also are married couples allowed to have sex in whatever way they want? Does the Church put any restrictions on the pleasures you can have WHILE in the act or reproduction? thanks

-- L S (crazy89italian@comcast.ne), December 05, 2003

Answers

Yes it is.

Q: What is the church's stance on oral sex, because it is not premarital sex?

A: The Bible does not address the issue directly so there is no formal statement of the church on this issue. Although oral sex is not sexual intercourse in the narrow sense of the term, it is a sexual act, and it would fall under the Bible's prohibition of "porneia" (sexual impurity) anytime it is between two people who are not married to each other, whether or not they themselves are married. If a married person was involved in such an act with someone other than his or her spouse, it would be an act of adultery.

Married couples should consider that God has clearly designed male and female bodies for genital sexual relations with each other, not for oral and anal sex. They should beware of substituting something else for God's design.

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Italics off

Jeanie, please refrain from posting the "Lutheran Answer" here. This is a Catholic website. If you want to post an answer using Protestant answer start your own website or at least state that your post is the "Lutheran Answer." When L S asked what the Church teaches, he/she meant the Catholic Church. Hence why he/she is posting on a Catholic forum.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 05, 2003.

Since your from The "wisconsin ex luthern" church or w.e you guys call it may i ask where in my state you live?

KeV

-- kevin wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.ney), December 05, 2003.

I am interested in Jeanie's answers. Maybe she should prefice it with 'the Luterans would say...' but I am interested in the differences and similarities. We are all Christians. Of course, it is up to the moderator.

I am not impressed with the childish responses I have seen on some of the threads though.

I also think she has a misguided impression of the Catholic Chruch, but it is our job to correct misconceptions as it is her job to correct our misconceptions.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

I also think she has a misguided impression of the Catholic Chruch

bill, that would be the biggest understatement mentioned on this forum in a long time.

but it is our job to correct misconceptions

yes, but when someone refuses to even read the posts directed towards her, and pouts when we tell her she should learn to read the posts before posting her hateful lies, that obligation is moot.

as it is her job to correct our misconceptions.

what misconceptions, bill? the conception that the fullness of truth is only found in one place? or the conception of the lutheran church, because i can assure you that jeanie does NOT represent the greater organization of lutherans in any way. she doesnt even represent what her idol, martin luther, wanted the lutherans to look like, shes a heretic through and through...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2003.

Hi Jeanie,

I may be in the minority here but I have enjoyed your presence at this forum. With the exception that some of your posts are overly long/tedious and would be more effective if they were abridged abit, you are certainly stirring things up. I will say that I'm not sure the results of the many debates you have begun are resulting in what you intend. Actually, I'm not sure what your motivation is, but giving you the benifit of the doubt... that you are open to learn as well as to discuss, I find the answers by the very knowlegible Catholic responders are leading me to a much greater and a more positive understanding of Catholicism, and thats why I'm here. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), December 06, 2003.

Jim, I seriously doubt that you would be extending that kind of compliment toward Jeanie if you had seen everything she has posted here.

You see, she has started many long, new threads -- some of them multiple times -- that the moderator has had to delete, because they were chunks of text (filled with doctrinal errors) that she copied and pasted from her denomination's books. Included in this mess was an article on Luther teaching that the pope was the "antichrist." In another situation, Jeanie has called the Catholic Church the antichrist.

In summary, Jim, for days and days, she has blatantly been posting in ways that violate the forum's rules for non-Catholics. She has earned a banning, not compliments from any of us.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Paul you dont know anything about what we believe. Or what Luther taught. Just because the majority of Lutherans are ELCA and LCMS doesn't mean that they are faithful to Holy Scripture.

dont even begin to think i dont know anything about lutherans, child. i live in germany during the summers, i've been to worms and seen the cathedral where you heretic posted the baneful thesis. ive even been to where martin luther lived, and where hes buried. i've seen first hand the results of his actions on his own country.

FURTHERMORE, i have MORE than enough friends who are lutheran, even one whos father is a prominant lutheran minister in Germany. these friends confirm for me that either you are lying about everything, or that the entire 'wels' is a group of heretical schismatics who give lutheranism a bad name.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 06, 2003.

Sir, that is the devil who is wispering i your ear saying: do what you like be your own god, you dont need Jesus you dont need the Church. That will lead you straight to hell, but thats what the devil wants. There is no agrument this is a Catholic forum and this luthern keeps coming when she has been told many a time she is not welcome to be here because she is breaking all of the rules, and spreading lies. She shows time and time again her ignoreance, and since she doesnt follow the rules and loads tons of crap things on the Catholic Church she is showing how influenced by the devil she is. The devil wants people to beat down the Church because he knows how many people will reach heaven and Our Lord a thing he can never have because of his ego. I promise you being your own god and doing what "feels right to you" will lead you to hell, no where else.

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), December 06, 2003.

Hi Jim! Nice to meet you! God bless and Merry Christmas! :)

-- Jeanie (mary_kissmiss@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

ok, i did want the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you are Protestant please state so in ur post so that i know it's just ur opinion. I also feel like i have to clarify my question a bit. I wanted to kno if oral sex is allowed for a married couple to do. Not for people who are dating or just wanna do it. I am talking about a husband and a wife having it like before having sex just as a love act. Also no 1 has answered my second question: Are there specific ways to have sex or can u do it neway u feel comfortable?

-- L S (crazy89italian@comcast.ne), December 07, 2003.

Hi L.S.,

Take a look in the marriage links. I asked this question about one year ago and it generated a link as long as the Nile.

Short answer here is that as long as the couple complete their marital act open to having children (i.e., husband ejaculates in wife's vagina), pretty much anything else is OK. One thing to watch out for, any objectifying of spouse is lust, and hence sinful. This is totally subjective and calls for a refined conscience. Don't tread in that water lest you drown.

Sex is best when it is seen as an opportunity to give. If you the man practice this simple rule, after a bit your partner will respond to this. Then watch out! You will have a wife who will overwhelm you in her exhuberance. It is clearly better to give than to receive.

Good reading on this topic is "Love and Responsibility" by Karol Wojtilya (John Paul II before elevation) and Professor Bill May.

Cheers!

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 08, 2003.

so basically you are saying that it s OK to do it as long as the reproductive act is finished. correct me if i m wrong

-- L S (crazy89italian@comcast.ne), December 08, 2003.

Hi L S,

I need you for you to clarify that last entry. What do you mean "it is OK to do it if the reproductive part is finished."

The sex act for the man must always end for the man by depositing his seed in the vagina, and no where else. The woman has no seed to deposit. So she can have an orgasm any way that is possible as long as the man deposits his seed in her vagina.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 09, 2003.

so as long as the man ejaculates into the vagina everything else that's done before is OK?

-- L S (crazy89italian@comcast.ne), December 09, 2003.

People! please! do we REALLY think God is this legalistic? Do we think we'll get to the gates of heaven and saint peter will tally up the number of times we had oral sex but did not deposite semen in the vagina and turn us away? God loves us and i doubt it was ever God's intention to make us this stressed out!

I heartily encourage everyone to explore the wonderful world of their own God-given conscience. The point of the church's teachings is to help us form our consciences in responsible matter. It is not to make us robots who thoughtlessly reiterate and practice what we are told. The only way we can have a truly adult faith is to engage it and think about it. Get thee to a book store IMMEDIATELY to purchase (& READ) Fr. Richard Gula's book Reason Informed by Faith. It's one of the best moral theology books out there. It will give you solid guidelines on how to faithfully live as a Catholic and make good moral decisions. While your at it pick up "Good Goats: Healing our Image of God" by the Linns (they are a married couple and the husband's brother who is a priest) it's great reading for the holidays! In the meantime, Blessings & Happy Advent, everyone!

-- re (beccahp@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

When we reach the gates of heaven, yes, we will indeed have to "tally up" with God. If we did not form our conscience in full accord with the teaching of His Church - the Church to which He said 'he who hears you hears Me' - we will be held accountable. Conscience is a reliable guide in moral decision making only to the extent that it has been formed in agreement with and in submission to the objective truth; and the teaching of the Church is the only source God has provided for receiving that truth. Yes, the point of the church's teachings is indeed to help us form our consciences "in a responsible matter" - which means subjecting our conscience to the Church's teaching. The only way we can have a truly adult faith is to listen to God speaking through the Church, and obey. We don't need to "heal our image of God" as long as that image is provided by the Church. Reading self-help guides which suggest that our conscience can validly overrule the infallible teaching of the Church is an exercise in spiritual self-destruction. Both the books you recommended are guides to moral relativism, which anyone interested in living according to objective truth should avoid.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2003.

The Church says:

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which hehas not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47….

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Boldhopefully off

-- unknow (^.^@^.^), December 10, 2003.

Sorry , I answered this question !!

As long it's not against the will of both or 1 of the partners , than in that case , I really don't see which crime they commit or which crime is involved !!

Also , as long there is no crime involved , the bedroom is a private matter of the couple !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 10, 2003.

Sorry , I answered this question !!

a bit changes: partner(S)

As long it's not against the will of both or 1 of the partner(s) ,

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 10, 2003.

Thanks Joe, I was actually hoping to stir a bit of debate as to waht guided actually means. While Paul Ms interpreation is the traditional one, a number of more liberal but still very much Catholic theologians take a seemingly wider view. Have others reflected on the role of conscience ?

Id like to hear more as its one of "pet problem areas" that we all have to some degree. "Knowing" vs "Believing" and the supremacy of the consceince even when in error, it still does my head in . Its something I just dont feel comnfortable with some readers might get the impression Paul is saying is we dont need a conscience at all we need is a copy of the Cathechism becasue that holds all the truth we need. Moral decions are far too complex and interrealted to be limited by a rule book, although that rule book might help us in certain situations ultimately the decision rests in our heart. Morality isnbt as black and white as Paul portrays abover IMO every individual case is different and only highest law is the one God wrote on our heart not written in a book.

In the end God will judge and in the case of oral sex in marriage I believe its far too complex to be giving "yes" or "no" answers based on a certain text. I say to LS read the word og God, pray, listen to what Church teaches and examine your own heart to do what is right and moral.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Jmj

Hello, Kiwi. You wrote:
"I say ... read the word of God, pray, listen to what Church teaches, and examine your own heart to do what is right and moral."

This is good advice. However, it leaves out one key factor. In order to get the "right and moral" thing to do from "your own heart" [i.e., your conscience], it must be fully and properly formed. That means that you have a duty to educate yourself on Catholic morality and assent to every such teaching. The end result, if you have fully and correctly formed your conscience, is that "your heart" will never tell you to do something that the Church (i.e., Jesus) disapproves.

Therefore, we can see that something you were hinting at was wrong. You wrote: "In the end God will judge and in the case of oral sex in marriage I believe its far too complex to be giving 'yes' or 'no' answers based on a certain text."

Actually the Church teaches very clearly -- and without "complex[ity]" -- that, when husband and wife engage in intimacies, the husband may never intentionally reach his climax except intravaginally. [I suggest that none of us use the term "oral sex," because, to very many people, that implies an action that goes on until the husband climaxes.] What is without sin is "oral-genital contact" -- not as an end in itself, but as a brief, optional, preparatory action ("foreplay") for the "marriage act."

Therefore, since we know this to be the Church's teaching, the only acceptable guidance that our "heart" (conscience) can give us is what the Church teaches! Our "heart" can never override the Church's teaching to render sinless something that the Church tells us is sinful.

You wrote: "Morality isn't as black and white as Paul portrays abover IMO every individual case is different and only highest law is the one God wrote on our heart not written in a book."

Again, you are partly right and partly wrong. Wherever the Church teaches that a given action is intrinsically evil -- e.g., rape, abortion, masturbation, oral-sex-to-climax, etc. -- then the decision to act or not to act really is "black and white" and not gray. [I'm not talking about subjective guilt, but about the objective matter.]

Returning to what I just quoted from you ... the "law [that] God wrote on our heart," the natural law, will always be in accord with the Church's moral teachings. Therefore, it is false to think (or advise others to think) that they can find permission in the "heart-law" to ignore what the Catechism (or other authoritative document) teaches us. It follows then that, if one thinks one's conscience is advising one to go against the Church, it is not the Church that is wrong, but rather one's conscience is not properly formed.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

Just to expand on one thing I mentioned ...
"... if you have fully and correctly formed your conscience, ... 'your heart' will never tell you to do something that the Church (i.e., Jesus) disapproves."

"Fully and correctly" forming one's conscience does not happen overnight, but possibly over a long period of time. In the interim, during the process of education, if one follows his incorrect (not-yet-fully-formed) conscience in some area -- not realizing that what he is doing is forbidden in the Church's moral doctrine -- he does not incur the guilt of sin. You could refer to this as "supremacy of conscience," in that the person in the example must follow his conscience, even though it an erroneous conscience at this point in his education. But "supremacy of conscience" does not refer to a way of overriding the Church's teaching about whether or not a given act is intrinsically evil. No such "way" exists.

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 10, 2003.

"more liberal but still very much Catholic"

A: Hmmmm. I would say "more liberal but still claiming to be very much Catholic".

"some readers might get the impression Paul is saying we dont need a conscience at all we need is a copy of the Cathechism because that holds all the truth we need."

A: On the contrary. We may very well need much more information on a particular moral issue than the Catechism provides. However, that doesn't mean we just take what is in the Catechism, or what we already know, and self-interpret it to suit our own needs. If we cannot make an objective and certain moral decision using the information we already have, then we are morally bound to seek addition information before making such a decision.

"Moral decions are far too complex and interrealted to be limited by a rule book, although that rule book might help us in certain situations ultimately the decision rests in our heart."

A: NO, it most certainly does NOT! That notion is the very core of moral relativism! Moral decisions are far too complex and interrelated to be made on the basis of something as fickle and unreliable as our feelings. Our "hearts" (in other words our feelings) have NOTHING to do with valid moral decision making. Conscience is a rational function of the brain. It is a faculty God has provided to enable us to make objectively right judgments and decisions in regard to moral questions, based on reliable objective criteria. The criteria upon which moral decisions MUST be made in order to be valid are the moral teachings of the Church. "What I am doing feels right" means absolutely nothing in reference to valid moral decision making. The truth of the matter is, what I am doing either IS right, or IS NOT right, completely regardless of how I "feel" about it, and it is my responsibility to determine whether the action I am considering IS or IS NOT objectively morally acceptable, BEFORE I do it.

"Morality isnt as black and white as Paul portrays abover IMO every individual case is different and only highest law is the one God wrote on our heart not written in a book."

A: Again, this is the theme song of moral relativism. Most moral matters are indeed "black and white", being thoroughly covered by the moral teaching of the Church. The problem is, people prefer to operate in a gray zone of ignorance which allows them to rationalize their own behavior. The truth however is readily available for those who are concerned about finding it and living by it, and God will not accept ignorance as an excuse. Jesus said "the truth will set you free". He didn't say "following your feelings will set you free", or "your personal interpretation of the truth will set you free". It is just amazing how many Catholics recognize the folly of self-interpretation of doctrinal teaching, yet still "feel" quite competent to self-interpret the Church's moral teaching.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 10, 2003.

No time tonight, nor probably for quite a while(a small blessing for you all!) I disagree with a few points from John and most of what Paul wrote. Paul why are you distorting the meaning of words, at least from where Im sitting? If I could be so bold...

You have focussed on the word "heart" and incorrectly assumed I meant feelings when in fact its common usage is that heart=conscience in catholic theology certainly not heart = feelings. ARe you seriously suggesting that the many Catholic texts that refer to us examining our HEARTS are asking ask to examine our FEELINGS.!!!!! No of course not! This is the height of absurdity ! Is that what you are saying? Them, is fighting words to a deacon! I feel Im on solid ground to voice my unhappiness with your defintion. I may be out on a limb a little on this issue but it has strong theological support if I can be given the oppourtunity to explain myself the best I can later. Open to your corrections still of course!

Please read it again

The Church says:

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which hehas not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47….

In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Kiwi sounds a bit perturbed, having less gray area in which to rationalize.

That gray area is a comfort and a curse. When people finally see it for what it is, they have a choice to either grow up or live a life of willful ignorance.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 11, 2003.

Thanks Pat. Rest assured Ill never lose enough gray matter to touch your fantasy novel with a barge pole.

While I wont be returning to "rationalise" anything or present "theological argumets"(what a prat I sound) its probably for the best if I just drop it, cool it, and keep my ideas to myself on this one. I think its well worth considering these words from Pope John Paul II for food for thought though... even I admit I am unsure of what implications this has on this discussion.

"An individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to God's commandments as set forth by the Church."

Peace and goodbye.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Jmj

Wowowowowow!!! Kiwi, I cannot let that quotation from the pope go unremarked. It is from article #68 of his landmark encyclical on moral theology, "Vertatis splendor" ("The Splendor of Truth").

Did you find that quotation -- exactly as you have reproduced it -- in some work of a dissenter, who wanted you to believe that it represents the pope's own teaching?

The reason I ask this is that it it does not represent his teaching. It has been torn out of context, a context that shows that he is rejecting, as an error, the words you quoted -- which he says can be seen in the bad theology of some individuals!!!

Maybe you can see what I mean by looking at all of #68, which I will quote below. (If you need a broader context to understand this more fully, look at the whole section of the encyclical -- #65ff -- here.) I am putting what you quoted in bold type, so that you can see that an absolutely key phrase that comes before it has been omitted. [That phrase refers back to the pro-fundamental-option arguments that the pope rejects ("the logic of the positions mentioned above").] You'll see that the rest of #68 -- the words following your quotation -- make clear that the pope does not support the section you quoted ...

"68. Here an important pastoral consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behavior were deliberately and gravely contrary to God's commandments as set forth by the Church.

"In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made 'a free self-commitment to God.' With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses "sanctifying grace," "charity" and "eternal happiness." As the Council of Trent teaches, "the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Oh, I forgot to add, Kiwi ... I hope that the above will help you to realize that you have rashly judged me in the past, as reflected in a post of yours on another thread today, wherein you told me, "... you've consistently shown on most theological issues to have zero understanding of, nor desire to learn about."

It just ain't so, my friend. I've read the entire Catechism, all of "Veritatis splendor," etc., etc.. I do understand much (more than you do, I hope) and I "desire to learn" more. Maybe the problem is that I resist your wish that I would "learn" from people who sometimes cannot be trusted -- such as dissenters, even someone who has been stripped of the title, "theologian"?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Any of you ever thought of asking a Catholic priest? Actually a book written by a priest about marriage said that oral sex is not a sin so long as it isn't intended to be used as contraception.

-- James Smith (lxingky@aol.com), December 11, 2003.

John you are right, I guess when youre looking for something to back you up you can make mistakes. The quote is most certainly not valid in the context I thought it was.

John it is someothing I have anguished over and I believe informed myself on and I must reply, even if I am in error I am obligied to follow my conscience. People need to be aware that even when their honest conscience conflicts with church teachings they are obligied to follow their consciencenot the church teaching. AT judgement day Id rather face up to God with a clear consceince than a grubby conscience one(but "objectively pure") and say I did an action becasue I was told it was right for me and my situation which only I and God, not any rule book can truely know the full details of . The conscience is the supreme arbitator of moral decisons even if it is true it should be guided, by amongst other things church teachings.

I dont agree with its that conscience is merely a function of the brain.Its a denial of what we are as human beings and creatures of God Conscience and the examination therof is much much more than some cold caluclting maths problem. I just dont have the trust in deductive reasoning that some have, to me, (poor insignifcant me I admit!)it doesnt represnt what our conscience is all about.Conscience goes to the core of our very being our soul and invloves much more than just a calculating scientific approach and I dont care if people think Im a smelly new age lentil bean munching tree hugger when I say there is a wholeness and completness thats missing from some approaches to morality.

While some acts may be objectively wrong in themsleves and in theory you can't just take abstract principles that are good principles and apply them blanket like over every situation- perhaps that is relativism, I dont think so though, thats the belief that there are no objective gides to morality period. I admit I cant express what my heart feels on this Im not edcuated enough in moral theology and I dont have time to write a well constucted moral argument I believe of course that there still is wrong and right as prescribed by God it just cannot be determined by going to part (a) section (b) clause (c)of the moral law book. I dont think thats mature nor do I think its what God would have wanted from his church. To me we need to move away from the "checklist" approach to morality to a more holisitic "orientiation" focus looking at the complete picture.

Our duty in conscience is to know the official teaching of the Church. This means getting to the heart of the matter to discern the values being taught.To achieve that wedding—to assimilate Church teaching and translate it into action—is a big order. There is no automatic leap from knowing the Church’s stance on moral matters to living it out.

We seem to forget that the Holy Spirit is at work in the heart of all men but I want to make it clear I dont doubt the objective truth of Church teachings.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

ok, i don't mind arguing about points but telling someone he/she sucks is not exactly what Catholics are supposed to do. Remember, we are learning new things everyday of our life so there's nobody here who knows everything. Also, i don't see the need to put each other down just because of a disagreement. I mean, we can learn from each other and we can point out each other's mistakes but we can do that in a learning and constructive way.

ok, onto "oral sex" what exactly do you mean by intravaginal? do u mean that the husband can only ejaculate into the vagina?

So from what i read, we are agreeing that "contact between genitals and mouth as a pre-sexual" is OK and is not a sin. I mean, the husband and the wife can give each other pleasure as long as the husband ejaculates into the vagina and the reproductive act is therefore accomplished. correct me if I'm wrong

-- L S (crazy89italian@comcast.ne), December 11, 2003.

L S, Yes. That understanding is correct.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 12, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Kiwi.

I'm glad to see that you are struggling with this, rather than ignoring it. But you need to struggle some more. You are at a "place" where many people find themselves, but you can't stay there if you want to progress spiritually.

There is not a single canonized saint who believed as you do right now. All saints have known that they must listen to the Church's moral doctrines, to allow those doctrines to fully inform and permeate their conscience, and then to act accordingly. It is not necessary to think of this in terms of oppressive rules in moral theology books. Instead, you need to see the Church as your loving Mother and Teacher (Mater et Magistra) who would not and cannot mislead you.

You wrote: "People need to be aware that even when their honest conscience conflicts with church teachings they are obliged to follow their conscience not the church teaching."

No, that is not correct, because this could not be called an "honest conscience." Neither Jesus nor the Apostles nor the popes nor the catechisms ever taught the principle you have just enunciated. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If one knows "the church teaching" about a moral issue, one must never act against it. The only time one can (even must) "follow his conscience and not the church teaching" is when he is unaware of the Church's teaching and has an uninformed conscience that conflicts with doctrine.

Kiwi, you are mistaken -- perhaps misled by a phrase in a Vatican II document, perhaps reinforced by a dissenting theologian -- in thinking that the use of the conscience involves feelings/emotions that can "trump" the Church's teaching. Being human, we cannot avoid "feeling" things all the time -- but there almost always comes a time when we have to make the mental choice to do right or wrong. And it is always the Church, never our conscience, that says what is right and what is wrong.

Maybe it would help you to take your mind off your own behaviors and think about the implications -- for society -- of your theology. What you are defending is really "moral relativism." It is a way of expressing the popular heresy, "What's right for you may not be right for me." Please reflect on the fact that this idea that there are "no moral absolutes" has led many people to "excuse" themselves for incredibly evil actions -- actions (like murder, pedophilia, etc.) that you would surely condemn. But how can you condemn them, since these people would argue that they have "followed their honest conscience?"

If society ever wholly falls for moral relativism, it will be "anything goes," and the collapse of civilization will be just around the corner. Every Catholic needs to do his part to "prop up" society and try to convince everyone else to avoid moral relativism.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

"People need to be aware that even when their honest conscience conflicts with church teachings they are obligied to follow their conscience not the church teaching."

A: If a person is aware that his "conscience" is opposed to objective truth, and does what he therefore knows to be objectively wrong, then he does not have an honest conscience. He is telling his conscience to shut up and go away. A right conscience CANNOT conflict with objective truth, and the teaching of the Chruch IS objective truth - the ONLY source of objective truth God has given us. Therefore if any conflict is found between subjective conscience and objective, divinely revealed truth, it is a sure sign of a faulty conscience, and we are morally bound NOT to follow our conscience until we have explored the matter sufficiently to discover the source of the conflict and rectify it.

"AT judgement day I'd rather face up to God with a clear conscience than a grubby conscience one (but "objectively pure") and say I did an action becasue I was told it was right for me and my situation which only I and God, not any rule book can truely know the full details of"

A: In that case God will probably remind you that HE is the author of the "rule book", and that His law applies to ALL men in ALL situations. He doesn't customize His commandments for individual persons or individual situations. He may well remind you that He told His Church, "he who listens to you listens to me". As the Church interprets His Word, His rule book, it is He Himself who is speaking to us. "... and he who rejects you rejects Me".

"The conscience is the supreme arbitator of moral decisons even if it is true it should be guided, by amongst other things church teachings."

A: The conscience is a valid moral guide only to the extent that it has been provided with the fullness of the objective truth, and is committed to abiding by it. If the conscience does not have the fullness of truth at its disposal, or is not fully submissive to it, then the conscience is not a moral guide at all, just an excuse for choosing our own will over the will of God.

"I dont agree with its that conscience is merely a function of the brain.Its a denial of what we are as human beings and creatures of God Conscience and the examination therof is much much more than some cold caluclting maths problem."

A: If morality is subjective, then you don't really need a conscience, because you will always find a way to rationalize whatever you want to do, whether you call it "conscience" or not. However, if morality is based upon absolute, objective, uncompromisable, divinely revealed truth, then a clear rational calculation based on the FACTS is exactly what is called for. Subjective morality tells us, "I know the Church teaches that adultery is wrong, but I really care for her, and she cares for me, and my wife has neglected me for years, though it isn't really her fault, and it isn't hurting her at all, while it is helping my new partner and myself to be happier and feel better about ourselves, and her little boy needs the attention of a man, and surely God would want that to happen, and blah blah blah blah ...". A properly formed conscience tells us, "FACT - ADULTERY IS MORALLY WRONG". That's the whole story! What more do we need to know? ANY further consideration of the matter is a move away from objective truth and into the morass of moral relativism.

"I say there is a wholeness and completness thats missing from some approaches to morality."

A: Indeed! And the paradox here is that the more complex you make it, the more viewpoints from which you attempt to consider the issue, the less whole and complete your approach becomes. You don't find additional information, but additional loopholes and rationalizations. God might ask us "what part of "Thou Shalt Not" don't you understand"?

"While some acts may be objectively wrong in themsleves and in theory you can't just take abstract principles that are good principles and apply them blanket like over every situation- perhaps that is relativism, I dont think so though, thats the belief that there are no objective gides to morality period."

A: ARRGGHHH!!!! That is EXACTLY the definition of moral relativism - everything is relative and subjective, nothing is absolute or objective. That is the lie of Satan, preached to us through the pagan world in which we live. In fact, ALL valid moral decisions MUST be made on the basis of OBJECTIVE moral truth. A moral decision made on ANY other basis is NOT morally valid - even if it coincidentally turns out to be morally acceptable!

"I dont think thats mature nor do I think its what God would have wanted from his church. To me we need to move away from the "checklist" approach to morality to a more holisitic "orientiation" focus looking at the complete picture".

A: I wonder why God didn't take that approach when giving Moses the Ten Commandments. Note the word "Commandments" here; not the "Ten Suggestions"; not the "Ten Moral Guidelines". God said "DON'T DO IT". Orient yourself holistically around that. If you come out with anything less definitive than "DON"T DO IT", you have entered the realm of moral relativism, which will inevitably guide you onto the road to hell.

"Our duty in conscience is to know the official teaching of the Church. This means getting to the heart of the matter to discern the values being taught. To achieve that wedding—to assimilate Church teaching and translate it into action—is a big order. There is no automatic leap from knowing the Church's stance on moral matters to living it out."

A: No, there certainly is not. If there were an automatic leap, we wouldn't need a conscience, since we would not be free moral agents. However, since we have free will, there is always a struggle - temptation vs. knowledge of right and wrong. The more thoroughly we know the objective truth and adhere to it without compromise, the less often we will succumb to temptation; and the more we toy with the worldly tenets of moral relativismm, which are built on the shifting sands of compromise and "situational morality", the more often we will give in to temptation.

It is not complete to say that "our duty in conscience is to know the official teaching of the Church". We have a duty to accomplish that BEFORE situations arise which demand moral decision making. Once such situations do arise, our duty in conscience is then to OBEY the official teaching of the Church.

Incidentally, the phrase "the Church's stance on moral matters" is a standard catch phrase of moral relativism, deliberately minimizing the Church's absolute AUTHORITY over moral matters. Anyone can take a "stance", but not everyone has divine authority. Using such terminology feeds into the relativistic world view of morality, attempting to place the Church's "opinion" on a par with anyone else's opinion. FACT: The Church does not have a "stance" or an "opinion" on moral issues. It has THE TRUTH.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

Kiwi,

Do take heed of Paul and John here. You are obviously someone attracted to the voice of God that announces his goodness and beauty. This is a good thing. But a common weakness of your personality type is that they will hide from the cross when it is presented.

What will help you to understand is if you consider how Christ chose to die on the Cross. Meditate on it in all its gory bloody detail. Saint Therese of the Little Flower had your same personality aspect and overcame her weakness in this way. It helped her to face ALL of reality and she knew she needed this help in order to see the WHOLE truth.

The bottom line is that it is good to be happy, but that is not why God put us here. He put us here so that we can know and love Him, despite adversity. I hope you can come to understand.

God bless,

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 16, 2003.

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."-Dante Alighieri Firstly, it is good that you all are not maintaining neutrality by the way. I stumbled upon your debate here, I read much of the December entries and found some good minds and thought I should put in two ideas possibly to help everyone. Ask to have your sins which are hidden to you to be revealed and ask to grasp the purity of Mary to comprehend the levity of those sins. I also urge everyone to look into the dialog of Saint Catherine of Siena. True application of both will set you free and give you the anwsers over time. (Sorry about the fake email address this was a one time thing, good luck everyone, Amore Dio Siempre)

-- J.L.T (trunzoj@isic.org), December 17, 2003.

Any simple act of affection or giving that a loving husband or a loving wife does to show their adoration, affection, love, or desire to be with or to please their spouse is, according to all of my study, perfectly acceptable. I find no reason to think that oral sex is a sin if practiced by a married (heterosexual) couple; with some stipulations. I'm not advocating that you should substitute oral sex for vaginal sex for any purpose (especially birth control). I'm simply stating that if it is given as a gift from the wife to the husband or the husband to the wife, then there's nothing wrong with it. To have oral sex to avoid pregnancy would mean that you are engaging in the act for a reason completely different than your desire to pleasure your spouse. That is where the issue of sin would arise. You are engaging is sex because you crave it; but you are not willing to have sex as God intended. Oral sex should simply be a pleasurable activity between you and your spouse. Consider it similar to giving one another a massage; it is pleasurable and you do it with no ulterior motives.

-- Daniel Wagster (dgwagster@earthlink.net), December 22, 2003.

Daniel,

Your answer simply broadcasts that you have not read all of the above. Oral stimulation is just fine, but only if it is part of the marital act. The marital act must always be open to life. Therefore oral stimulation of the male to the point of orgasm is sinful.

If you wish to disagree, that is your freedom. But you'll be offending God.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), December 23, 2003.

bumping for Kiwi

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 27, 2004.

No need to remind these friends the roads of hell are paved with good intentions.

Marital love didn't start yesterday. Nor is love restricted to the use of lips and genitals. Two souls wedded as God intends are of necessity pure and undefiled. Married sex doesn't defile at all, we realise. It is holy. This indeed has always been the teaching of the Church. The prime requisite for matrimony isn't even physical love, however; sex can simply be an obligation to our spouse. There are many variables and they can all be good.

However, sex for pure excitement and carnal pleasure has its dangers. It can become an idolatry, even between married partners. (I'm not denying the act is something which can become an unbreakable bond between them.

But abandonment to pleasure in that way is an open door to slavish desires. Then a man or woman has to contend with a sex drive used to being unbridled and wanton. Who knows where a line will ever be drawn? Next thing and the husband might decide one woman isn't enough for his itchings.

And, as I was at pains before to point out: Many customs in the modern repertory of sexual satisfaction derive from evil sources. No one will question whether or not prostitutes have historically sold that wanton type of excitement. Are our wives now expected to compete with prostitutes at home? Is this the Will of God?

There are many proofs we cannot lower ourselves into that kind of deliberate indifference to purity in the marriage bed. By purity I mean great care about what you demand for your physical pleasures. Neither the husband nor wife ought to act in the ways of street-walkers and degenerates in order to fulfill the physical needs of a spouse. God sees us intimately close-up! He is NOT detached while we enjoy this powerful stimulus; and He ought not be forgotten for even ONE moment. Our consciences should not have to be stifled. Just the fact aa adult Catholic would ASK if these actions are sinful tells us. We have to act repsonsibly and moderately as believing Christians. Men and women both.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2004.

Hi Eugene how’s things my old mate.As Kant says love for a person excludes the possibility of treating him as an object of pleasure but he falls short of the true understnading of love and his principal is negative in charachter. Pope John Paul IIs personalistic principle really allows us to understnad what love is and you echo mnay of his comments. I think you would really enjoy reading his thoughts on this principal if you havent already as its very very powerful IMHO .

"In fact, the commandment of love is not limited to excluding all behavior that reduces the person to a mere object of pleasure. It requires more; it requires the affirmation of the person as a person.... Above all, the principle that a person has value by the simple fact that he is a person finds very clear expression: man, it is said, "is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for his own sake." At the same time the Council emphasizes that the most important thing about love is the sincere gift of self. In this sense the person is realized through love."

Paul and John your words here as Pat has suggested have indeed given me much to think about, heavy notions creeping around my less than capable brain. Im well aware that the Church says the moral character of actions is determined by objective criteria not merely the sincerity of intentions or goodness of motives. I guess I struggle with the contradictions and boundaries I find myself presented with, all the answers are given with such certainty…the truth… from those who walk unafraid.I neeed to take up Poep John Paul II s message Be not Afraid, yet I lack the courage sometimes. I worry how can we retain such dignity if our morality is nothing but a submission with mechanical obedience to something presented as the truth yet I cannot believe to be true. I may “know” something to be true yet if I cannot “believe” it to be true then my submission is nothing but a sad masquerade.

In any case regarding this discussion it is only a limited area of teachings being authoritative infallible teachings that require my absolute obedience although there are in fact very few(any?) Church teachings I disagree with. That we may depart however from a non-infallible church teachings (in very rare circumstances admittedly) is beyond question in a theological debate.Its that freedom which allows those Catholics obbessed by war, killing and empire building to support immoral wars without being excommunicated although they do so at great risk. The church has been lead badly astray before by its leaders and we must always consider that we may again have our consciences tested by a Borgia (sp?) Pope . AS Newman says about the place of the conscience“ Ill drink to the Pope but only after Ive drunk to my conscience first” We must be ready to answer Gods call.

PAUL M:"If a person is aware that his "conscience" is opposed to objective truth, and does what he therefore knows to be objectively wrong, then he does not have an honest conscience. He is telling his conscience to shut up and go away. A right conscience CANNOT conflict with objective truth, and the teaching of the Church IS objective truth - the ONLY source of objective truth God has given us. Therefore if any conflict is found between subjective conscience and objective, divinely revealed truth, it is a sure sign of a faulty conscience, and we are morally bound NOT to follow our conscience until we have explored the matter sufficiently to discover the source of the conflict and rectify it."

Paul, your negative pessimistic worst case scenario is only valid if you presume that someone doesn’t make an effort to search for the truth. You deny hope and at the same time judge others efforts in trying to search for the truth. You cannot do that, it’s a sin. I said an “honest conscience”, I need to stress for anyone who is confused that I never implied that this conscience is right or correct, it may well be an honest conscience but a conscience in error, objectively speaking. A person is a fallible being. The judgment of conscience does not establish the law! My affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is only a problem if I also affirmed that one's moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. in the judgments of our conscience the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is "not an infallible judge;" it can make mistakes. We all can misunderstand things or remain in ignorance despite our best intentions. Often there is no great clarity as to the churches position on a specific personal moral dilemma but rather a more general position on a wider moral theme. Of course if the person did not bother to take the time to read and reflect on church teachings then their conscience is not “honest” and I believe they would be culpable. You must follow your honest conscience IMO although I agree on reflection that any conflict would be within the persons conscience not between that person and the magisterium.

Paul whatever qualifications you may try and place on the conscience its place is clear you need to admit its place more clearly to any readers in the future IMHO. Compare your clever but ultimately little more than intellectually dishonest attempts to cloud the position of conscience with the Church’s view, particularly Pope John Paul II below. The contrast is marked:

…..1790 “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.”

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53

Pope JPII

“As these passages show, the Council treats human freedom very seriously and appeals to the inner imperative of the conscience in order to demonstrate that the answer, given by man to God and to His word through faith, is closely connected with his personal dignity. Man cannot be forced to accept the truth. He can be drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom, which commits him to search sincerely for truth and, when he finds it, to adhere to it both in his convictions and in his behavior.

This has always been the teaching of the Church. But even before that, it was the teaching that Christ Himself exemplified by His actions. It is from this perspective that the second part of the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom should be reread. There, perhaps, you will find the answer to your question.

It is an answer that echoes the teaching of the Fathers and the theological tradition from Saint Thomas Aquinas to John Henry Newman. The Council merely reaffirms what has always been the Church's conviction. The position of Saint Thomas is, in fact, well known: He is so consistent in his respect for conscience that he maintains that it is wrong for one to make an act of faith in Christ if in one's conscience one is convinced, however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act (cf. Summa Theologiae 1-2. 19. 5).

If man is admonished by his conscience-even if an erroneous conscience, but one whose voice appears to him as unquestionably true-he must always listen to it. What is not permissible is that he culpably indulge in error without trying to reach the truth.

If Newman places conscience above authority, he is not proclaiming anything new with respect to the constant teaching of the Church. The conscience, as the Council teaches, "is man's sanctuary and most secret core, where he finds himself alone with God, whose voice resounds within him. . . . “

“the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, "the proximate norm of personal morality."

PAUL M: In that case God will probably remind you that HE is the author of the "rule book", and that His law applies to ALL men in ALL situations. He doesn't customize His commandments for individual persons or individual situations. He may well remind you that He told His Church, "he who listens to you listens to me". As the Church interprets His Word, His rule book, it is He Himself who is speaking to us. "... and he who rejects you rejects Me".

Possibly Paul but I don think God is as negative, shallow nor mechanical in nature as your own insticts seem to hope . I think he would remind you that:

“Charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."

and that the Apostles "did not come down from the mountain carrying, like Moses, tablets of stone in their hands; but they came down carrying the Holy Spirit in their hearts... having become by his grace a living law, a living book".[34]

This is an "interior" law (cf. Jer 3 1:3 1-33), "written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts" (2 Cor 3:3);

"What the law requires is written on their hearts" (Rom 2:15)

PAUL M:The conscience is a valid moral guide only to the extent that it has been provided with the fullness of the objective truth, and is committed to abiding by it. If the conscience does not have the fullness of truth at its disposal, or is not fully submissive to it, then the conscience is not a moral guide at all, just an excuse for choosing our own will over the will of God.

Again compare your words to the Pope.I take your points here but would add a note of caution to those who wish to treat theology with a mathematical vigor. The debate over conscience specifically between the will and the intellect is nothing new those who wish to read more on the history between these two schools of thought would do well to read the excellent summary in the Catholic encyclopedia under conscience. Call me a Francisian then! Ethical thruths cannot be proved in the manner of mathematical proofs and care is need not to misinterpret the words of Paul M as some sort of rationalist moral theory. The dangers of those who have created moral systems based on “rationality” are only too evident in today. It contradicts the "Church's teachings on the unity of the human person," whose rational soul is "per se et essentialiter" the form of his body.[86] The spiritual and immortal soul is the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole--"corpore et anima unus"[87]-- as a person. The Pope and the church has often spoken of the dangers of rationalism alone as it can only lead to proportionlism/utilitarianism and a drift away from the faith . The office of conscience should not be treated as too narrow a concept of only our mind as that leads to place our conscience outside the enlightenment derived from revelation and grace.

"Da quod iubes et iube quod vis"

“Conscientia ad partem animae cognitivam non pertinet, sed ad affectivam”

PAUL M:Indeed! And the paradox here is that the more complex you make it, the more viewpoints from which you attempt to consider the issue, the less whole and complete your approach becomes. You don't find additional information, but additional loopholes and rationalizations. God might ask us "what part of "Thou Shalt Not" don't you understand"?

Hmmmm correct me if Im wrong but you s]upported an immoral war in Iraq No? Im might ask you what part of “Thou shall not Kill “ do you not understand remembering that under Catholic just war theory this war is most certainly immoral. Is that one a little more “complex”, it requires a little more “additional information, loopholes and rationalization” as you put it?

It bothers me up that you focus in on sexual morality every time for your examples and would never bother to criticise or hold to task (at least from all evidence Ive seen from you over the past year) the lack of adherence to the full spectrum of moral teachings. When was the last time I heard you preaching voluntary poverty to the consumer mad world out there? Its all about giving not acquiring yet I never here ANY social or economic teachings from you or any of the forum participants beyond criticizing socialism/communism or sexual morlaity! It’s a joke. When did you last promote evils of excessive individualism or the need to reduce nuclear weapons and other weapons of Mass destruction in all states or the immoral behavior of Palestine or the evils of the free market or exploitation of workers or the need to help the thirrd world and poverty or the promotion of the UN etc etc etc. Selective morality from the “chosen” ones Id say and we all know what Christ thought of them. The self-satisfied moral hypocrites weren’t high on Christ’s list.

"Take no thought for what you shall eat or drink,--the Lord knows you have need of these things."

PAUL M:I wonder why God didn't take that approach when giving Moses the Ten Commandments. Note the word "Commandments" here; not the "Ten Suggestions"; not the "Ten Moral Guidelines". God said "DON'T DO IT". Orient yourself holistically around that. If you come out with anything less definitive than "DON"T DO IT", you have entered the realm of moral relativism, which will inevitably guide you onto the road to hell.

I wonder indeed. Hmmm anyone smell a double standard brewing? Thank God for the New Testament I say.

PAUL M:It is not complete to say that "our duty in conscience is to know the official teaching of the Church". We have a duty to accomplish that BEFORE situations arise which demand moral decision making. Once such situations do arise, our duty in conscience is then to OBEY the official teaching of the Church.

Well your assertions may be true I dont know but what we need to remeber is we all fall short of this, that’s the whole point you seem to gloss over, were all sinners and were all imperfect, even you. Life isn’t a scientific lab rat experiment with controlled conditions yet your moral system seems to treat humans as some sort of robotic error free experiment. Just plug in the right info and presto- NO Sin! The similarity between your moral system and free market economics in terms of how far the theory is removed from practical real world and how the assumptions that underpin are fixed and try and behave with certainty when man is anything but certain. However I know you will say Gods laws are certain, your obsession with certainty and truth as the basis for your faith really disturbs me as my faith is based around uncertainty and doubt!

A few kind of related points from the church worth noting:

The Council also encouraged theologians, "while respecting the methods and requirements of theological science, to look for "a more appropriate way of communicating" doctrine to the people of their time; since there is a difference between the deposit or the truths of faith and the manner in which they are expressed, keeping the same meaning and the same judgment".[46] This led to a further invitation, one extended to all the faithful, but addressed to theologians in particular: "The faithful should live in the closest contact with others of their time, and should work for a perfect understanding of their modes of thought and feelings as expressed in their culture".

"The Church's Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one."

"This light and power also impel the Church constantly to carry out not only her dogmatic but also her moral reflection within an interdisciplinary context, which is especially necessary in facing new issues."

PAUL M:Incidentally, the phrase "the Church's stance on moral matters" is a standard catch phrase of moral relativism, deliberately minimizing the Church's absolute AUTHORITY over moral matters. Anyone can take a "stance", but not everyone has divine authority. Using such terminology feeds into the relativistic world view of morality, attempting to place the Church's "opinion" on a par with anyone else's opinion. FACT: The Church does not have a "stance" or an "opinion" on moral issues. It has THE TRUTH.

True faith is not expressed as propositions, nor does it cease to be true because I disbelive a proposition. Christian faith, true faith can be wholly real even if one of its propositions are false. The admission of the possibility of error does not destroy the authority of the Church. I have problems with the emphasis on truth you place I don’ think I heard the word “Love” once from you, just an observation but a telling one if I may be so bold. “ The Church is in fact a communion both of faith and of life; her rule of life is "faith working through love" (Gal 5:6).

I guess when pushed I lack the faith that you have in being able to put aside “contradictions in the truth” not adequately explained by the Church such as the changing nature of the truth relating to religious freedom or a raft of other supposedly immutable truths which somehow have evolved. I guess its no different that Emerald and CO in some ways , although I try and keep my concerns as private as possible. It takes an astounded leap of faith or a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty for one to believe the truth is as important and unchangeable as you posit. At any rate its not something I wish to go down nor lead others down too far. Ill keep my doubts to myself and join you in a community of faith. But they never go away eating away at the corner of our faith. It wouldn’t be faith without doubt that’s the key to it all The truth of the Church rests not in any written document but in a community of believers, that is the sense of a Church of Jesus Christ in the broadest sense. The Truth of the Church is not related primarily to certain documents or institutions which for the most part have not existed at all, or not in their current form. A true faith surpasses “all banal ordinary security” Lets not forget also how the Holy Spirit works. Co responsibility. Simply, the bishops consult with and listen to their people. The Pope consults with and listens to his bishops. That is how the Holy Spirit acts in the church. And that essentially is how the church will be preserved from error. . Essentially then the truth remains not with the the Churchmen but the laity, as it was the laity as the discipleship of the Spirit of Jesus Christ which continued to live out the Gospel despite the sorrid and evil actions of their leaders. Often it was the laity that rescued the Church Essentially Truth cannot be trusted to be maintained without listening to the “little people”. Me, you, all of us.

As the "Black Seeds" might ask where is the Love?! Ive yet to see much evidence beyond a robotic desire for the truth? I know some folk, maybe myself will never be awoken by a gentle voice but man I really wonder whether you’re human sometimes or just a computer linked to books. I guess you treat all discussions with other human beings as abstract academic theory there seems to be a complete absence of any pastoral understnading. If this was merely an apologetics forum for theologians I would understnd but its not its a discussion forum, not an "ask Paul M Q and A type deal". I dont understnad your approach and the absence of any personal warmth, love and joy for the lord in what is very much a pastoral situation. DO you treat others as your brother or do you see yourself as a master? WOULD YOU WASH MY FEET? Would you help me when I fall or would you just tell me WHY Ive fallen and hold me down, would you offer me your hand?

Pope JPII

“I would like to sum up by stressing that the young are searching for God, they are searching for the meaning of life, they are searching for definitive answers: "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Lk 10:25). In this search, they cannot help but encounter the Church. And the Church also cannot help but encounter the young. The only necessity is that the Church have a profound understanding of what it means to be young, of the importance that youth has for every person. It is also necessary that the young know the Church, that they perceive Christ in the Church, Christ who walks through the centuries alongside each generation, alongside every person. He walks alongside each person as a friend. An important day in a young person's life is the day on which he becomes convinced that this is the only Friend who will not disappoint him, on whom he can always count.”

Peace!

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.co,), January 29, 2004.

I've read (scanned) most answers and as a "cradle catholic" although a "re-vert", I have always been taught that the acts of foreplay that lead to consumation of an act pro-creative in nature (pro=for, creation assumes God's intent/will ) then this is not only acceptable but good. Where as any sexual act intended to thwart the natural ends/consequences (i.e. God's intended plan) would be evil (as an aside: evil spelled backwards is live, see also devil) So, that much is understood by most non-selfdulting "reasoning" Catholic Christians.

Now for my Question: A couple that can no longer conceive either from age or medical disability (eg- cancer removal by historectomy or testicular/ovarian ) Are they then prohibited from acts which are clearly not intented to give life within the context of marraige? Because lets face it, without a uterus, whether the husbands seed goes in the wife vagina or in her ear, niether is open to life.

Both Sarah and Elizibeth both concieved while "thought to be barren", I would assume both husbands where still intimate with them, (I'm assuming most Catholics recognize only one immaculate conception). Now, since we know a tree by it's fruit, we can thus assume there was no immorality in the conception of either Issiac or John the baptist.

So, both husbands went into the act with intent to be intimate for the sole purpose of the act without result. No harm, No foul.

Is anyone trying to say a husband and wife cannot have relations after sterility? If not, can any one tell me what the moral difference is between oral or vaginal ejaculation in a sterile couple is? (NOTE: Those applying the catagorical imparitive will be summarily ingored for lack of reasoning capability)

John: Paul-Francesco

-- J:P-F (pfv@centurytel.net), January 31, 2004.

"Openness to conception" is what is required of a married couple engaging in sexual intercourse. "Openness to conception" is a state of mind, a submission of one's will to the will of God. It has nothing to do with the physiological likelihood of conceiving. A couple who are fertile and a couple who are infertile can each approach their physical relationship with the same sense of openness to God's plan for them. If it is God's plan that they have children, they submit to God's will. If it is God's plan that they do not have children, they submit to God's will. That alone is required of them. "Openness to conception" does not require that the woman be in a fertile phase of her cycle. It does not require that both the man and the woman are physiologically capable of conceiving. It only requires that they are in submission to God's will for them regarding procreation.

By the way, yes, there is only one Immaculate Conception; however this has nothing to do with lack of sexual intimacy. The Immaculate Conception - Mary - was conceived by the usual means - intercourse between her parents.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 31, 2004.

Yes, and to put it another way, in the marriage bed that is undefiled, God is there. In the marital act, God is there and it is the husband and wife, in their openness to procreation, that invite Him there to be with them.

In any sexual act in marriage, that by its very nature would be closed off from conceiving, the couple would be withdrawing their invitation to God from participating. In withdrawing that invitation to God, the sexual act becomes an act of objectification, demeaning to both spouses.

Stop looking for loopholes. Honor your spouse. Both in bed and elsewhere.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), February 01, 2004.

Hate the thought of being ingored. May we have the question again, John: Paul Francesco? Your formidable language hides from me at least, the meaning of your post. Are you for or against oral sex as lovemaking?

I don't want to stay up all night reading the answer, unless it's really fantastic. Are you a physician? Or a psychologist? May I ask your age?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 02, 2004.

JP,

Orally, anally, or manually consummated (note consummated)sex is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS a sin. No matter what the hypothetical it is always a sin.

What if I have a vasectomy and thus my semen has no sperm can I have oral sex to ejaculation? NO...see above

What if my wife has her vagina removed for cancer..she can give me manually consummated sex then right? NO...see above.

Well what if she has a hysterectomy and cant get pregnant...its ok to have anal sex then isn't it? NO...see above.

What if she is pregnant already? She can give me orally consumatted sex then right? NO....see above.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), February 02, 2004.

Hey all,

I think the best way to approach this problem is not to go beating around the bush. As someone stated above, there should be no loopholes. God's Will has none, and his plan for us and our actions have none either. So let's approach this with Scripture, Magisterial Teaching, and human reason and morality.

In the Old Testament, Genesis onward is full of sexual references. God himself says to be fruitful and multiply. The word multiply through sexuality can only mean one thing: pure and holy sexual intercourse as God intended: through the use of our natural genitals. There is also a passage in Genesis that refers to God slaying so-and-so for dropping his 'seed' on the ground right before sexual orgasm; coitus interruptus.

It is quite clear from Scripture, as well as the infallible teaching of the Magisterium, that sexuality is a twofold gift. Our wonderful Cathechism states this quite clearly: "Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others".(#2332 Part III)

To be pure marital love, these two requirements above must be fulfilled; any act that does not meet both is against God's design for marital sexuality. This is why oral sex in its nature is intrinsically disordered, for it robs the couple of the procreative aspect of marital love. And in doing so, the couple is far too likely to fall into habitual sexual sin geared solely towards pleasure; even including giving pleasure to the other and not simply selfishness. The sexual act, when performed with the clear mindset that God may intend the couple to conceieve, take on a whole new and responsible parental mindset. This couple, in consenting to engage in pure sexuality, has to be fully capable of raising children. In allowing for the procreative aspect to fully participate, there is a trust and responsibility that is disposed of when the act is merely for pleasurable purposes. Oral sex, by its nature, does not leave the opening for conception, and thus the consenting married couple does not gain the wonderful trust and responsibility that is implicit in the sexual act.

God's design is the only way to be happy and pure. He intends sexuality in marriage to be both loving(with joy and pleasure not negated), and procreative. Any act that does not fulfill these requirements is intrinsically wrong. God teaches this through Sacred Scripture, the Holy Catholic Church upholds this through its teaching, and we must do the same. God bless you all~

Sincerely,

Andrew Staupe (19, Sophomore @University of MN School of Music)

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 13, 2004.

Hi Andrew,

Just wanted to add something to what you said and that you should be writing that orally or manually CONSUMMATED sex is wrong not oral sex. That is what the CCC has said. I would also add that a man can please his wife through manual or oral stimulation during marital relationships. Saying that oral sex or manual sex is forbidden without the aforementioned language and understanding can present the Church as a prudish institution which in reality She is not.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 13, 2004.

Dear David,

Thanks for the answer. This sentence you wrote:

"I would also add that a man can please his wife through manual or oral stimulation during marital relationships".

Where does this sentence get backup from CCC, Sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, or elsewhere? I have a hard time understanding the grounds for that arguments' validity, on the basis that the act does not allow for the possibility of procreation- its end is not the possibility of chidlren, but rather just pleasure and enjoyment. Or is that statement the clause mentioned elsewhere about foreplay before coitus?

I agree about adding the word consummated in my statements. I just have a problem about the consummation of the oral sex act (even if the end of this act is not fulfilled but rather leads to coitus), since it is sexual but does not lead to the possibility of conceiving. But good points mentioned. Thanks and God Bless

Andrew S.

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 13, 2004.

Andrew,

The CCC does not deal directly with providing pleasure for the wife. I saw it in a writing of one of the popes and I will do my best to find it. The author insisted that as a couple each member must seek to satisfy the needs of each. Stimulating the woman to orgasm was OK within the marital act. This could be through other than coital stimulation and could be done during after play. To do it outside a coital event would not be permitted I would think. If the Church had any other stance it would be unfair and sexist IMO.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 13, 2004.

I found it. Its from John Gecik and an earlier thread.

"Pope Pius XII, in his address to Italian Midwives, emphasizes that the pleasure associated with the marriage act is good and intended by God to be fully enjoyed as long as it is part of the marriage act itself. Not only that, but in charity, spouses should be more concerned with giving each other pleasure than with experiencing pleasure. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, for a husband to seek assistance from his wife regarding how to help her fully enjoy the pleasure of their marital embrace.

"What is not permitted is to arouse oneself outside of the marriage act. The Church has no specific teaching about doing things to arouse oneself while engaged in the marriage act, as long as our purpose is to enjoy the lawful pleasure connected with the marriage act."

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 13, 2004.

David,

Well, what can I say? A Papal decree is a infallible Papal decree. As Augustine said, when Rome speaks, there is no need for further discussion (highly modernized translation).

I guess then, that the role of extra-coital stimulation (or "assistance") is judged by God on a highly individual basis. The couple must be in full conscience in performing these other acts, and must never seek pleasure for their own sake. Each couple must be aware of the desires in their hearts, and judge their own actions with a God-centered and other-person centered conscience. This is precisely why chastity in many respects becomes more difficult in marriage; it is far too easy to fall astray in self pleasure through sexual sin.

Thanks for the quote, David. You should have been here pages earlier with that decree- anyone with an opinion to the contrary would only foolishly and ignorantly oppose after reading that. Regards-

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 14, 2004.

Oral sex for a married couple is a gravely disordered abominable act. Please understand Catholic marriage is not license for "anything goes". We are bound by the limits of marital chastity. The Holy Sacrament of Marriage between a Man and a Woman does NOT and cannot validate gravely immoral unnatural sexual acts - i.e. oral sex, anal sex and mutual masturbation etc. Advice to follow one's conscience is permissible provided one's conscience has been properly formed in accordance with the truths of the Catholic Church. Anything less is spiritual suicide.

-- Ken (triton@bigplanet.com), November 26, 2004.

People! please! do we REALLY think God is this legalistic? Do we think we'll get to the gates of heaven and saint peter will tally up the number of times we had oral sex but did not deposite semen in the vagina and turn us away? God loves us and i doubt it was ever God's intention to make us this stressed out! I heartily encourage everyone to explore the wonderful world of their own God-given conscience. The point of the church's teachings is to help us form our consciences in responsible matter. It is not to make us robots who thoughtlessly reiterate and practice what we are told. The only way we can have a truly adult faith is to engage it and think about it. Get thee to a book store IMMEDIATELY to purchase (& READ) Fr. Richard Gula's book Reason Informed by Faith. It's one of the best moral theology books out there. It will give you solid guidelines on how to faithfully live as a Catholic and make good moral decisions. While your at it pick up "Good Goats: Healing our Image of God" by the Linns (they are a married couple and the husband's brother who is a priest) it's great reading for the holidays! In the meantime, Blessings & Happy Advent, everyone!

-- dominique vanherpe (dominiquevanherpe9@hotmail.com), November 27, 2004.

My boyfriend is Catholic, and I am not. We started having sex and then a few weeks later he said that it was wrong and that we wouldn't do it anymore. My question is, why is sex before marriage such a bad thing. We were really careful not to get pregnant and we love each other very much. So what is so bad about sex??

~Anne

-- Anne M. Scripture (anniescripture@hotmail.com), February 02, 2005.

So what is so bad about sex??

Anne,

In morally relative terms -nothing is 'bad' about sex. However, you must consider things in terms of proper context -context premised upon absolute moral Truth... --what is 'bad' is that which is sinful -[that] which contravenes God's moral law(s)...

If you wish to gain further understanding as to what the Church teaches I recommend the following:

Familiaris Consortio

---

THE PLAN OF GOD FOR MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY

The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality

---

Love and Human Sexuality

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 03, 2005.

don't listen to this guy...

sex is good...think with your own head and follow your heart

i wish you further the best for your relationship,-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 03, 2005.

Whatever you do, Anne-- Don't pay any attention to sdqa.

You do well to inquire about this, if there was honest doubt. By your ''scripture'' handle, it would seem you read the Holy Bible. Do you? Why haven't you --and your boyfriend read what Saint Paul wrote regarding sins of the flesh? You'll quickly find out that fornicators-- meaning every sinner who indulges his/her sexual desires without lawful marriage-- fornicators will NOT enter the kingdom of heaven.

Not because the sex act is bad, or even immoral; it's actually holy in God's sight when it gratifies a wife and her husband. It's the power of LIFE. There would be no human race without the blessing of SEX.

But it's a mortal sin in God's sight, when it gratifies unmarried couples. It is illicit and impure outside of marriage. No matter if the two who sin should love one another very deeply. They are still fornicating. --Try to understand this with humility; as if Our Lord Himself were your Teacher in everything that has to do with love. Marry the young man. He will be free to love you then. Otherwise, leave him alone.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 03, 2005.

sex is sacred in a loving relationship

but a true loving relationship isn't the same thing as marriage,these things can go together but don't have to...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 03, 2005.

Anne,

There is a high divorce rate for couples who engaged in pre-marital sex. Besides, IDEALLY, when a bride wears white on her wedding day, that signifies that she's still a virgin (hymen still intact). In your case, dirty white or beige might be more appropriate.

-- (nosexbeforemarriage@oldschool.com), February 03, 2005.

please save me from this ****

50% of the married people break up anyway...

marriage is no guarantee that you will stay forever together...

marriage happens so many times out of different reasons than love,marriage is not a condition for true lasting love

marriage and love are two different things,please try to realise this

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), February 03, 2005.

Nobody was talking about marriage itself. --We're talking about God's commandments. Which is why I asked Anne if she and her boyfriend knew what God says.

I don't give a FIG what sdqa decided about love. She will tell you it's OK to make love with your Doberman Pinscher if you love him. Morals are the farthest thing from sdqa's idea of sex. Anne should worry about damnation, coming to her and an illicit sexual partner. We aren't making this up!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 03, 2005.

Let's not forget to enter sexually transmitted diseases into the equation.

SYPHILIS

CHLAMYDIA

GONORRHEA

HERPES

AIDS

HEPATITIS

GENITAL WARTS

CHANCROID

PUBIC LICE (crabs) & SCABIES

TRICHOMONIASIS

-- (nosexbeforemarriage@oldschool.com), February 03, 2005.

Dear ''nosexbeforemarriage''

Let's keep these threads in good taste, OK? It's pretty sure the girl to whom we're speaking is aware of the miserable side-effects of illicit sex. (No need to make such a morbid LIST.) That sdqa is aware, I have no doubt. Likely enough she knows from experience, if not education.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 03, 2005.

Eugene,

Since when did you become the arbiter of taste? The above list is the 10 most common STDs; it's a fact; lest anyone forget (pre-marital or post-marital). Inferring that sdqa had STD and that she's badly educated is less than kind of you ... but in good taste?

-- (nosexbeforemarriage@oldschool.com), February 03, 2005.

Inferring what? I told you plainly. What sdqa knows is taught every day in thousands of middle school sex ed classes; and it should be presumed all of us know about VD.

It's just TACKY to write every gross germ's names in caps for folks who already KNOW. But if you merely wanted to clip my wings, OK--I'm sorry.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 03, 2005.

“when a bride wears white on her wedding day, that signifies that she's still a virgin”

This is purely a cultural tradition and has nothing to do with Christian morality or Church law. Any bride may wear any color she wishes for a Catholic wedding. In many Asian cultures brides wear red which considered the color of joy, while white is the color of mourning and would be inappropriate for a wedding.

“please save me from this **** 50% of the married people break up anyway...”

This is NO argument at all. OVER 99% of people who have sexual intercourse outside of marriage break up anyway. Among married people who were virgins on their wedding day, less than 5% ever break up. Apart from any other consideration re marriage, statistically the one best thing you can do to drastically reduce your chances of becoming a dumped ex-sexual partner is to insist on marriage before sexual intercourse.

Oh and re the diseases, you may have been told in sex-ed classes that if you use condoms you won't get sexually transmitted diseases. This is quite wrong. But the diseases are a side issue. Even if it were possible to have unmarried sexual intercourse that was totally sterile and free of risk of disease, it would still be an immature act (whether the people involved are 16 or 60).

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 03, 2005.