same way as is the use of contraception.

        When you’re talking about holiness, how about considering reverence for the entire ecosystem? Look at the state of the world’s resources today. We are, in a
        sense, overgrazing our habitat. We have a brain. We can see what happens when we overpopulate. To let good sense be overruled by fantasy and wishful thinking is a tragedy.

      • gooder1

        Hi Julie,
        I understand your take on it. As for Onan, two things are
        mentioned: he did not continue his brother’s line, and that in doing so,
        he had sex with the sister in law, but would not complete the natural
        act that makes a couple “one flesh.” So was it the first act? The
        secondary acts of withdrawl? Or both, which caused our Lord to strike
        Onan down dead? Those are the choice of options. If the first, then the
        subsequent Jewish law did not reflect it (in other words, the Mosaic Law should
        have mandated stoning to death as the consequence). But of course it
        did not.

        As for the ecosystem, well yes, we have a duty to keep
        our environment clean and fruitful for the generations to come. But for
        those who believe in God, well we believe that life is his to give, and
        his to take. The main focus of our lives should be to pursue eternal
        life with God almighty. Because regardless of how we treated our planet,
        unless we focus principally on our eternal end, or at least keep it in
        focus in all that we do, then all is loss in the end. That is the simple
        reality. That thought has really hit home with me as of late. I don’t
        know why, but I have been viewing near death experiences on YouTube, and
        whew!, those can be scary. Check out Shawn Weed’s Hell Testimony on You
        Tube, or Tortured in Hell & Lived to Tell. Those two are very very
        tough to watch.

        As for how many people this planet can sustain,
        well if we did not build houses on all the fertile farm areas, then we’d
        probably have plenty of food to eat. The best way is for us to farm the
        fertile land, and live in the not so fertile land. But as usual, man
        always works against himself.

      • JuliePurple

        Hi, Gooder. Regarding Onan, I’m just going by what is written, rather than putting extra interpretations on the text. And what it said was that he was killed because he didn’t want to father a child that was not his heir. Anything else is reading more into the text than was written. And remember, it is just a parable /story/myth/fable. But still, killing him for that? Excessive, to say the least. Those early tribespeople were a bloodthirsty lot, weren’t they?

        Regarding the ecosystem, it’s all very well to say that we must focus on an afterlife, but despite any kind of revelations, scriptures, or mystical interpretations, the *provable* facts are that we are overpopulating and trashing our planet. And it’s not fair for people of any given belief to impose the consequences of their belief system on the entire planet. My belief is that we should act responsibly, taking into consideration all the facts we are aware of. As for hell, many people believe many things, but my belief is that it, too, is a myth. It’s a way to scare people into behaving a certain way, to control people. But even if it did exist, should a person go to hell for acting according to her/his own deeply sincere beliefs, even if they go counter to religious dictates?

        No matter what we could do if we all acted sensibly regarding land use, the fact is that we haven’t acted sensibly, and there is no evidence to suggest that is going to change. And, honestly, there is also a sad lack of any evidence that people will put the planet’s ecosystem ahead of their own individual beliefs, so any kind of dialogue about it is simply an exercise in futility. Besides that, the multitude of other animal life forms on our planet deserve a chance to survive in a decent
        habitat, as well. It’s not only the humans who deserve a decent life. And the greedy corporations buy off politicians who prey on the religious beliefs of a few in order to line their own pockets. The politicians talk a good game about religious values, but in reality sell out the ecosystem and the people themselves for the sake of money and power. In a nutshell, the entire planet suffers because of some religious beliefs.

        Anyhow, Gooder, I thank you for your thoughtful, courteous comments. It’s so nice when people can discuss opposite viewpoints without descending into
        insults, ridiculous non sequiturs, and threats. You’re a rare bird, and I’m grateful for your style of discourse.

      • gooder1

        Hi Julie,

        One of the tenets of the Catholic Faith is to be good stewards of our planet, and to leave it in sound condition for the generations to come. The Catholic Church was one of the leaders of the environmental movement long before there even was a movement. Of course its position was always a religious one, that of loving God’s creation, keeping clean, and not dumping a mess on our neighbor, who we are bound to love in keeping with the gospel. That said, we also believe in both God’s eternal laws, and his natural laws. If all followed his eternal law of marriage between a man and a woman, and regulating the births of children through the natural cycles of the wife, then our planet would probably be less populated. These days it seems that the birth rate has gone up exponentially for individuals who are not even married, women having children with multiple men, and accordingly having no way to support the children due to the lack of income. The whole situation is unraveling by the minute.

        I believe we are seeing the deterioration of a self-centered society built upon greed, pride, and lust, one that has become practically indifferent to God, a society without a soul. Over population of the planet will only be part of the problem, and, most certainly, man will be responsible for his own demise. He is destroying the planet, destroying the structures of society that keep it in balance, destroying himself through mind altering drugs, knuckling under to a life of laziness, much of it driven by sloth. Many refuse to work, which is part and parcel healthy society. When man is accountable to no one, his inevitable destruction is already on the horizon. So I agree with you in many ways, but on the root cause we differ.

        As for contraception, well the Catholic church is not opposed to couples regulating the number of children they have, but does concern itself with the manner in which the regulation is effected. There is a thing called “Natural Family Planning” that is promoted by the Church. It is more scientific than what used to be known as the rhythm method, it is 99+ percent effective, and does not cause breast cancer, or have the destructive effects on a woman’s brain as does the Pill. So, as a Catholic, if you want to avoid pregnancy, the married couple will need to abstain from sex for 72 hours every 28 days. It is totally scientific, totally free, totally respects the woman’s body, has better results than any form of artificial Birth Control, and, it is totally free. And, it forces the husband and the wife to actually communicate more. The reason the drug companies don’t promote Natural Family Planning is because artificial birth control has become a big business, and the bizarre thing is the woman is only fertile 72 hours per month, but they still use birth control the entire month. Talk about a business that takes advantage of the ignorant. The Birth Control business is a glaring example of it.

        Anyway, I lastly want to say that God will certainly correct us if we drift too far from the mark. Moreover, people of Faith believe that there is an appointed time when this planet will cease to exist as we now know it, and that there will be an end to this present age. Many believe that time is getting very very near. The Bible seems to allude to it, and the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary seem to state that something big is indeed coming. So we will see. And … if population gets too large for the planet to sustain then that problem will at some point be corrected by the only One who can actually do that. In fact, if we keep polluting this planet, the human race might just wind up being toxically sterilized, bringing an end to it all that way.

        Finally, in Medjugorje, Mary has told the visionaries that hell consists of many people who never believed in it. I’m not saying that to be mean, but only to answer the point you made. Take care

      • E.M.

        gooder1, just one small point, even though i certainly believe everything you have said, our Pope has not yet made a final decision on Medj – just sisterly caution on declaring it to be an absolute, i hope you don’t mind! i do agree though! i have thoroughly enjoyed reading your conversation! :)

      • JuliePurple

        Hi, Gooder
        Wow, you introduced additional topics there. This will make for a long reply, I’m afraid. I’ll do my best to be
        brief.
        Re: “good stewards of the planet” — That is all good. Except it’s not working.
        Re: “God’s eternal laws” — the only eternal laws are those like the speed of light, the law of gravity, conservation of energy, and so on. Because it’s either eternal or it isn’t. And face it, no religious law is eternal: they did not exist before humans developed religion, and they all depend upon the survival of whatever
        religion espouses it.
        Re: “the eternal law of marriage between a man and a
        woman” — Oh, Gooder, this is silly. Look at all the marriages in the bible, with men marrying slaves and
        having concubines in addition to another wife or wives. To debate this particular red herring, go to the “What did Jesus say about homosexuality” forum.
        Re: “if all followed his eternal law of marriage, the
        planet would probably be less populated” — There is no proof at all for this. I’d be very interested to know the
        average birth rate in very religious communities, as compared with the population in general. And besides, you have to deal with reality, not what you wish were so. And the reality is that the planet is overpopulated.
        Re: “deterioration of a self-centered society… many
        refuse to work” — While that is true, it is also true that many work multiple jobs simply in order to survive. Minimum wage is not a living wage in this country. This from the AFL-CIO website: “In 2013 the CEO-to-worker pay ratio was 331:1 and the CEO-to-minimum-wage-worker pay ratio was 774:1″ This is while making record profits, and incidentally, contributing massive amounts of pollution to the planet. If you want self-centered, look at the CEOs making obscenely high salaries while their workers struggle to survive.
        Re: Natural Family Planning being 99% effective: — According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services “Natural Family Planning Fact Sheet”, “Of 100 couples who use natural family planning methods each year, anywhere from 1 to 25 will become pregnant. Natural family planning can be an effective type of birth control if all three methods are used and if all are lways used correctly.” (i.e., basal body temperature, calendar, and cervical mucus methods — the “symptothermal method”). But according to the American Association of
        Family Physicians, “its failure rate is 0.4 percent per year with perfect use, and 7.5 percent per year with typical use.” and “Most of the reported data on the effectiveness of NFP is based on perfect use. The
        complexity and diligence required by many NFP methods make them unrealistic and untenable for many persons. With typical use, up to 25 percent of women using NFP will become pregnant within the first year” Also: “The consequences of unintended pregnancy on a person’s health and well-being are important considerations for contraceptive counseling. Women who have medical conditions for which pregnancy would create an unacceptable health risk should be advised that NFP may not be appropriate for them. In most cases, methods with solid evidence and more
        effectiveness with typical use are preferred.”
        Re: “does not cause breast cancer” — neither do condoms, nor oral sex, nor early withdrawal
        Re: “destructive effects ” –Pregnancy also does damage to a woman’s body. Many health conditions are such that becoming pregnant would be fatal for the woman.
        Re: “a woman is only fertile 72 hours” — no, it’s more like 8 days.
        Re: “but they still use birth control the entire month. Talk about a business that takes advantage of the ignorant.” — The effectiveness of many forms of oral
        contraceptives depend on their ability to regulate hormones on a daily basis. If your research is typical of Catholic couples, I can see why there are so many big Catholic families. :-)
        If you want to talk about big business, what about medications like Viagra? That’s interfering with nature, too. And it has similar deleterious effects on health.
        And yes, NATURE will correct us if we go too far off the
        mark.
        Re: Mudjugorje: Don’t worry, I don’t take the Medjugorje affair seriously.

      • gooder1

        Hi Julie,

        Eternal laws are eternal laws. Yes in our part of the universe the laws of physics as we know them apply and are consistent; we don’t know if they are laws which apply to the entire universe, though. You only reference natural eternal laws; but if God does indeed exist, and what He has revealed is indeed true, then there are also supernatural eternal laws. For many, this will only be apparent at the moment of death. As for the concubines, etc., when Jesus was asked about divorce and remarriage, he alluded to how God originally intended marriage (Mark 10:5-9). Jesus clearly stated that Moses allowed these things because of the hardness of man’s heart. So Moses permitted, but it was a deviation from the plan of God.

        As for NFP, we can argue about the effectiveness of it. But couples that are true to it, plan their families well through its use.

        But I would agree with you that nature will correct us if we continue down this path of destruction; of course I see nature, however, as the creation of God, and designed to last, designed to correct, designed to overcome all. It is kind of like a weak acid buffer solution, it hold pH until the an extreme shift will drive it either acidic, or basic. Then the system will work its way back to its buffered state by consuming all things in its presence.

      • JuliePurple

        Hi, Gooder,
        Well, if the laws are eternal, whether natural or supernatural (and that’s another term that will have to wait for a different discussion :-), then by definition they must be beyond religious laws, since religions are not eternal.
        An actual historical figure that corresponds to the Moses of legends probably existed, but details of his life are based on heavily embellished legend, so any statement of opinions or actions of such a one is not reliable as factual . So with the sayings of Jesus. While scholarly opinion is that a man called Jesus (or Yeshua, or whatever the local version was) did exist and that he was executed, the deeds, sayings, and so forth are only known from the writings of a group whose impartiality is suspect, at best. I suspect that’s an area where we will have to agree to disagree, eh? :-)
        I do not doubt that couples do indeed use NFP to plan their families. I only doubt how successful it is.
        However, I think that in general you and I do have a great deal of agreement here; I, too, wish that people would all behave responsibly and kindly towards each other and the earth. it’s only in the details of the particulars that we differ.

      • gooder1

        Hi Julie,

        I’m not sure, as I haven’t read the book (at least just yet), that the book “Killing Jesus” by Bill OReilly, approaches the existence of Jesus simply from an historical perspective, and not religion. In other words, he tells the story of Jesus the man from all the extant documents available, whether religious, or not. That book might be a good one for you to read, for even though you haven’t shown much in the way of belief in God here on this site, you nevertheless seem to have a desire to understand things, so you could just throw caution to the wind, and give it a read. Your local library should have a copy of it.

      • JuliePurple

        Hi, Gooder
        Thanks for the book reference, but I’ll pass. I looked up a bit about it on line, and here’s one of the reviews:
        The Guardian called it “a breathy retelling of the gospel stories by two conservative Catholics, one of whom, O’Reilly, believes that he was inspired to write the book by the Holy Ghost.” The reviewer also stated that, “Although the authors proclaim in their introduction that they have manfully succeeded in separating fact from legend and will alert the reader if the evidence is not set in stone, they signally fail to do so. Killing Jesus relies almost exclusively on the gospels, discounting two centuries of ongoing scholarly scepticism about their historical accuracy with a breezy footnote that there is ‘growing acceptance of their overall historicity’.”
        So, thanks, but no thanks. In any case, Bill O’Reilly’s adherence to fact is somewhat lax, as has been shown in his television commentaries. I wouldn’t expect his book to stick to known facts, either.

        To assume I don’t believe in god just because I think the
        bible is a combination of myth, superstition, and tribal taboos, is a bit of a leap. There is a huge difference between not being religious and not believing in god.

      • gooder1

        Julie, I am very sorry for assuming that you did not believe in God. I should have just asked you before deducing that your comments meant disbelief. Anyway, I was only mentioning the book for your possible benefit. And actually, from what I read about the book, it tends to strike the right balance by irritating the secularists, while at the same time irritating those hard nosed biblical literalists. And from what I read of the review you posted, it would seem that one was from the secularist camp. Anyway, sorry again. And by the way, maybe you could describe your system of beliefs to us, so that we can understand where you are coming from. I certainly honor all beliefs, given that they are sincerely held.

      • JuliePurple

        No worries, Gooder.
        About the review of the book, I don’t think the reviewers are necessarily secularists, but simply noting that the book has a lack of historical accuracy as well as noting that O’Reilly misrepresented scholarly opinion. That doesn’t surprise me, though, because O’Reilly typically misrepresents current events, as well.
        About my beliefs… I won’t go into boring detail, but it’s a subject I’ve thought about it for decades. What I’ve come to believe to date is that there simply isn’t enough information for us as humans to come to any accurate
        conclusion about the nature or existence of any kind of supreme deity. The subject is simply too big for us to
        comprehend at this stage in our development. Maybe it always will be, I don’t know. For a human to say she knows about god’s nature and intentions towards
        humans, is kind of like a cell in my body coming to some kind of accurate conclusion about my existence or intentions. When this body dies, what would that cell then think? That god hates it? (It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s what I came up with for now.) Any entity
        capable of designing and manifesting a universe is WAY beyond our comprehension. I’d love for there to be
        a personal god who cares for our well-being, but there just is not enough *reliable* evidence for anyone to know for sure. My best guess at this stage is that if there is a god, it is the totality of all the natural laws such as gravity, speed of light, inertia, osmosis, and so
        forth. My main question concerning that is: is that totality of natural laws possessed of consciousness and/or will? And that is my very sincere belief. In a nutshell, I’m agnostic, though I find certain practices (that are usually
        associated with religion) to be helpful in a practical way. For instance, meditation is great for calming the mind. Things like that.

      • Mike

        “history is the lie that everybody believes”

        .. wrap your head around that one and see if you get any where with it …. :D

      • Reynauld

        Onan never existed…just stupid bronze age tales

    • n.

      It is not correct to state that after a operation removing ovaries etc forbids having sex. (If you don’t have a medical reason sterilization would be self-mutilation.) But you cannot separate the procreative aspect from sex and male orgasm, that certainly isn’t in God’s plan.

      • George

        Is your answer supported by the catechism? If so, please state where.
        So if a man is sterile from birth, can he have sex without sin according to the RCC? The man cannot procreate by definition, so any sex he has is purely for pleasure with no possibility of procreation. The natural law argument would lead to a clear NO answer here.

      • Cindy Black

        Good question George. If an man in sterile from birth, or sterile from no intentional act of his own to sterilize himself, he can enjoy the unity of sexual intercourse with his wife without sinning. Likewise, the Church recognizes the good of unification of spouses when wives are post menopausal as well. I find the Church’s teachings on human sexuality beautifully liberating. I have not always understood or lived it, but have found it upholding my and my husband’s dignity as we live the sexual meaning of our bodies in our marriage.

      • George

        Where in the catechism(or anywhere else) is your answer coming from?
        Sometimes it is ok to just say;” we don’t know the answer to that, it is a mystery.” The orthodox have no problem saying that. The roman catholics seem to be very uncomfortable saying that, so they try to “figure it out”.
        I read the catechism and other RCC doctrines, and can’t understand why this “natural law” has been accepted into the teachings of Christ. It’s wrong, it is against the tradition of the early church and it leads to contradictions. Just accept that God has not revealed everything to us, and some things are a mystery. And let people be able to have the sexual life that THEY decide with their spouses. Get the “Pope” (Bishop of Rome really, way out of line) out of the chaste marital bed!

      • Cindy Black

        If I angered you, I’m sorry. My answer comes from years of reading and studying the theology of the body, beginning with “Love and Responsibility” by Karol Wojtyla, then “Humanae Vitae,” “Male and Female He Created Them” a class taught by Mark Lowery of the University of Dallas author of “Living the Good Life” who explains that God, not man, is the arbiter of good and evil and is all supported by the CCC.
        The first book listed profoundly changed my marriage. It contains deep insights on human love.
        When it comes to contraception and voluntary sterilization, we are taking a healthy functioning part of our body and mutilating it or rendering it diseased. Rather than choosing to give and receive one other as COMPLETE self gift, we withhold our fertility. We separate what God has joined together–the unitive and procreated dimensions of human sexual union.
        I also understand chasity to be a continuum. So a husband and wife committed to each other are more chaste than someone just hooking up for 1 night. And even though a couple might be open to life in the sexual act, a spouse could be more concerned about his/her own pleasure than their spouse’s, which is less chaste. Or spouses can use sex as manipulating which is also less chaste than coming together out of mutual love to express their marriage bond physically.
        George, do we at least agree that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for life?

      • George

        I wasn’t angered by your comment. I don’t see contraception as an all or nothing. A married couple MUST have children if they are able to do so (i.e. fertile). But they don’t have to completely abandon the use of contraception, and to say that the use of contraception is a sin is close to if not outright heresy from an orthodox point of view. Once the couple has the number of children that their christian conscience (as a couple) is satisfied with, they can then use contraception to avoid any more children. They can also use contraception (not abortive) in between children to space them out as their christian conscience dictates. These decisions should be made in prayer and as a couple. By the way, it seems 80% of roman catholics ignore the teaching on contraception. That is an amazing figure, and I dare to say unmatched by opposition to any other teaching of the RCC.

        Roman catholicism dissects God’s will as some sort of logical object and then creates these rules in the abstract space of philosophy that everyone else must then follow. Then they sometimes add all sorts of escape clauses to make it fuzzy in an attempt to put some humanity back in. It’s just really unnecessarily complicated and synthetic. It is also incredibly confusing to everyone involved.

        We need to pray to be able to discern these kinds of subtle questions such as how many children should we (i.e. the couple) have? Should we have x,y,z sex in the marital bed? There is no one size fits all answer to these questions. If a spouse is burning in lust, and the other spouse is willing and able to satisfy the sexual need of the other, to tell them that oral sex for example is a sin is heresy and it goes against one of the stated purposes of marriage which is to keep spouses from burning in lust.

        I’m not familiar with the books you mention. I’m happy they helped you and I hope your husband agrees that they were good for the marriage. I don’t read works of philosophy such as “Humanae Vitae” because they usually take a beautiful thing such as the experience of God and dissect it into a number of unappealing pieces. The works of the RCC are usually based on pagan Aristotelian natural law, and so they take this synthetic look and feel that really make God’s teaching unnecessarily externally forced. It seems to me similar to taking a work of art and cutting it into pieces, once cut it looses its value. It’s such a dry and sterile way of experiencing God and his teachings.

      • Reynauld

        This is all ancient bullshit

      • E.M.

        may i just say, lusting after someone – even your own spouse – is a sin
        because it is purely selfish and has absolutely no connection to the
        total self-emptying love that Christ displayed for us on the cross
        becasue there is a want of self-discipline which is a fruit of the Holy
        Spirit, so the idea that their other half should need to satisfy their
        selfishness is absurd. contraception separeates the physical act from
        the sacrament of marriage in which the physical act is supposed to be a
        part of the vows which is why when you don’t consumate, the marriage
        is not valid because the vows have not been fulfilled, but within
        marrriage the physical act is a renewal of your vows…. this is why
        oral sex, and any other kind that is not procreative is not considered
        worthy, because they are not the unitive kind that has the potential to
        create life which is also an image of the holy trinity in it’s triunity
        …. secondly, the RCC does not advocate having more children than you
        can manage, of course everyone should discern then number of children
        that God wills you to have, however, you should always be open to
        receiving more becasue as human beings we need to recognise that we
        cannot fully know the will of God, but only have complete and total
        trust in His providence. This doesn’t mean abstaining the rest of your
        life so you don’t fall pregnancy, but neither does it mean you should
        willingly sterilise yourself with whichever method – pill, condom etc.
        there is a way of determing a woman’s fertile period which is as
        effective as as any of these without doing the damage to yourself (in
        the case of pills/injections), and without witholding part of yourself
        (in the case of condoms) which means that you are still open to the Lord
        working in your life…. do some research on NFP and you’ll see…. and
        how ironic that you think our relationship with God is dry and sterile
        when that is exactly what you are doing to yourselves when using
        contraception because condoms physically keep things dry, and pills and
        injections sterilise…… those that truly practice the Church’s
        teaching couldn’t be more fruitful in that sacrament if we tried…. and
        when you say that the majority of the catholics don’t practice this
        way, you are right, and it is so sad, but the problem isn’t with the
        teaching, but with the lack of proper catechising and the devil’s ways
        of using our fallen nature that is constantly trying to be above God and
        His creation – as if we could…. ridiculous…… on top of that, your
        point about the teachings being unsavoury has nothing to do with the
        validty of the teaching – Jesus himself did al lot which many at the
        time thought unsavory, particularly the idea of us eating His flesh and
        drinking His blood – and look , now that is the cornerstone of our
        faith! and whether you agree or not, theology is the study of God and
        the theology of the body is not a mere philosophy, but the study of
        God’s creation -which has a mystical union with God by the fact that as
        Christians and in baptism we become pat of the body of Chirst, and as
        there is a mystical body one must study the physical body to know more
        of the mystical one…. most particularly since the Bible describes
        heaven as the marriage feast of Christ which by the very Sacrament of
        marriage must be comsumated, and so understanding this aspect and total
        free giving within marriage, we might also konw something of the
        consumation of our spiritual union with God in heaven. If you choose to
        not read certain works with a heart of discernment and remain ignorant
        out of disdain, that is your own decision, but please do not diminish
        the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of many people whose only goals
        in life are to do the will of God by using the gifts that He has given
        them through prayerful discernment… I for one have found that raher
        than detracting from my relationship with God, i have a deeper
        understanding and appreciation of teachings that before were seemingly
        too stark and 2 dimensional but that now reach so much deeper into my
        being… of course if you know of a theology that witll go even further,
        i would be most willing to delve into it with the Holy Spirit as my
        guide…. (and please don’t liken us or our teachings to pagans again,
        it isn’t pleasant…)

      • Cindy Black

        Please see CCC 2331-2345, 2360-2372.
        Yes, If a man or woman is sterile for any reason except choosing an act to deliberately sterilize him or herself, then sexual union with spouse can be a moral good, as it is still a unitive and procreation kind of act. In fact, if a woman has a hysterectomy for a sound medical reason, she undoubtedly is sterile, but it’s morally permissible as the principle of double double effect and she and her husband can share the marital act and the good of unity that comes from it. Only when intentionally separate either dimension does it become sinful.

      • George

        Thanks for the references. It’s hard to extract a definitive answer from the text regarding whether the exceptions you cite are valid. I’m pretty smart, and my mind hurts when I read the catechism. Maybe they should have married priest (as we Orthodox do) write about marriage and sexuality instead of celibate people writing about the sex and relationships they cannot have. That would make their writings more human and less theoretical.

      • Cindy Black

        You’re most welcome and thank you for engaging in a respectful quest for truth with me. Christopher West and Jason Evert are both married and have some great videos and books on the Theology of the Body that you might find helpful.

      • Reynauld

        Amen to that!

      • Reynauld

        Sex is simply mammalian coupling..all these ancient idiotic rules..who cares what the stupid catechism says

      • Joey Dugan

        And stealing is just mammalian feeding? We are different from the beasts, we have a moral compass. And what about murder? Should we fight to the death over mates, like some mammals do?.

      • Joey Dugan

        The couple is having sex in a context of being open to life. IT is not their fault that they are sterile. The same thing with an older couple…they are open to any life that could occur during their love-making, so the act is not immoral

      • George

        I agree. But the RCC likes its natural law arguments. In regular science, once an idea is proven false by one case, it is discarded. In the RCC, they remain resolute in patching obsolete Aristotelian philosophical arguments through time. Christ never cited Plato/Aristoteles or any greek to justify His teachings! Swallow your pride, turn your castles into churches, your princes into Bishops and your King into a Patriarch.

      • gooder1

        George,

        The natural law is simply a summary of those things embedded in nature. When an animal acts according to its nature, it is
        acting according to the natural law. Animals for example do not kill for
        sport, they only kill to eat and survive. When an animal reproduces, it
        follows the natural rhythm of the menstrual cycle of the female. Are
        there ever times when a female will not have reproductive sex during the
        its natural reproductive cycle? Well, I’m sure it occasionally happens,
        but more often than not, animals will follow the pattern burned into
        their brain which we call instinct. On the other hand, humans have the
        same reproductive cycles built in, but also have the ability to frustrate those cycle so to act within the higher ordered natural laws
        which trump the animalistic ones. Over time, man has determined that a
        12 year old girl, though physically capable of reproducing, is not
        mentally mature enough to raise a child. The difference between the animal, and the girl, is that animals have instincts to follow; whereas,
        the girl has a different natural law to follow, one that requires
        learning, and judgment. I’m sure we can both agree that the 12 year old
        girl does not have the developed mental acuity needed to decide who to marry and begin having children at age 12. She could, but how would she
        support the child? How would her 12 year old husband provide for her
        during the pregnancy? Of course that is an extreme example of the
        natural law as it pertains to humans. But man has always done his best through trial and error to discover what limits are within the natural
        law for humans: what works? What doesn’t? what becomes problematic over
        time? I believe in our own day we can all see the destructive aftermath
        of a society that has ignored the time tested natural laws discovered by
        not just the Church, but society at large. We have people shacking up,
        having children outside of marriage, having 10 children by 10 different
        fathers. These children have no hope in life other than doing the same
        thing themselves. We have excessive divorce and remarriage. And how many
        of these children lose their sexual identity? The list goes on. But the
        point is the natural law for humans is different than the natural law
        for animals. And the more we depart from those things that work, our society will continue to unravel. That is why the Catholic Church holds
        the line on all things “family.” There are many keystones in that
        building. And if we remove even one of those principle stones, the whole
        thing will come tumbling down. And I believe we are seeing that unfold before our very eyes. Take care, George. I consider Orthodox Christians
        to be my Christian brothers and sisters. We have more in common with
        each other, than with this crazy world that is running every which way
        in search of new truths that only seem to bring more chaos.

      • George

        One of the main areas of damage that I see from the application of natural law is when it is applied to sexual morality. Forbidding condom use at all times, oral sex and anything other than a very narrow range of activities even within the marriage. The strict ban on sexual activities within the marriage expose the partners to Satan’s temptations. St. Paul was clear that married people should not keep each other from sex for extended periods of time, and only ny agreement, so that they protect each other from Satan’s temptations. But if even within marriage certain sexual activities, which are very common and enjoyable are forbidden to those who are married, then marriage’s protective shield against sexual temptation is severely weakened. These prohibitions on sexual acts within the marital bed are not supported by scripture, and the natural law arguments are the main source of support. I think that this is a prime example of how natural law doesn’t belong in christianity, it removes God’s relief and compassion.

      • gooder1

        I see your point, George, and understand your position. And actually the Catholic Church is not against oral sex, per say, but only when the male finishes up that sexual act in any place other than nature’s proper place. But we’ll have to see where things go, though, as many will present alternative cases such as what if the wife is already pregnant? etc. So we will have to see how things develop. And actually, the Catholic Church is presently looking at what was done in the early Church in terms of divorce and remarriage. And if they do end up resetting those laws to be more like those of the early Church, then the divorce and remarriage stance would be much like the Orthodox position. Pope Francis has been very active in this regard.

      • gooder1

        Remember Elizabeth: Luke 1:5-13

      • George

        The grace of God is immense, and infinite to the repenting souls. The natural law teaching of the RCC removes God’s grace, and creates a man made juridical system. Natural law Aristotelian philosophy is obsolete science, replaced by the scientific method and has no place in the interpretation of divine revelation. God’s word emanates from Him, and His motives are not for a philosopher to guess.

    • James Crowley

      Face it…the Christian church has always had a morbid hatred of sex…much more sinful than slaughtering thousands of old women witches and Cathar heretics

    • Joey Dugan

      In a wolf pack, only the Alpha male and the Alpha female mate. The other wolves are all celibate. I’m not so sure that celibacy is outside the natural law. We live in an artificial society where people eat unnatural foods, are over-stimulated by the media about sex, and are frankly, lonely. Perhaps in a more natural peaceful setting, close to nature, etc, our sexual desires would be less predominant.

  • Rebekah Yegneswaran

    So glad I’m not a Catholic :-)

    • James Crowley

      You bet…I was one for years….everything human is a mortal sin.

      • E.M.

        well, whoever taught you that should be prayed for because that is a very terrrible lie…. God becoming human, dying and rising for our sake redeemed humanity, and in Him, what is human is made holy! By the very fact that He CHOSE to become one of us, he has restored everything to as it was meant to be if we embrace our humanity as He did – in the trials as we take up our croses with Him, in the joys as He rejoiced with His apostles, in our pain as He was in pain as He died…. being human is not a mortal sin because God became human and God cannot sin. I am so sorry for anything you have experiencedin the Catholic Church that was not 100% kindness, compassion, love, faith, charity, goodness etc etc but please never say that because it is completely untrue…

      • Walter White

        Please explain? sex, oral sex, ‘in marraige’, eating, working, etc etc none of these things are mortal sin in the Catholic faith. Anger, hate are sins but not necessarily mortal sins. Love, compassion, kindness are all human no? These things are called virtues and are Catholic teachings so your statement is really as valid as a big squidgy fart.

    • Salvelinus

      Me too

  • 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.

    • Reynauld

      The Devil? you mean that mythological being..just like “God”??

      • E.M.

        you know, if you are going to enter a discussion with someone of faith, you need to respect their beliefs, and behave as if we deserve to be believed even if you don’t agree….. there is no point trying to convince someone that God and the Devil are mythical non-existent creatures of our imaginations that we cling to because we are lesser human beings when we obviously have reason and are able to think for ourselves and can answer your questions with logical answers… and trying to convince us with sarcasm and derision won’t help either…. we may as well inquire the Bing bang theory? you know, the one that hasn’t got any proof? to which your reply wiy will be “the universe is expanding which is a sign that this took place” … to this my answer would be “for thousands of years human beings have believed in the existence of at least one God, in the case of Christians there was a man named Jesus 2000 yrs ago – a historical man – and for 2000 years people have been coninvced that he was the Son of God who came to fullfil the promise that God had made to them thousands of years before, and many miracles have happend in His name which science cannot explain and many still follow and believe in Him despite the emergence of science – this is a sign that He was the Son of God “…. i would also add that trying to solve the mystery of the existence of God – the immeasurable God – witha method that relies soley on measuring something, is like trying to breathe without lungs -impossible…. you need faith, and faith is inherently unmeasurable….

      • gooder1

        E.M.

        You are correct, that even belief in evolution requires faith! Good posts.

      • E.M.

        Thanks, these kind of discussions can be a wonderful way of enhancing our own knowledge and love of our faith and i’ve recently come to see them as a great grace! Wouldn’t you agree? ^_^

      • gooder1

        E.M.

        You stated that very well. And yes these forums are a good way to share your faith. It seems, though, that everyone brings to the forum a different set of beliefs, and it is hard to understand where each is coming from. In a sense, with all the information out there these days, people just develop their own faith, and boo-hoo anything that doesn’t suit them, regardless how ancient the beliefs are that they are witnessing to. These days people question everything. I imagine that should be seen as a natural consequence of transitioning out of the Age of Enlightenment, and entering into the age of technology and modern philosophy. I guess in 1500 years, people will be debating whether George Washington ever really existed.

  • 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.

      • Reynauld

        Both written by celibate males..yeah,,real experts

      • 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.

      • James Crowley

        Amen…the Catholic Church is obsessed with making humans just breed animals…and this from a celibate hirearchy( when they arent molesting young boys)

      • BobTrent

        ‘Tis better to give than to receive. In holy matrimony the male gives of his semen to the female, who receives it (with thanksgiving), while she gives him sexual pleasure, which he receives (with thanksgiving). There is more mutual giving and receiving than this alone.
        In unnatural sexual practices the emphasis is on getting, not giving.
        The Old Testament provides a guide to what God desires of His children in this matter. See Leviticus 12:2-5, 15:19

      • Reynauld

        As BertrandRussell said.Christianity has a morbid fear and and hatred of sex…burning of witches and heretics is fine..just no sex for pleasure!

      • James Crowley

        Lust is the result of the hormones we have developed by evolution to ensure the reproduction of the species. Why in the 21st century do we follow the teachings of ancient idiots???

      • PetiePal

        Lust is not an evolutionary development.Ancient idiots? Why would you even be on a site called Busted Halo regarding Christianity, Catholicism and its teachings if you think they’re idiotic?

      • Reynauld

        because they are ancient idiots

      • BobTrent

        Both “NFP” and Onanism are “natural” as both take advantage of biological facts without any artificial elements.

      • Reynauld

        This is a load of anti human crap..”please forgive me for acting as evolution developed me” can’t have pleasure..no wonder moderns don’t believe this ancient nonsense

    • Reynauld

      simply because we think that the Church’s condemnation of Galileo for believing that the earth revolves around the sun was antiquated doesn’t give us free purchase to believe that the earth does in fact revolve around the sun. After all, the Church said the earth is the center of the solar system

  • 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

      • Salvelinus

        Sorry, truth never “evolves”. Even when 80 or 100% of Catholics are in open defiance, and even when a post conciliar pope or bishop (ie Kasper) make off the cuff comments, they dont fall under the auspices of magesterial level, so its moot.
        Case I point, 2000 year Catholic teachingon extra ecclasium nulla salus still stands, even I the errors of false eccumenism after vatVatican II

      • kalbertini

        Buddy the Eastern orthodox church were called Catholic in the first 1,000 years.Emperors called councils & most were settled in the East.The ignorance to hold the Roman church as the church where in the first 1,000 years the Pope had no primacy over the churches is laughable

      • Reynauld

        Totally right..and most of these Popes had illegitimate children

      • Reynauld

        what a load of ignorant bullshit..so why did going to hell for eating meat on Frday evolve to no big deal??

      • Salvelinus

        Not sure how geocentrism got into the discussion. This is typical of someone who lost an argument… letd go back and find snother strawnan….

        I can take yo to task on the Gallileo propaganda lies and put you to shame there also (along with the typical lies of the inquisition lies) but this is a seperate topic…

      • kalbertini

        Lets go back & talk of the Early Church Fathers & Popes who held sex in marriage a necessary evil tainted with sin.Even Luthor in the reformation held sex in marriage good,the popes following satanic belief held the opposite.Keep dreaming “lost a argument” nonsense

      • BobTrent

        It was the Roman Catholic Church, through the Sacred Penitentiary, that in 1853 approved scheduled abstinence as a contraceptive means. That this was not a fluke is shown by the S.P.’s renewal of the approval in 1880.
        It should not be expected that the “uncircumcised” in heart resist the teaching, not simply of the Catholic Church, but of the Holy Scriptures on this and many other subjects. Attempting to impose teachings that can be received only by the pure in spirit on the unconverted (though they may have gone through the outward signs, as did Simon the sorcerer and Ananias and Sapphira) has been a recurring mistake of many in the Catholic Church.
        Previously, using means to engage in sexual intercourse, or to gain sexual climax, while minimizing the possibility of procreation was almost uniformly denounced by Christian writers as far back as any mentioning the subject have been discovered.

      • gooder1

        Indeed, most Christians were unified on the contraception issue well after the Reformation. In our day, however, the lion’s share of churches have one by one knuckled under to the ways of the world, and not just regarding contraception, but in nearly every aspect of morality. In some ways it will be easy to make our case to the Lord by saying that in this modern culture we were tempted in nearly every regard, but from the opposite side of that argument, we today have unlimited information at our fingertips unlike any time before us, so we will have no excuse. I once read an article (can’t remember the source), but it was making the point that once contraception became commonplace, the breakdown of the family began. In our day, we can see how the natural family is now being attacked from just about every perspective, either explicitly, or implicitly.

      • Salvelinus

        Oh, those “burdens”. Yes they are, but they shoul be done for the love of our Lord and love of our neighbor.
        Like when I want to take a 2 by 4 to the head of an anticatholic bigot. .. I dont.

        The sexual act, in marriage is a beautiful thing. When procreation is separated fro the marriage act the woman is nothing more than an object for the man’s pleasure.
        Women are more than merely an aide to get off on. The fact that the neofeminist women have fallen for thst continues their disrespectef and unapprecisted status now… quite sad actually

      • kalbertini

        You dont represent responsible married couples with your rhetoric
        about intention.Nature DOES NOT have the unitive & the procreative always intact.Common sense Please

      • Salvelinus

        Yes, popes can blunder… they are just sinful men like us. But popes cannot error in faith and morals when speaking ec cathedra… which is rarely expressed

      • James Crowley

        Tradition being a cranky old bishop named Augustine who sanctioned persecution of anyone who did not agree with him.

      • Salvelinus

        This is because Christ’s kingship has been lost in the collegial postconciliar church.

  • 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!

    • Cindy Black

      The couples I know who embrace the Church’s teaching by the one flesh union being a unitive and procreative kind of act (even when procreation is highly unlikely) have the strongest, happiest marriages (not guilty ones).

  • 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.

    • James Crowley

      Gotta breed right!

  • 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.

      • BobTrent

        Unfortunately all too many priests are sappers and miners destroying the faith from within. Obtain a copy of the New Catechism and keep your Bible open next to 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

      • 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!

      • Reynauld

        brainwashed idiot

      • 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”.

      • BobTrent

        “ONE Catholic church.”
        Oh? What of the Orthodox, the original Catholic Church? The Maronites? The Copts? Etc., etc.
        Most Protestants see their denominations as different traditions that developed within the Church as a whole. More than one of the popular denominations’ creeds cites that they believe in the “holy Catholic Church.”
        Many formerly distinct denominations have united. Some have merged their traditions and others have continued their traditional forms, concentrating on their agreements rather than on whatever continues to divide them.

  • 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)

      • BobTrent

        The Bible guides believers to resume normal sexual intercourse forty days after giving birth to a male and eighty days after birthing a female. This is assuming that bloody discharge has ceased seven days after birthing a male and fourteen days after a female before starting to count the 33 and 66 day “purification” period.
        A wife who refuses her husband natural sexual intercourse without valid scriptural reason* commits serious sin, for one of the purposes of marriage is to avoid temptation.
        Likewise for a husband. Each belongs to the other to use for the natural purpose.
        Refusal or neglect to engage regularly in holy sexual intercourse without valid scriptural reason is strongly condemned in the New Testament. The one who neglects to offer herself or himself to the other at all scripturally accepted times is guilty of causing the other to sin, whether or not the other commits or even is tempted to sin – for putting the other in that position.
        When we enter into marriage we give permanent consent to sexual intercourse with one another, which may not be withdrawn without valid scriptural reason.
        *Reasons given in scripture are:
        1) during menstrual discharge and for seven days following
        2) during any bloody discharge from the wife’s vagina
        3) for the specified periods after giving birth
        4) genuine illness or injury that is aggravated by sexual intercourse – “Headache” is not valid. “Tiredness” is not valid, especially for the wife, as she can just lie still if she is that tired.

      • kalbertini

        The Old testament laws have been abrogated,that stuff is all irrelevant now except the 10 commandments.Nobody if he^s married goes & has intercourse with his deceased brothers wife to produce offspring as a example.Can u imagine your brother dies with no children,& u go sleep with his wife(being married yourself) to produce offspring.Ain^t gonna happen

      • George

        The roman catholic church is clear on it, but doesn’t have the authority to issue such a heretical teaching. The roman bishop is not in communion with the rest of the bishops of the entire church, and his theology is at a minimum heretical. His claims to primacy and infallibility are inconveniently easily shown to be false. The successor of Peter in the church of Antioch would also have to be a Pope if the bishop of Rome’s argument is to be accepted that succession from Peter makes you a Pope. And if the claim to the Papacy is sustained by the standing of Rome as a power center, then we just need to remember that the roman empire is dead, and we’d have to make the Bishop of Washington, DC the Pope given that this is the seat of power of our age.
        Roman catholicism is heretical, and not in communion with the Holy apostolic catholic church that Christ founded.

      • 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.

      • BobTrent

        The New Testament condemns “fornication,” which is the rendering in English Bibles of the Greek “porneia,” the practices of whores. Broadly the term covers all kinds of depraved pseudosexual practices, which are commonly practiced by harlots and their customers.
        The Bible is not a simple manual with “1., 2., 3., 4., …” do’s and don’t's enumerated.
        As to Protestants, they are the source of what used to be the term “crimes against nature,” which were usually said to be unfit to be named.
        When sodomy is mentioned, it is usually not considered necessary to give a graphic description of each and every unlawful act.

      • 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

      • BobTrent

        This is blasphemy – accusing the Bible of endorsing fellatio and cunnilingus. To get such interpretations out of the Song one must be prepossessed of the notion.

      • James Witter

        so what does the song really mean to you? the church has no control of how a person has sex inside of the bedroom as long as there is no one else besides the husband and wife… you are free to express your love in the most passionate way that you can think of… i feel that anal sex is wrong. but whatever else floats your boat go for it and go for it with gusto.

    • 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