Question: Is oral sex allowed in a Catholic marriage?
This is one of the search engine terms that is quite frequently used to find this blog. I’m don’t think I’ve addressed it directly, but it is definitely one of those things that I’ve discussed in other posts about sex. Since it frequently gets queried, so why not I answer it here? If you want the direct answer, just scroll to the bottom of this post. If you want the explanation to that answer, read on.
First, what is the purpose of sex?
Sex is a sign of love between a man and a woman. A love that is freely given to each other, complete and total, faithful to each other, and is open to life. This sexual act between man and woman is also a sign of God’s love for his church, and also a sign of God’s love as a trinity.
By this I mean the free, total, faithful and fruitful love between the Father and the Son. The Father willingly (read: free) gives himself completely (read: total) to the Son and only to the Son (read: faithful) because there is no one else that he can receive him in this total way, except for one that is like him. This is because only the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, as we recite in the Nicene Creed every Sunday Mass. And the Son too gives himself freely, completely, and faithfully to the Father. This love between them is so perfect that it yields (read: fruitful) the person of the Holy Spirit.
This Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life (as it is in the Nicene Creed as well) must be welcomed in any complete union, particularly the union between man and woman, husband and wife. In other words, any union between a man and a woman, particularly their sexual union, must be open to the Holy Spirit, the giver of life.
A sexual union that is not open to the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, is a union in which the couple says to God, “No, we don’t want you in our union.”
To answer the question on the Catholic teaching on oral sex, and in fact almost any question on sex, it is important to bear in mind these four conditions: FTFF - Free, Total, Faithful, Fruitful.
Is the sexual act in question Free, Total, Faithful, and Fruitful?
Is oral sex open to life? Can life come from oral sex? Is the Holy Spirit able to create life from oral sex?
Answer: No. Oral sex is not allowed in a Catholic marriage.
Last edited on September 20, 2006:
Following a comment in this post, I decided to add an additional link to this post, because yes, there is one exception to this negative answer to oral sex in a Catholic marriage. The post linked will provide what is hopefully an adequate explanation.
Related articles
Filed under: Chastity, FAQs, General, Holy Matrimony
Of course, oral sex is not performed exclusively, married couples don’t have oral sex ALL the time, so life can come from it, meaning, one doesn’t have to have full on intercouse sex at EVERY sexual session.
In that case, could I say that sex doesn’t have to be performed exclusively with my spouse, married couples don’t have intercourse sex ALL the time, so life can come from it, meaning, one doesn’t have to have sex with my spouse only EVERY sexual session?
Like anal sex, oral sex is the subject of much confusion and disagreement among the faithful. There are those who say that oral sex is unnatural because God did not intend our mouths to be used in such a manner. Others associate oral-genital contact with the sexual depravities of Sodom and Gomorrah. As you will see in the Scripture, neither one of these views is supported. Not only that, but oral sex has benefits that are of particular importance to Christians: oral sex allows the natural prevention of unwanted pregnancy and is an alternative to premarital intercourse for those committed to preserving their chastity before marriage.
There is nothing in the Bible that forbids engaging in acts of oral-genital contact. Oral sex has wrongly been grouped in with “sodomy” and the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. As we have seen with anal sex, this argument does not hold water, because the sins of the Sodomites were specifically homosexual and/or nonconsensual in nature. There is no way this could be extrapolated to argue against a heterosexual act of oral sex for mutual pleasure. On the other hand, the Bible does contain some favorable references to oral sex, some in poetic language and some more explicit.
I started to write a reply to your comment, Rob, but ended up with a whole new post…
Still, regarding oral sex, the Church teaches that oral sex is allowed only as foreplay, provided that it leads to a couple having normal sexual intercourse. Any other motive of oral sex is not allowed.
Now you mentioned that oral sex allows the natural prevention of unwanted pregnancy, and is an alternative to premarital intercourse for those committed to preserving their chastity before marriage.
I’ve got a few questions for you here: what is the purpose of oral sex in this case? It is an alternative to what? Does oral sex being an alternative fulfill the same purpose? Or is it for a different purpose altogether? And if so, what is that purpose?
To merely claim that there is nothing in the Bible that forbids engaging in acts of oral-genital contact is not enough, for there is nothing in the Bible that forbids human cloning either, or terrorism for that matter. Yet the Church condemns both of these and gives strict guidelines to the use of oral sex (see above).
It is not I who grouped oral sex with other acts considered as sodomy. It’s the very definition of sodomy. Just go check http://www.dictionary.com. In fact, when we speak of sodomy, we immediately think of anal sex. And where do you think the word ’sodomy’ comes from? I did not redefine that word.
It is so difficult to get a straight response from the Catholic Church on acceptable sexual activity. I am 75 years of age, and impotent due to cancer of the prostate that required surgery leaving me impotent. Now all that I can do is manipulate my wife and she me and have oral sex from time to time. Is either of these sinful? I do not want to commit sin, but being married even at age 75 does not take away the desire to show sexual love for your wife. So please be straight forward from the Catholic Churche’s view point.
Wow… How does one respond to a comment like that? Let me try.
First things first, as requested, your name has been withheld. If you need to reply, just fill in “name withheld” as your name, but do enter your email address, so that I know you are the same person who originally commented. Only I will be able to see your email address, and I won’t divulge it, so no worries there.
Now, I suppose that I have to state is that I am not a priest nor authority on the subject. All I can share is my understanding on the Church’s views on sexual activity and give my opinion on it, which is what this blog is for, especially when it comes to matters relating to sex, which I’m particularly interested in.
It is indeed difficult to get a straight response from the Catholic Church on acceptable sexual activity, because the Catholic Church cannot and does not judge whether a person has sinned or not. Only God does that judging. All the Church can say is whether a particular act is sinful or not.
Perhaps what concerns me most about your comment is the word “manipulate”. When one “manipulates” another, it is usually to use the other person for one’s own pleasure. It treats the other person not as a fellow human, but as a tool to be used.
In other words, even for a young, healthy couple, if the husband “manipulates” his wife, or uses his wife for his own sexual gratification, that act is a sin in itself. In many cases of younger couples who engage in oral sex, the purpose is for sexual gratification i.e. using each other mutual to obtain sexual pleasure. It is in the “using” of each other that lowers the dignity of the partner to that of a tool.
The Church teaches that sexual intercourse needs to be unitive and procreative. In simple terms, it means that husband and wife should be free from inhibitions, physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual, so as to properly bond during sexual intercourse.
It also means that husband and wife needs to create the proper environment for life to be created by God. Whether life is created or not depends totally on God, but husband and wife cannot engage in sexual acts that prevent the conception of life.
In the case of oral sex on its own, it is not and can never be procreative. Hence oral sex is a misuse of one’s genitals, and that makes the act of oral sex in itself, sinful.
The Church understands that husband and wife do desire to show sexual love for each other, but such love can be shown without genital contact. You need to find, or in your case, rediscover means which you can express your love to your wife, which does not involve your genitals. Signs of affection like hand-holding, embracing, kissing are all means by which husband and wife show sexual love towards each other.
After all, while sex is an important part of the marriage, it is not the only thing about the marriage. There must have been times in your marriage where either partner were not able to have sexual intercourse, maybe because one partner was sick or otherwise. This does not prevent the other partner from showing sexual love to the other, without engaging in sexual intercourse.
Impotence is one such illness that prevents a married couple from having unitive and procreative sexual intercourse. Still, displays of love can and should be present, but in ways that do not misuse your or her genitals.
Thank you for writing in, and if this does not answer your question, feel free to write in again.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Catholic writer,
I understand that sexual relations between a husband and wife should be free, total, faithful and fruitfull. You have basically outlined that, indicating that anything that prevents the possibility of the Holy Spirit and the potential for life, is a misuse of one’s sexuality and gift from God. Thus, oral sex if used, should only be performed as a method of foreplay, leading to and followed by full sexual intercourse and climax. I concur with those setiments but have questions as far as marital aids are concerned and used in accentuating the experience and increasing pleasure, for both man and wife.
Does the church allow the use of “sex toys” to add additional sensations, while married couples are engaged in full sexual intercourse and open to the posibility of life, so that both partners are able to climax and achieve orgasm, whether simultaneously or not. The intent of the “gadgets” is not for self gratification, but moreso, to ensure the full sexual enjoyment of their spouse, while as stated, being open to the potential for new life. Some people for whatever reason, either do not or may not experience orgasm merely from vaginal intercourse (most commonly associatted among females but with some males as well). These devices, which provide additional sensations, can assist in providing a very fulfilling experience for both spouses engaging in the loving act.
Thank you for your anticipated reply. God Bless.
Dear John,
Firstly, I have to say that I am not speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church, because I don’t have that authority, so don’t take my word for it that what I say is completely in line with the Catholic Church. However, I do try to follow the Church’s teachings as best as I can, and to express some of its teachings on sex to others who might be interested.
The Church has never said anything on the use of sex toys, at least not in any of the books I’ve read. But I did come across something interesting. In Karol Wojtyla’s (Pope John Paul II) book “Love and Responsibility” (which I never actually finished reading, but came across a short commentary on it), he explains that men, by their nature, usually experience sexual orgasm much sooner than women.
Husbands are encouraged, he wrote, to help their wives to attain climax as well. It is their responsibility, and it would be best if both attained that climax at the same time.
Clearly then, the man is required to slow down, and couples should be intimate to the point of being able to tell when their partner is going to reach orgasm. If the man is reaching orgasm before the woman, then he needs to slow down, and help his wife to reach orgasm as well. This requires, of course, experience and a degree of closeness between spouses, which forms part of the “bonding” that takes place during sexual intercourse. This closeness should also reflect and extend to other aspects of the marriage and family life.
If a man has reached orgasm before the woman, it is also his duty to help her reach orgasm in the same act of sexual intercourse. How that is achieved, it doesn’t say more than ‘physically stimulating’ her.
I can’t say for sure these ideas were expressed in the book in this way! This is my understanding of the sections that I did manage to read.
I still find it hard to believe that our late Pope was able to reflect so deeply on sex even as he was a priest in Poland. This forms part of his Theology of the Body that was delivered to audiences in the first five years of his papalship. His book “Love and Responsibility” is very well known, and can be found in most established libraries. It is not an easy book to read, but as a friend advised me, “Just burrow through. The ideas will sink in.”
I know that this perhaps doesn’t offer the clear response that you’re hoping for, but perhaps we recall what our Church teaches in moral theology, that we try to keep our conscience clean, while first making sure that we do all we can to have a clear and informed conscience that is in line with the teachings of the Church.
In other words, if you are aware that your acts of sexual intercourse with your wife are free, total, faithful, and fruitful, it’s hard to go far wrong.
Hope that has been of help to you.
Peace,
Catholic Writer
[...] Not long ago, I got a comment on this blog that asked something like: If an act of sexual intercourse is free, total, faithful, and fruitful, can sex toys be used to stimulate either party to orgasm? [...]
I recently decided to become Catholic and know that within a few years I will more then likely be getting married but before I do I want to know what will be acceptable but to be honest I am really confused on all of this like it seems too me one person says oral and anal sex are totally unacceptable and others say that its okay to some degree. Like i totally agree with the statement that sex should be open to life but I REALLY have a problem with this idea that every orgasm during sex must be intended toward life like I plan on having lots of kids and so if me and my spouse deside to expierement in the bedroom does that make me unopen to life I just can’t make the connection here i think this has been taken WAY out of context the real issue I feel is whether or not in your marriage your willing to have children and your taking your partners wishes into consideration. But placing that aside for a moment I’d like to clearify one more thing if it is reasonable to perform oral sex as a form of foreplay or someting similar
Hi Wes,
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment. It is good to hear of Catholics like you who are interested in knowing more about what the Church teaches about sex. As this is only a blog, and I am not an expert on sex, I can only provide you an overview of things that you can look into.
Firstly, it is true that every act of sexual intercourse with your wife has to be open to life. This is different from saying that it has to be intended towards life. Indeed, during your wedding, you and your wife will take marriage vows that, regardless of the actual wording, have the meaning that you are taking these vows:
1. Freely - of your own free will, and are not being coerced
2. Totally - you and your wife give and receive each other totally, withholding nothing from each other
3. Faithfully - you and your wife will remain faithful to each other, regardless of situation you find yourselves in
4. Fruitfully - you and your wife will be open to having children, and bringing them up in a Catholic manner.
The act of sexual intercourse is the expression of these marital vows as, rightfully speaking, for Catholics, only men and women married to each other can lawfully have sex with each other. Therefore, each act of sexual intercourse has to retain the four conditions expressed in the marriage vows. In other words, every act of sexual intercourse has to be: free, total, faithful, fruitful.
If you take away any one of these, then the act of sexual intercourse is no longer a full and complete expression of those marriage vows. For example, if we allow “faithful” to be taken away, then not every act of sexual intercourse needs to be with each other. Or if we take away “free”, then not some acts of sexual intercourse can be coerced. Neither of these are true expressions of the marriage vows. And neither will taking away “total” or “fruitful” be true expressions of the marriage vows.
Still, does every act of sexual intercourse have to produce kids? That, I believe is your main question. A woman is fertile for only a few days a month. This is the way that her body is designed by God. Thus you and your wife can have sex when she is not fertile, and that is still being open to life.
Being open to life means that neither of you does anything to prevent conception during sexual intercourse, for example, using contraceptives. But having sex during the infertile periods of a woman’s bodily cycle is not a contraceptive because it does not prevent conception, should it accidentally occur.
The Church has a term and programme for this. It is called Natural Family Planning. Note that this is NOT the rhythm method, which is outdated. It is a method by which a woman uses to determine whether or not she is fertile on a given day, using tests such as her body temperature and the viscosity of her vaginal mucus. If you want to find out more about this, I recommend that you seek your parish priest who can direct you to a reliable source of information in your area.
The good part about Natural Family Planning is that it allows you and your wife to space out births when, for one reason or another, you are unable to cope with too many children. It makes us more aware of our bodies and how God made us, and it allows us to fully express our marital vows without sacrificing any of the conditions.
Regarding your last question, on the clarification of using oral sex as a form of foreplay, I recommend reading this post: http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/question-is-the-usage-of-sex-toys-allowed-during-sexual-intercourse/ which also addresses your questions.
Finally, before you get married, I would recommend you attending a Marriage Preparation Course, which will teach you more about how to live out a good marriage in line with the teachings of the Church. It will also give you opportunities to meet other married couples who have gone through what you will be going through.
Oral sex is not sodomy. It has been wrongly identified as such for so long that it is in dictionary definitions - that does not mean it is correct. Does anyone honestly believe the sins of Sodom included married heterosexual couples engaging in oral sex?
I would be interested to know how the blogger feels about other Catholic sources (correctly) stating that oral sex is generally permissable (as foreplay) as long intercourse with the potential for procreation follows it.
This sweeping definition of sodomy leads to some serious conclusions - putting your mouth anywhere it doesn’t belong for sexual purposes - including a nipple or earlobe - would also be sodomy under this reasoning. And why not extend that to kissing as well? Kissing seems normal to us, but it is a sexual act that cannot result in procreation. It is therefore sodomy using that definition.
I get the feeling that Weston’s comment has been placed in the wrong post, but I will answer it anyhow.
You are right in saying that oral sex is permissible as foreplay as long as intercourse with the potential for procreation follows it. This is briefly explained in: http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/question-is-the-usage-of-sex-toys-allowed-during-sexual-intercourse/
The definition of sodomy given in this post http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/adultery-and-sodomy/ is not so sweeping as it clearly refers to “oral stimulation of the female sex organ”. Thus it does not include mouth-to-nipple/earlobe/mouth contact.
Used in a narrow context, a sexual act is one that involves the use of sexual organs. This entire post refers to that specific meaning of sexual act.
Finally, as to what actually took place in Sodom is anybody’s guess, since none of us was there. Suffice to say, whatever took place there was something evil which brought about its destruction.
There is nothing wrong with married heterosexual couples engaging in oral sex as part of foreplay, but when it is not part of foreplay and forms the manner in which husband and wife relate to each other, it could lead to, or be a symptom of, the eventual destruction of the marital bond.
Thank you! I think we see eye to eye on this. It is difficult to find good advice on the topic because so many Catholics seem to be ok with things like premarital sex and homosexual sex, making their analysis on subjects like this suspect.
I have two issues: 1. If all sexual intercourse is supposed to be able to produce life, how then are women who are post-menopausal supposed to engage in sexual intercourse?
2. I’d like to know the statistics for the correlation between divorce and the use of contraceptives which you mentioned in another post. I completely disagree with the idea that using contraceptives as a married couple will help produce divorce. In fact, I think it is much healthier that married couples get to know each other and the bodies God gave them, as well as prepare thier home spiritually and economically before having children. In fact, as a 21 year old, none of my friends’ parents from college or my close friends’ parents from high school are divorced! (I am from outside of Philadelphia and I go to school in Washington, DC.) And I am aware of most of them that have used birth control, my parents included. My parents waited 7 years to establish a relationship together and an economically stable environment before havng children and are now, 29 years happily married. They often attribute their success to waiting to have children, because they were able to save and did not have an economic burden like others they knew who had children immediately. The use of contraceptives did NOT mean that they were not spiritually in love and allowing a union between them, and it also did not mean they were not fruitful! Why? Because they knew that by waiting they could bring a child into a home that was ready for it on multiple levels.
I think it is immoral to correlate increasing divorce rates (which are actually going down) and increasing birth control rates (which are becoming more readily accessible and also being found to have more and more health benefits: prevention of STDs, helping with cramps, regulating cycles, helping to prevent cervical cancer, possibly helping to prevent breast cancer, etc.) as the same phenomenon.
The Catholic Church has the largest opportunity to save millions of lives by supporting the use of condoms worldwide. STD’s, HIV/AIDS, and abortions (normally illegal and life-threatening) as well as stopping the increasing population rates in poor communities and Third World countries that are preventing families from feeding and educating their children properly because they have so many kids! The Catholic Church could help all of these people!
Finally, does using contraceptives really mean that you aren’t fruitful if you are using them as a means of establishing a family in the future? I personally don’t think that each act of sexual intercourse should be seen individually, more it is a cycle of growth, intimacy, and spirituality that lead couples to a family, and thus the multiple unions that occur in the meantime are not not spiritual, because they are all part of a process to create life.
I am wondering what you think of these ideas and what your response is.
Hi Weston,
Yes, I agree with you. It is hard to find good and reliable writing on such a topic especially among Catholics, but that’s one of the main purposes of this blog, because the internet seems to be the place that we go to find answers to questions that we are too embarassed or shy to bring up to priests, religious, or our teachers. I think it’s the face-to-face thing that makes it hard.
What other areas of the topic on sex in Christianity do you think need to be addressed? I’ve been toying with several sex topics to write on.
P.S.: Lizzie, I am working on my reply. Will post it when I’ve finished it. This is just an acknowledgement of your comment.
Hi Lizzie,
Thanks for stopping by to post your comments. It is good to hear from others on this matter, which certainly is something that we don’t hear too much from Catholics. I shall try my best to address the issues that you brought up. Feel free to leave more comments if I didn’t answer your question.
The Church teaches that act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is “procreative” not “reproductive”. It’s only one word, but it means a world of difference. If the sexual act is reproductive, then indeed every act of sexual intercourse is meant to produce life. But humans cannot produce life on their own; we can only cooperate with God to produce life.
In sex, the husband provides the sperm, the wife provides the ovum and womb, while God alone provides the human soul. Without any of these conditions present, a human life cannot be created. This is obvious from the fact that there are couples who want do all that is required of them to have a child, but are unable to conceive.
I completely agree with you when you say that it is healthier for married couples to get to know each other and the bodies that God gave them, as well as prepare their home spiritually and economically before having children. Not only is it healthier, it is part of responsible parenthood. This is completely in line with what the Church teaches:
*****
If there are just reasons for spacing children (i.e. delaying the conception of a child), then husband and wife are asked to use those methods that are referred to as Natural Family Planning (NFP) methods.
*****
I’m not saying that ALL couples who use contraceptives will end up in divorce. But if you need statistics, “Theology of the Body Made Simple” by Anthony Percy, states:
*****
Couples who use NFP have a divorce rate of one percent, while the average divorce rate in most Western countries is between forty to fifty percent. It will be worth your while to find out more about NFP. Simply type in ‘natural methods of family planning’ or ‘natural fertility regulation’ on the Worldwide Web and you will get lots of possibilities.
*****
It is good that your parents waited to have children, but remember that the ends do not justify the means.
I realise that I have not yet answered your question about women who are post-menopausal. Couples who use NFP are more aware of each other’s sexuality and fertility. A man is fertile 24/7, but his wife is fertile only for a few days during her menstrual cycle. There is nothing wrong with having sex when the woman is not fertile. Similarly, women who are post-menopausal are not fertile; there is nothing wrong with having sex then either.
The Church teaches us, particularly in Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, that there are four criteria to a marriage: freedom, totality, faithfulness, and fruitfulness. The sexual act is the physical expression of a couple’s marriage vows (which is why only a married couple is allowed to have sex). Each sexual act must therefore have these four criteria.
Contraceptives take out the totality (withholding of fertility) and fruitfulness aspects of the sexual act. If each sexual act should not be seen individually, and that it is okay to use contraceptives once in a while, then it is equally okay for a husband or wife to have sex with someone else (withholding of faithfulness) other than the spouse once in a while.
Surely a marriage in which adultery takes place once in a while is not going to last very long. Similarly, a marriage in which contraception takes place may not last very long either. This is because the sexual act must have the four criteria on which the marriage itself is based on - freedom, totality, faithfulness, fruitfulness.
However, as I mentioned earlier, not every married couple using contraceptives will end up in divorce, just as not every married couple in which adultery takes place ends up in divorce. Forgiveness places a very big role, and there are many other factors that serve to preserve the marital bond between husband and wife. This is just one factor, but if anyone who is serious about his or her marriage, will try to minimise the risks of possible divorce. Contraception is one of the risks that increases the likelihood of divorce for the reasons given above.
Regarding the Catholic Church’s influence to save millions of lives in the use of condoms, the Church has repeatedly taught that abstinence is the best solution to the problem. Condoms are not an effective barrier to the AIDS virus.
Take the continent of Africa, for instance, which today has the largest number of AIDS victims. It is easy to say that using condoms can reduce transmission of AIDS, but is there proper education? Do the African women even have an option to ask their husbands to use condoms? Do the Africans know how to use a condom properly? Which country in Africa has seen decreasing rates of AIDS victims due to usage of condoms?
But there is one country in Africa - Uganda - which is winning the battle against AIDS through the use of abstinence. You can read the full article here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html
It is good that you are considering how to prepare your family economically and spiritually through the proper spacing of births. But remember that the ends do not justify the means. It might be with good intention that you are delaying the birth of your children, but as with all things, there is a moral way to do it (NFP) and an immoral way to do it (contraceptives).
Again, if I have not answered your questions satisfactorily, or you have more questions, please feel free to ask.
[...] As I looked into a comment made on this blog’s most popular post, I realised that there is a serious misconception that the use of condoms during sexual intercourse is “safe sex”. Based on the research conducted, 14% of women whose partners use condoms during sex with them, get pregnant at the end of a year. The rate for NFP is 2%. [...]
isnt anal sex and sin and sodomy ? because alot of people try to justiy that is not when i think its unclean and filty and not wat god wants
Well, Larry, it’s one thing to share your thoughts on why you think it’s unclean and filthy, and not what God wants, and quite another to be able to explain to another person why, especially why another person should go along with what you think.
Catholic Writer, I could really use your input as I am too embarrassed to speak to a priest about this matter. I am a young wife with several children who often has a very hard time submitting to my husband due to exhaustion and simple disinterest. I love him but being that I homeschool all of the kids, attend college and work outside of the home I am usually NOT in the mood and to my distress this hurts him. Is it ok to “prepare” myself for my husband knowing that he will be attempting to make love to me? For some reason when he comes to me and I am tired and he behaves so pitifully and acts so needy that it further “turns me off.” If I attempt to put myself in the mood beforehand (imagining him coming to me in a way more appealing to me and through masterbation) , thus bypassing his pitiful neediness, I feel that I could more easily show physical love to my husband. I have already tried to gently inform him as to a more attractive way to approach me but to no avail. How do you feel about this?
Dear Jean,
Thanks for sharing your marriage problems with me. The crux of your problem seems to be the question: Is it okay for me to physically stimulate myself before having sex with my spouse?
However, from what you share in your comment, it would seem that the problem goes deeper than that. It would seem that there is a lack of communication and understanding between you and your husband. This is not anyone’s fault, but it should not be denied that it is a problem in the marriage that needs working out together as husband and wife for the good of the marriage.
I am no marriage counsellor, so it would be advisable for you and your husband to talk this over properly and if necessary, with the help of a marriage counsellor. Do not be embarrassed to seek external help because this is for the good of your marriage which you clearly place at a very high priority in your life. Sometimes, it takes another person to help you to see what’s wrong in a marriage, so that the two of you can work together to solve the problem.
You can also try suggesting to your husband that the both of you attend a Marriage Encounter weekend in your diocese. The Marriage Encounter weekend offers couples a technique of loving communication that they can use for the rest of their lives.
It is also an opportunity for the couple to be alone together, to share their feelings, their hopes, fears, joys and frustrations. It is also a time for the couple to look deeply into their relationship with each other and with God.
It is not a retreat, a marriage clinic or a sensitivity course. It is not a time to look at the past, but rather to look at your future together. It is an experience between husband and wife that revitalizes marriage by helping the couple to see what their relationship could and should be.
I’m not sure where you are writing from, Jean, but the website below is a list of available ME sites around the world:
http://www.wwme.org/mesites.html
I hope this helps you in your marriage and that you and your husband will work things through for the good of your relationship and that of your family.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
My wife and I have three children and love each other deeply. We just recently had our 3rd child. It’s been about 4 weeks since my wife gave birth. She’s still unable to have sexual intercourse right now. She pleasured me, with her hand causing me to ejaculate. Is that a sin? I tried to confess this to a priest and his response was
“their is no official teaching related to my circumstance”
So if there is no official church teaching than how can it possibly be a sin?? The catechism of the Catholic church provided no specific answers either. I completely understand that if I’m by myself and masturbate than absolutely that is a mortal sin.
I love my wife and have nothing but good thoughts about her. I also would rather make love to her the way the Catholic church teaches. Natural family planning also doesn’t apply to this scenario eventhough we plan on practicing NFP as soon as possible.
Jesus is a merciful savior and I think he judges each one of us differently based on circumstances involved. What do you think?
God Bless
RJ
Dear RJ,
Thanks for sharing your concern with us. I have to say firstly that I’m not a priest or a religious, nor am I a theologian or anything of the sort. I’m just a lay person who happens to take an interest in what the Catholic Church and the late Pope John Paul II teaches us about sex. So please forgive me if my responses are lacking in accuracy.
There are many circumstances and situations which are not in the official Church teachings, but can still be a sin. In fact, it is possible to obey the Church’s teachings and still sin. Similarly it is possible to disobey the Church’s teachings and still not sin. I won’t go too deeply into this here.
I do not know whether or not there is an actual teaching by the Church in your circumstances, but I do know that by saying what he did, the priest is not saying that you committed no sin, nor is he saying that you did. All he is saying is exactly what he said - there is no teaching that he knows of that fits your circumstance.
Actually, with regard to sin, which concerns the spiritual state of your soul, it is a matter between you and God. Only you and God will know whether you have sinned or not in this circumstance. Clearly however, you feel that you have sinned in this circumstance, otherwise you would not have confessed it to a priest. I assume it must have been weighing heavily on your mind which prompted you to confess it when you did.
The results you obtained from the confession were not satisfactory and did not give you peace of mind, I believe, otherwise you would not be bringing it up here again. And you’re looking for an answer. Again, I repeat, I cannot tell you whether you have sinned or not, because this is something that only you and God knows… and of course the priest at the confessional who has the authority of Jesus Christ to forgive sins.
To the best of my knowledge, you have confessed what you feel to be a sin, and the priest has, through the authority of the Holy Trinity, and the ministry of the Church, absolved you from your sins. I feel that is enough and that you should have peace of mind.
As to the circumstance that you describe, I believe you know that the sexual organs a man has is to be used together with his wife’s sexual organs. What you described seemed to be a case of mutual masturbation. A good rule of thumb to follow in terms of Church teaching on sex would be: ejaculation should take place inside the wife’s vagina.
I hope this response helps you to find peace of mind, and that you and your family will continue to grow in love of another and of God and his Church.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Thanks a bunch for your response. I’ve been struggling with this dilema for a few weeks now and didn’t know who to ask. The last thing I want to do is make a priest feel uncomfortable. You definately understand my feelings based off your response.
I agree it’s between God and I. I personally think it’s a sin for the following reasons:
1.) I do feel guilty about it
2.) It’s a selfish act because I am only receiving and not giving
3.) It’s not an act that could in anyway produce life
On what degree of a sin is up for debate. I hope that others may read your response if they ever run into my predicament. I no longer feel like I’m in the dark about the subject. The truth shall set you free. I plan on going to confession tomorrow and will focus more on loving my wife. I will abstain until my wife can have relations with me again and offer it has a sacrifice to the sacred heart of Jesus though the immaculate heart of Mary.
Thanks again for the response..
God Bless You
-RJ
CW edit: I just combined the two responses into one.
Hi RJ,
It is good to hear that you have come to a decision on your dilemma. You do seem to have a good understanding of why your action is sinful. Rather than merely refraining from sinful acts, you are choosing to focus more on loving your wife. That is very good indeed.
If you have the time, in between loving your wife and your three kids, a couple of good books to recommend are “Good News About Sex and Marriage” and “Theology of the Body For Beginners” by Christopher West. What you find in these books will help you to better live out your marriage as a sacrament, that is, a sign of God’s love for his people.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Dear Catholic Writer,
First off, I think this is a great blog and I want to thank you for taking on tough issues that lead so many people out of the Church. It is in that sad light that I only want to raise a few points.
First, I think it is very important that we understand as Catholics that this is a very unique time in the history of the Church. Never before have there been so many advances made by humanity in such a short period of time, and therefore requiring new teachings by the Church. This is especially true in the field human sexuality. It should not be forgotten that not so long ago the Church promoted the use of contraceptives, citing the good of control it gave the family. Even NFP is not so different. The Church declared that the intent in the use of NFP and that of “contraception” is one and the same, which is true. It is only that the Church justifies NFP because it is refraining from an act as opposed to engaging in one while hindering its purpose. I am a Catholic devoted to the Church and her mission, so please understand what I say is not malicious. I merely wish to point out that the issue is not remotely cut and dried. I personally believe the present teaching to be either a bit naive or a bit of a logical stretch made to hold back the destructive flood of the sexual revolution.
You know all the statistics, so I won’t quote them at you. Scientifically we understand how sexual intercourse and procreation function, excluding the aforementioned creation of the soul. Using NFP is statistically far more effective at warding off pregnancy while allowing the couple to still remain sexually active than, say, the use of a condom or the pill as it is used with human error. Remembering that the Church understands the intent of these acts to be one and the same, it is a bit backward to say that NFP is more open to life when statistically it is the opposite. Sperm making its way to the released ovary is not an act of God understood in the supernatural sense. It is a (God made) natural possibility that depends on many circumstances. The couple which uses NFP to not get pregnant for a while uses it with a contraceptive intent (therefore I think we make ourselves look stupid when wee talk about a contraceptive mentality), and it is silly to say that they are at the same time more open to life just because they refrain from making love while the woman is ovulating (and unfortunately for her the time at which she has the most desire). This falls under the totality and fruitfulness requirements for appropriate lovemaking.
The worst parts about such contraceptives as the pill and IUDs are that they are mostly abortifacients and also highly harmful to the woman’s body. Any study that touts any health benefits of the pill is undoubtedly warped by an agenda. Most impartial studies are finding all sorts of horrible and life threatening affects of these contraceptives, and they should never be used by any woman regardless of their believes about the morality of such an act. Those aside, lets hypothetically say that there was some sort of magical pill that was not harmful and did not abort a fertilized egg. I think that this would be even more preferable than even NFP, as it would give the couple the ability to share in the goodness of the marital act while also giving them the ability to time their pregnancies. Such a couple could be completely open to life and raise large families while navigating the many and various obsticals that modern life throws at them by precisely timing their pregnancies. Being “open to life” does not require that they must roll the dice every time they want to be intimate. This thought seems to be a hangover from the horrible view the Church used to have of sex, even in marriage. They taught that if sex was enjoyed at all it was sinful. Sex was only for procreation. Thankfully we have come to a better understanding of the good God intended for us when he created our sexuality. Fruitfulness does not only refer to procreation, otherwise the marital act of an infertile couple would be forbidden. Physical acts of sex between husband and wife give birth to new love between them, a reality that is both spiritually and ontologically profound. This is why it is called ‘making love.’ Jesus, as the source of all love, participates in this creative act as well. This fruitfulness is the first intended good of the act and it is meant to be utilized often. Of course we cannot marginalize the good of co-creating another human being with God, but we also cannot promote one good in a way that restricts the other. The increased understanding and control that humanity has developed over our fertility is intrinsically a good thing, and must be used for good.
Due to the divorce of the theological sciences the Church grew too rigoristic in its morality and has not yet recovered fully, although it is en route, as always. The Church focused too closely on the morality of specific acts in its attempt to gain more universality in its teaching and to create penitential manuals to aid the pastors in confession. Especially because of the Servant of God, JP II, we are coming back to a more personalistic approach, understanding that sin arises more from a state of the will in relation to God, and our actions merely cement that status, be it in union with God or apart from His service. Therefore I believe the Church will move toward a moral teaching that does not attempt to dissect and judge each individual action (excluding those acts which are always evil), labeling them permissible or sinful, but rather teach people to grow in the virtues and constantly move toward a more complete union with Christ, continually doing good works. The problem with the old moral teaching is that it draws a person’s focus to what they are NOT TO DO instead of what they should be doing. Instead of loving and acting accordingly, we remain selfish and prideful while trying to get away with as much as we can. Ideally we would all attempt to first detach ourselves from this world to the point where we valued God above all else, and then we could commence with living out our Christian mission while enjoying the created world and all its goodness. A married couple in this state does not rigoristically fret over where every drop of semen falls, or whether this or that is permissible or perhaps too pleasurable. They love God above all things and seek to honor him as best they can in all their actions, thereby following their conscience and avoiding sin.
Unfortunately, this is why many people who have picked up on this intuitively ask the Church to stay out of their bedroom. The Church has seeminly put itself in the unprofitable position of standing as a wall between pleasing God and pleasing your spouse. True Christians want Jesus to permeate all aspects of their lives, including their sex lives. Sacred sex is far more enjoyable than a sex act that either ignores the truth or is oppressed by guilt. Jesus wants this pleasure for us. He intended this. Jesus is love, not a rulebook. If a couple works toward loving their spouse as best they can, and raising their family as best they can, then they strive as best they can to follow their vocation.
What the Church despreatly needs now are some saints from amounst the laity who can highlight for the rest of us by their example how the physical act of love in their marriage drew them closer to God. At this point the lay faithful can unhesitatingly follow this example to heaven rather than try to pick a banner to follow in the battles that theologians wage with each other.
From a woman’s perspective:
(Excuse my being explicit - but I can’t ask these questions of anyone I know)
I am happily married - a Catholic, but experience guilt due to the fact I can only achieve orgasm orally. I have read that this can be a common thing with women, ie only reaching orgasm this way.
I wonder if the guilt I feel comes from my conscience due to this seeming so unnatural, or my strict Catholic upbringing. I also wonder if I’ve become a bit ‘perverted’ - Am I sort of psychologically rebelling, and feeling a sick sort of pleasure due to this being such an outrageous thing, which I feel it is, after having lived such a pure life whilst young, and marrying much later. I was so naiive about sexual matters until I was older - always did the ‘right thing’, ( ie remained celibate. )
Yet it’s the only way I can climax. I receive much pleasure from this, and my husband also enjoys it he claims. He just wants to please me. We do usually have normal intercourse afterwards, but I don’t climax through this, whilst he usually does.
Then I ask why would God allow this more exterior part of a woman to be so sensitive to stimulation, more so than the internal part of the vagina - in my case anyway? It doesn’t make sense to me. Yet it’s apparently wrong. But how do we really know? Why didn’t God make the only way for a woman to achieve orgasm to be via vaginal intercourse alone if that was his plan?
Was this other option intended to just tempt us to commit evil? That’s a bit unfair of God I think. I’m confused!
I realise that I didn’t respond to you, Jon, which I thought I did. Thanks for leaving such a long comment, Jon. I agree with you that the Church is constantly in need of finding new ways to apply the same old teachings to a changing society, and mostly with what you wrote.
Hi Cath, it is good to be explicit here, because it makes it easier to reply than a vague query.
I must first restate that I’m not a priest, religious, or expert in the field. I’m just trying to share what I’ve learnt about the Church’s teaching about sex, so if there is a mistake, please correct me.
Firstly, Cath, you’re not going to find an official Magisterium statement addressing this issue directly, but the principles that are given in this post allow us to draw some conclusions.
The kind of “oral sex” that the Church is against refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Many couples consider this as a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And yes, this is wrong for married couples.
Mutual climax (climaxing at the same time), or at least climax during penetration remains the ideal to strive for. But it is not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result or oral stimulation, so long as it is within the context of a completed act of intercourse.
In case you didn’t get that, in more explicit terms, it means that the ideal case is that both husband and wife climax at the same point during intercourse. Or, if this is not possible, that they climax during penetration. However, it is not wrong for the wife to climax due to oral stimulation (I refrain from using the term ‘oral sex’ because of the above interpretation), so long as it is carried out in an act of intercourse where the husband ejaculates inside the wife’s vagina.
In other words, when you write that you usually have normal intercourse after you receive pleasure from oral stimulation, and that he climaxes during this, it is fine. There is no need to feel guilty about it, because you are doing what the Church teaches in principle.
However, one thing that needs to be said is that sex is not just about seeking to help each other to climax. There is nothing wrong with oral-genital contact as foreplay to intercourse, but such expressions require the greatest degree of purity and reverence so as never to degrade the goodness of marital intimacy.
This kind of purity is possible, but it’s also quite easy, especially for men, to cross the line between love and lust, between intimately affirming the goodness of each other’s bodies (and receiving that affirmation), and merely seeking to gratify base desire at each other’s expense. You and your husband must always be sensitive to how easily you could take that step if you are to avoid it.
As to the series of questions you ask, they are not easy questions to answer in this blog. What I can do is to recommend you two books to read, which will help you to find your answer. They are:
1. Theology of the Body for Beginners
2. Good News about Sex & Marriage
These two books written by Christopher West have helped me, and are still helping me, to have a fuller and clearer understanding of what the Church teaches about sex. They are both quite easy to read, with the second being the easier of the two. They should be available at any good Catholic bookshop.
In Christ,
Catholic Writer
Hey RJ
I have been married for 12 years and have two children. I have a large religious family. Some speak in tongues etc. You know the story - religious instructions as a kid and attending mass was not optional. A few Christian based workshops and Christian camp. How sad it took 30+ years and the internet to come to my own conclusions about sex.
I could go on and on about what I’ve been reading lately. Song of Songs, Your body hers and hers yours. Paul - “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for prayer”
Maybe your wife receives pleasure by giving you pleasure. Would that act be selfish then? Maybe she wanted to pleasure “her other body”. Does this act help you become closer and enjoy each other as god intended?
You seem like one of the better people of the world – from reading your post – If you’re not in heaven, no one will be!
My fellow Christians – we need to lighten up!
Hi ML,
I like that quote of St. Paul that you used, because it is important that neither spouse feels pressured into doing something that they don’t wish to do. It should however also be noted that neither spouse uses the other to receive pleasure, for that would be turning another human into a tool for pleasure.
There’s a fine line between love and lust, but with constant prayer and open, honest communication between spouses, and with the grace of God that is always readily given to us, we can indeed love our spouses in the highest degree of purity meant for all married couples.
And I agree very much with you, ML, that what RJ is doing or has done is something truly admirable, and is an inspiration to all husbands struggling to love their wives as purely as they can.
Thank you both for sharing, and may God bless your families always.
In Christ,
Catholic Writer
Good day Catholic Writer,
You obviously spend time and energy on this subject, which is why I appreciate your opinion and this blog. RJ’s post interested me because of his sincerity.
I believe that God handled all this confusion for us very simply. The sacrament of Marriage and the marriage vow make you one with your spouse. This sacrament (coupled with love) changes everything. I don’t believe you can use your spouse as a “tool”, because - you are one. Lust is not an issue because you have love. If you love your spouse (and you’re both of sound mind), then you are making reasonable decisions together. I’m thinking God set this up so - if you’re married (and Christian) you almost can’t do wrong. This concept would seem to include all situations, which I’m sure God considered, like: anyone who has a disability and people with medical conditions etc.
Hi ML,
I don’t think marriage is that simple, that once a man and a woman are married, it’s happily ever after for them. Just like how when a person is baptised, he can still sin, and he can still fall away from the faith and from God.
It is true that when you have love, lust is not an issue. But this pertains only to the purest of love. Most of the time, our love for our spouse is not pure and this is when lust can come into the picture.
One way of minimising the impurity of love is to be honest with oneself, and to try to always remain aware of our true intentions. Many women do intuitively know when their husbands are just using them to have sex. At times like these, the wife can help her husband to be aware of how he is using her, but of course this depends on the level of open communication between husband and wife.
Ideally it should be an open, honest, and intimate relationship. But many marriages are far from ideal, especially after the honeymoon period when couples settle into the mundane activities of daily life, and each spouse gets caught up with their own career, their friends, their pleasures, etc…. which is why RJ’s post is very interesting and evokes a kind of admiration for him in me.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Whatever, as long as I’m not hurting anyone I know it cannot be wrong.
You can’t forbid me from anything, I don’t care what you think.
Dear Annayaah,
I used to think in the exact same way, until I realised that I was hurting myself. I was changing the way I looked at the people I said I love, realising that I was using them for my own physical gratification. I was looking at them as tools to be used, not as people. In so doing, I was hurting myself.
Not only that, I was also hurting the people I said I love, because by treating them as tools rather than people, I was reducing their dignity to that of objects.
It doesn’t matter whether you care what I think. What matters is that what you believe is the truth, that you don’t deliberately turn a blind eye to the truth that is hurting yourself, and the people around you. You can, of course, go on hurting them, but as long as you know you are hurting them, you know that it is wrong. And you’re right, I cannot forbid you from doing wrong. I have no intention of doing so. I can only inform you, not cause anyone to change their behaviour.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
if a wife is too exhausted to be interested in sex, is it a sin for the man to call his wife names and get angry at her for not “giving it to him”. we practice NFP and there are many times he cannot resist temptation. when i turn him down, he gets mad at me for not taking care of him. where it states “the wife should obey her husband”, does that mean i should give in against my true wishes for the sake of his wants and needs? i don’t feel like i should be crucified every time i decide i’m not interested at that particular time. should a man go to confession for calling his wife a “frigid bitch” just because he doesn’t get his way. where is the respect for his wife????
Dear linda,
Thanks for sharing your problem here. I have to first say that I’m not a priest, a religious, a counsellor, or an expert on sex matters. I am just a layperson who wants to share the Church’s teachings on sex with others. I too can make mistakes, so if you spot any, please don’t hesitate to bring them to my attention.
Based on your sharing here, it would seem that you already know the answers to some of the questions that you raise. Perhaps all I can do is to help bring to your attention some of the causes that might lead to the problems.
Firstly, marriage is not any man’s ticket to having all the sex he can get with his wife. It is not a wife’s responsibility to “service” her husband and provide sex any time and any place that he wants. A wife is not a prostitute and should not be treated as one.
I believe the passage you are referring to is in Ephesians 5:21-33. Essentially it says that wives are to submit in obedience to their husbands just as the Church submits to Christ. However, this submission must be understood in the proper context. It is not merely a giving way to every whim of the husband.
For a wife to place herself in submission of her husband is to say that she is placing herself under the mission (sub=under) of her husband. In the same passage, St. Paul tells us that the mission of husbands is to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her to make her holy.
This brings us to the next point - love. What is love? Essentially love is the giving of self for another person. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 shows us a little bit more of the fruits of love - patience, kindness, compassion, respect, etc.
In contrast to love is lust. What is lust? Essentially lust is using another person for one’s own gratification. This can take the form of sexual lust or emotional lust. There might be other forms of lust as well. Sexual lust is when a person uses another person to satisfy his own sexual desires. Emotional lust is a bit harder to detect, but it can take the form of using another person for one’s own emotional security or stability, or even for one’s own economic security.
There are husbands who use their wives to satisfy their own sexual lust, just as there are wives who use their husbands to satisfy their own emotional lust. Neither one is good for a marriage because it lowers the dignity of the person from that of a human to that of a tool, an object to be used.
Finally, NFP is a gift of God to be used for couples to plan their families. For a variety of reasons, sometimes couples are unable to support another member of the family, so the Church allows them to use NFP to delay the birth of another child. However, NFP is not to be used as with a contraceptive mentality, which is to say, for perhaps selfish reasons of the couple’s, they wish not to have another child. For example, a couple can say, “Let’s not have another child, because we need the money for a new car or a new house.” These are selfish reasons that do not warrant the use of NFP to avoid pregnancies.
One last thing, linda, is that this reply is not written so that you have something to say to your husband the next time he demands sex from you. Rather, it is for you to consider how these points could be present in your marriage, and to bring it up for discussion with your husband, preferably at a time when he is not tempted (men don’t think straight when they are sexually tempted). Also remember to pray, asking the Holy Spirit to give you the words to say, and to prepare your husband to listen to what you have to say.
This was written in the hope that through more open and honest communication, the two of you as a couple can work towards a better and more loving relationship as a couple.
May God bless the both of you in your marriage. May the two of you work towards becoming good parents and that your marriage live up to its value as a sacrament, that is, a sign of Christ’s love for his Church.
In Christ,
Catholic Writer
What is your opinion on whether it would be a sin for a married couple to have sexual intercourse after a vasectomy or hysterectomy? Would the answer be different if the procedure was considered elective versus medically necessary? And what if one partner is unable to have sexual intercourse, am I to understand your opinion is that the other partner must give up sexual activity that leads to orgasm?
Dear Ray,
Before saying anything else, I have to say that I am not a priest, religious, or expert on sexual matters. I am just a layperson hoping to share with others the teachings of the Church on sexual matters as I’ve learnt it, mainly through Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.
There are four main requisites to a Catholic sacramental marriage: freedom of choice, total self-giving, faithfulness, openness to life. Contraception (against openness to life) is as grave a sin as adultery (against faithfulness). For a married Catholic in a sacramental marriage to have a vasectomy or a hysterectomy for the purposes of contraception is a grave sin, and if you find yourself or someone you know in that position, it is important that he or she seek reconciliation with the Church as soon as possible, if he or she has not already done so.
In addition, the couple should also seek a fresh start by asking each other’s forgiveness for being unfaithful to the commitments made at the altar.
All sin, no matter how grave, can be forgiven. What is needed is genuine contrition, and repentance, that is, the sincere desire to change. One way of showing repentance is by abstaining from sex as if they were practising NFP. Many people in this situation find it beneficial as they seek to grow more and more n a true understanding of the meaning of marital love. One could also devote time to spreading the Church’s teaching on these issues as a way of preventing others from making the same mistakes.
Above all, trust in God’s merciful love. Nothing we have ever done in our lives is beyond the redemption that Christ has won for us. Also, it does not mean that this married couple cannot have sex, despite not being able to have children. While procreation is the primary end of sexual union, it is not the only end.
Secondly, the conditions for a mortal sin are: total freedom of choice, and sufficient reflection before making the choice. If the procedure was elective, it is likely that the sin committed was a mortal sin. Again, mortal sin is still within the scope of Christ’s redemption, provided there is genuine contrition and repentance in the person asking for forgiveness.
If, however, the procedure was medically necessary, and that loss of fertility was a side effect, then there is no sin on the part of the person, for the main reason for undergoing the procedure was not contraception.
With respect to your third question, one could ask of the other partner, “Why does s/he want to have an orgasm outside of sexual union with his partner?” If it were me, I would have to say that I want to have the pleasure of orgasm apart from any risk of having another child. There’s really no other reason. Can you think of any others?
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Catholic Writer,
Thank you for your response. I am of the same view that sexual intercourse after a vasectomy or hysterectomy is not a sin, yet it seems to violate the openess to life (fruitful) criteria, so was curious about your opinion. Maybe you could elaborate on that. And BTW, you are right to emphase the Church’s teaching about voluntary vasectomy or hysterectomy being a mortal sin. I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone there.
With respect to my question about one partner not able to have sexual intercouse, what I meant was unable to have intercourse due to some physical limitation, particularly I’m thinking about extreme pain, but a missing or non-functioning sexual organ would be another example. If you add this to a situation where a hysterectomy or vasectomy has been performed, then there is no chance for having another child. The functioning partner greatly desires the pleasure of orgasm within the sexual union, but it is not possible. Is that person forced to live a life of celebacy in order not to sin, in your opinion? I’m guessing your answer is yes, but the relevance to the question of oral sex is obvious. It seems like some sort of stimulation from the non-functioning partner, be it oral oral or by hand, could potentially not be a sin, in the eyes of the church.
Ray
Dear Ray,
If I am not mistaken, the fruitfulness criteria means that a couple does not do anything to impede the conception during the act of sexual intercourse. Using a contraceptive which prevents the conception is therefore against fruitfulness, and so is a voluntary vasectomy or a hysterectomy. However, once such a procedure has taken place, and a couple is contrite and repentant for such a sin, and having been reconciled to the Church for it, to have sexual intercourse after that should not be a sin, because the couple no longer does anything further to impede fruitfulness. The lack of fertility is a consequence of an action, a sin, that took place in the past, and which has been forgiven by God through the Church.
With regard to your second question, I would have to say that having the desire for pleasure, no matter how extreme the desire is, does not give a person the right to have that pleasure. Sexual stimulation by hand or other parts of the body, or other objects, if not done in the context of an act of sexual union, is sinful indeed, because it uses another person as a tool to obtain sexual gratification.
To add to that, even if both partners of a couple were able to have sexual intercourse, it is still a sin for one partner to use the other to have sexual intercourse just so that he obtains sexual gratification, because it reduces the dignity of the other partner from that of a human to a tool, an object, to be used for his own gratification. Marriage is not a ticket to sex anytime a person wants. Both partners have to continue to respect each other as persons, not tools.
Hope that helps answer your questions, Ray.
In Christ,
Catholic Writer
Dear Catholic Writer,
Thank you for your answers. Yes, I believe you have answered all my questions regarding your opinion on Catholic church teaching in the situations I have given. I will continue to prayerfully seek the truth.
Ray
Dear Ray,
Thanks for the affirmation. If you have more questions in future, don’t hesitate to ask. I can’t guarantee I have the answers, but your questions certainly will give me something to think about.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
I agree with almost everything that the Catholic Church says, but on the matter of only having conjugal sex, I am confused. The Church states that people should not use contraceptives or perform non-conjugal sex, but it also says that if a married couple is in a situation where they feel unable to support children the Church says that you may practice NFP. NFP has a 99+ Percent success rate when practiced properly. That is higher than a condom by far. The only difference is that the couple would have to go for about a week without having sex, which I think is good for fasting and meditating. The problem is that this goes directly against the Church’s teaching. In the female cycle there are only about two or three days where sex can result in children. If you wanted to follow the Church’s teaching you should only have sex during those two days. This is contradictory.
Also, while men obviously have a direct link to sexual pleasure and insemination, it is not so clear with women. A woman’s sexual pleasure has very little to do with childbearing. Many women do not orgasm without manual stimulation, is it wrong for them to orgasm without being directly related to childbearing?
While I agree that the primary purpose of sex is to have children, it is obvious that it is not the only and exclusive function of sex. Human anatomy tells us that. And just as we as a Church Body can come into communion with God in various ways, praise, study, etc. and ultimatlely the Eucharist, why can’t a married couple experienc sex in various ways? I agree that conjugal sex is the highest form of the sexual experience, just as I believe that the Eucharist is the highest form of communion with God. But to say that all other forms are wrong seems flawed.
I am not yet a Catholic, but I agree with most of the things the Church says, and may soon become a Catholic. This issue however has stumped me. It is not enough to dissuade me from becoming Catholic, but it is very frustrating. I also acknowledge that I could be wrong. I would l ike to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for sharing your concerns on the Church’s teaching on sex and the human body. First of all, I have to say that I am not a priest, religious, or expert on the Church’s teachings on sex and the human body. I am a lay person who has read a simplified version of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and wish to share it and my subsequent reflections with others who are also confused about the Church’s teachings, and have not been able to find satisfactory answers from their priests or other teachers. Neither am I blaming the priests and teachers for not knowing how to respond. I’m just doing my part in sharing the Church’s wealth of knowledge.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not teach that the primary purpose of sex is for reproduction. The Church’s actual teaching is that conjugal sex between a husband and his wife is a renewal of their marital vows. This can be likened to a Catholic’s reception of the Holy Eucharist as a renewal of his baptismal vows.
In fact, if a couple has sex simply for the sake of reproduction, they are not being faithful to their marital vows and are, in fact, using their partners for an end - childbirth. It is an unfortunate thing that this misunderstanding has been passed on to the laity for so many years and still exists as a point of contention about the Catholic faithful.
As I wrote, the Church teaches us that a married couple’s act of conjugal sex is a renewal of their marital vows of:
As such, the act of conjugal sex must also have these four characteristics. The act of conjugal sex must be:
As you can see, reproduction is one of the “by-products” (to use a rather crude term) of a couple’s act of conjugal love that is truly a renewal of their marital vows. Another one of those “by-products” is sexual pleasure.
The Church teaches us that the act of conjugal sex between a husband and his wife is good in itself. That is to say, husband and wife do not need a reason, other than to love each other, in order to have sex. They don’t need to want to have children to have sex with each other, but they must not be closed to having children. In this sense, conjugal sex between husband and wife truly is “making love to each other”. And that is the primary purpose of conjugal sex, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
With this understanding of what the Catholic Church is really teaching, it then becomes easy to see why NFP is not against the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is also easy to see that pleasure is not the primary purpose of having sex. Once we put pleasure as the primary purpose of having sex, everything goes.
It is not exactly right to say that manual stimulation of a woman’s genitals is against the teachings of the Catholic Church. A rule of thumb to follow is that the husband is to ejaculate into his wife’s vagina. If the wife has not yet climaxed yet, the act of conjugal sex is not yet complete. The Church then allows manual stimulation of the wife’s genitals (by whatever means which is not degrading to the dignity of the human person) so that the wife can also climax.
This was written by Karol Wojtyla (before he was elected Pope John Paul II) in his book “Love & Responsibility” first published in 1960, even before the sexual revolution in the 1960s. Perhaps the Holy Spirit moved him to write such a book that would prepare the Church for the sexual revolution.
You can pick up a 32-page publication on this book here: http://www.catholicculture.com/jp2_on_l&r.html.