Learn Something New Every Day
Jonathan Rowe on Nov 1st 2006 09:47 am |
This was something I was unsure of, but I’m glad Ed Feser clarified. Or maybe some Roman Catholics disagree. I’ll have more to say on the entirety of Feser’s post, which replies to Andrew Sullivan’s discussion of his work in The Conservative Soul, later. But for now, I note, I was unsure whether doctrinaire Catholicism ever permitted oral sex between married couples. According to Feser, it does.
For example, Sullivan describes a “Catholic married couple who live their lives according to natural law in every respect” as one who “never engage in any sexual act that does not result in the penis depositing semen in a vagina” (p. 84). If what he means by this is that the Catholic Church or natural law theory forbids acts like fellatio and cunnilingus even between married people, he is mistaken. What is forbidden is taking fellatio to the point of orgasm, or taking cunnilingus to orgasm outside the overall context of a completed act of intercourse; it is not necessarily forbidden to indulge in them as foreplay to an act of intercourse that results in ejaculation within the vagina. Perhaps Sullivan realizes this, but if so he should have expressed himself more clearly, since he is bound to give unwary readers the impression that natural law and Catholic teaching are more restrictive than they really are.
Is there an official Catholic document on this? I would think that fellatio would still be forbidden. It really depends on the man, and his “trigger.” But wouldn’t allowing a married couple to engage in fellatio greatly “risk” seed spilling outside a woman’s vagina? Perhaps fellatio to the point of erection would be okay. But fellating an erect penis? I would think a Thomistic Catholic would say: “No way.”
Filed in Uncategorized
There’s not an “official” Catholic document of which I’m aware, but Feser’s argument certainly seems to me to follow from Natural Law. As the telos of the sexual act is procreation, activities that assist with that goal are permitted. Oral sex as foreplay is thus acceptable as it stimulates both male and female and thus assists with actual intercourse.
And it should go without saying that neither partner is permitted to take pleasure in oral sex except as a prelude to intercourse. Finding pleasure in the foreplay for its own sake would violate the natural law argument for permitting it in the first place.
Of course, you’ll probably never find a priest or church official who will go on record as following that reasoning to its logical conclusion: that married couples who are unable to procreate aren’t permitted to engage in sexual contact of any kind as such would be outside the telos of sex. Not to mention that they shouldn’t even be married. UIVMM, you’ve commented on this hypocrisy before…
Thanks. I’m waiting to see if there are any Catholics who would say, “no Feser is wrong, that is not allowed.”
As I understood it, the old and infertile could still have sex within marriage, so long as semen was deposited in the vagina each and every time. The reason for sex, in Catholic teaching, is not only procreation, but also to reinforce the union of the couple and to prevent fornication and lustful thoughts. Paul says so explicitly, and I don’t know of any attempt to finesse this one away.
I do wonder, though, about guys who… there’s no delicate way to put this… dribble a lot beforehand. Perhaps the advice for them is to put it in as soon as possible.
If the Thomistic Catholic were strictly Thomistic, he wouldn’t have grounds for saying ‘No Way’. Aquinas is very clear that there are six categories of lust (simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice), and the only one of these to which fellatio could apply is ‘the unnatural vice’, which Aquinas more or less defines as the disposition of character that arises from engaging in sexual acts (of any kind) while deliberately or knowingly hindering their procreative tendency. By supposition, this wouldn’t be so in the case suggested by Feser.
And note that on Thomistic principles it doesn’t actually depend on the man’s ‘trigger’ or where the semen is ‘deposited’; a strictly Thomistic account of sex would be all about intent and consent — what you are intending to do, and what you are consenting to in doing it. Genuine accidents don’t count because neither intent nor consent arise in such cases; and whether it is wise to take a risk in any given case is on Aquinas’s account of practical reason a matter to be decided by the individual’s cultivated prudence, not general rules. So a strictly Thomistic account would be in some ways less restrictive than what Feser’s account sounds like. If there are stricter Catholic views — I wouldn’t be surprised if there were — it would have to be on principles other than Thomistic.
Re Snedden’s claim about the ‘logical conclusion’, Jason’s quite right: Catholic theology of sex can’t hold that procreation is the only telos of sex; marital union and ‘remedy’ are also ends of sexual acts, both of which are sanctioned by Scripture itself, and any one of the three is sufficient to make the sex act OK, if it is done in a way that doesn’t deliberately and knowingly hinder the others, and if there is no additional impediment tending to sin (e.g., if there are special vows that would be violated or if one of the persons would be violating their conscience in doing so). The real problem with most Catholic arguments on the subject, and the point at which some Catholics can indeed get hypocritical, is with the tendency to try to argue everything on procreation alone.
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.
Oral sex for a married couple is a gravely disordered abominable act. It does nothing but defile the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, darken the soul and block the Grace of God.
Do not be deceived by the argument that these acts – borrowed from the disordered and diabolical behavior of homosexuals – serve to strengthen the bond between husband and wife. Allowing these insidious acts into your marriage creates a fissure, which ultimately will severely damage your marriage or completely destroy it altogether.
Advice to follow one’s conscience on the subject is permissible provided one’s conscience has been properly formed in accordance with the truths of the Catholic Church. Anything less is spiritual suicide.
_________________________________________________________
“Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has 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.”
[...] …on my post where I noted Ed Feser’s post informing that Thomistic/Catholic teachings allow for oral sex between married couples provided the act in no way frustrates the procreative purpose of sex — in other words, if it’s done as “foreplay” to intercourse, but not as a completed act in itself. [...]
As far as I know, there is no Church teaching on the issue. (I had heard that some pope was asked about this and had no objection, but have not tracked down the source of the story.)
The reason that the Roman Church is right on this matter is that its position is firmly based on the holy scriptures. While “Thou shalt not…” commit unnatural (unnatural for humans – it’s irrelevant whether some brutes or insects do something that looks to us like similar acts) acts is not listed in the ten commandments or the laws mentioned in the Bible, in so many words, such acts are contrary to the design of the human body as created by the LORD God.
Such acts have been characteristic of pagans and degenerate people for thousands of years, just as theft, rape, child sacrifice, false witness and other immoral acts have been.
If the question is phrased with “does ____________________ (insert name of act) please the LORD God,” then perhaps it may be easier to determine the morality of such behavior.
Why were Adam and Eve, and all their descendants, made this way? Holy writ states that it is for the purpose of (1) raising up a godly seed; (2) bonding the male and female in marriage. That a “seed” (offspring) often results when the male and female are not bonding (such as prostitution and other illicit sexual relations) places the purpose primarily as procreation.
Now, objections are made that many males and females are not capable of procreating together. But this is not their fault if they are not engaging an unnatural behavior. A husband or wife who has lost the ability to procreate does not do wrong by engaging in the act, as it promotes bonding of the husband and wife. The post-menopausal woman is not wrong in continuing her marital relations with her husband. Abraham and Sarah apparently continued marital relations long after she was past her normal time of life for childbearing (past menopause), for when God so chose, she became pregnant and bore Isaac. This was not an instance of virgin procreation as was the case with Mary.
While there is no direct prohibition, or even mention, of self-stimulation, it should be evident that if it is preferred to lawful natural relations (with one’s lawful spouse) it would be contrary to the design of the LORD God. The unmarried man or woman who has natural desires but does not seek a spouse, venting the natural urges in solitude, surely does not reasonably convince him- or herself that such behavior is in harmony with the will of God. The apostle Paul expressed this as recommending that most should be married; only those who were able to put aside the desires of the flesh should eschew marriage.
These precepts cannot be expected to be understood by the unconverted, the uncircumcised of heart: only by those who desire to be in harmony with the will of God can they be easily accepted.
most of what i read here is about how many angels on a pin. lets get down to it. jesus–founder of roman catholic church-came here to show us how to, not just be happy, but happiest, for the long term. catholic theologians have discussed for centuries what makes ‘man’ the happiest. in other words, how do i get to heaven?
they have decided re sex that the best way to hit the home run is both for sexual fulfilment and procreation-cause it results in great things-specifically kids ( they are under the impression that if we like one another -we’ll really like the kids which result) sexual happiness at its very best is when there is total abandonment/risk/trust/faith/ etc with the other party—foolin around doing this or that is minor stuff—details—the point being that the church wants you to be totally fulfilled—and total fulfillment means meaning what you are doing, and doing what you mean. sincere love
The question of oral sex is not trivial. As our search hits indicate, many people would like to know the answer to this question. Whether this is because of their desire to obey the strictures of the church or whether they are merely being prurient, I do not know. But then, when a church makes rules about this sort of thing, it does invite a prurient interest.
Actually, oral sex for a married couple appears completely permissable, even to the point of orgasm. Read the Song of Solomon:
First there is a clear reference to fellatio, including orgasm:
Song of Solomon 2:3:
Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men.
In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Throughout the Song of Solomon fruit refers to the male genitals. In extra biblical literature, fruit is sometimes equated with the male genitals or with semen.
The second reference is to cunnilingus in 4:16:
Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
Solomon’s bride actually requests him to come south (down) and to blow upon her garden (a consistent reference in the poem to the vagina) and cause its spices to flow out, and then to eat it’s pleasant fruits.
These both, while poetic, seem very clear, especially given that there are two references, and that both – while poetic – are highly explicit.
Kevin,
To a Protestant fundamentalist that might convice. But such interpretation would still violate a fundamental tenet of Thomism, i.e., Catholic teaching.
Since I am neither Protestant nor a fundamentalist, I wouldn’t really know. And I have to admit, it’s been about 20 years since I read Summa Theologica in its entirety.
That said, I don’t see that a Biblical love poem violates a fundamental tenet of Thomism – assuming from that you mean the natural law argument – nor that there is much interpretation involved. The language of the poem is – to steal an old phrase “intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.” The poem clear that a primary and natural purpose of men and of women is to love each other with a specified context. To use a procreative-only natural law argument one would in essence have to divide men and women into bits and consider ONLY their reproductive organs separately from the rest of the body to which it is intimately connected. Such an argument is of course ridiculous since following this approach – if I considered reproductive organs I would conclude from natural law that people should only (or primarily) reproduce – or if I consider a brain I would conclude that people should only (or primarily) think.
But none of that is the case. The human body is a complex and wholistic organism. Certainly we know enough today about the psyche of men and women to understand that sex is GENERALLY an important part of health.
It would seem then, that the Thomistic argument argues FOR a loving male/female relationship as clearly given within the Song of Solomon, not against it.
Kevin,
You make a good argument against what the Thomists believe. I am not a Thomist; therefore, I’m not going to defend their argument. They would argue, at best, oral sex is permissible only if done as “foreplay,” to get private parts ready for reproductive sex. However, regarding fellatio, that still risks “spilling” seed in a place where it, according to them, doesn’t belong. So some Thomists argue against oral sex under any circumstances.
If you want to debate the merits of this theory — that sex must be procreative, or else it is immoral — I would suggest going to the Right Reason website and trying to engage Edward Feser or Alexander Pruss who left a comment above.
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/