Embarrassing question about marital activity
#1
I'll try to ask this super embarrassing question that's bothering me and my wife in the most non-scandalizing way possible (but it's probably not a good idea to read this if you're not married and avoiding all sexual thoughts).

My wife and I haven't been married very long and we are both very conservative/traditional when it comes to sexual matters, and the only way we've departed from "missionary" intercourse is that I often will perform oral sex on her before we have intercourse. Since we're both so new to the whole sex thing, I honestly usually have a problem lasting very long because I still feel overwhelmed by how good she looks, so this really helps that problem.

My wife really likes this but says that she's worried that this is like engaging in masturbation, so she is struggling with guilt over it. She's also so embarrassed about it that she's terrified of me asking our priest about this even in confession, and just talking about it makes her turn extremely red so I'm trying to spare her any unnecessary embarrassment by asking in anonymity. So is doing this a sin, or is it morally fine as long as it's done before having intercourse that's open to life (I'm assuming it's definitely a mortal sin if it isn't part of intercourse)?   
Reply
#2
Go here: http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

Scroll down to the section called "Marriage" and listen to the conference on "Chastity."

I believe that this priest addresses precisely your question (and probably other questions you might have) in this 45-minute conference.  It is well worth listening to.
Reply
#3
There should actually be a really easy answer for this.  Based on what I have read, it is my personal opinion that this is not sinful at all.  If I was a priest, I would tell you it's actually a sign of great love on your part and would have no problem advising you in that way.  A great number of men have no regard whatever for whether their wife enjoys physical intimacy in the way we now know women can (i.e., potentially much longer than men are ever capable).  Since we know this biological fact now, my argument would be that moral theologians need to consider it when they finally start writing better books on the subject of marriage.
Reply
#4
I haven't listened to the talk ermy_law posted yet, but based on everything I've read, as well as the logic of the church's teaching on sex, I don't see anything wrong with what you describe. In fact, you say you haven't "departed from missionary intercourse" which is not required. The church has no list of approved positions for sexual intercourse.

In fact, I suspect that much of the neuroticism of some Catholics about sex comes from the oddness of the world around us more than from the church itself.  Because the church rightly rejects birth control, it differs from the world and appears to be limiting and rule-filled.  The fact that a couple practicing Catholic sexual morality differs from the couples around them I'm this significant way, Catholics feel a need to ask about every little thing.

I would argue this is an area where it is best to live one's life within the established boundaries but without much concern about anything within those boundaries. The mechanics of sexual activity are (hopefully) more of a mystery to the Pope than to most married couples. I am certainly not arguing that celibates have no right to speak on sexual issues, but when it comes to those aspects of sex that the couple discovers for themselves as they live out their marriage I think they can get along without priestly guidance.

That said, if someone feels guilt about something perhaps there is a problem. It could be her conscience is not well formed, or it could be that such activity is somehow a near occasion of sin for her.  I think it is essential for a couple to discuss these things.
Reply
#5
And you wonder why your priest will nit give you guys absolution  LOL

Anyway, the lecture below might be of use. Feser addresses this very question you have. I'd add, though, to not be over legalistic (in the sense that "if its not a sin then let's abuse it!"), but have a reverence in the marital act, with a deep respect for your wife--sex is not a bit of pleasure, but is a symbol of the gift of self.


Reply
#6
Ok.  I listened to the section of this conference addressing the issue of oral sex.  Not only does this priest not address the exact issues of the OP, but he says something in my opinion reprehensible.  He says that the woman should or is allowed to stimulate herself to the point of orgasm as long as copulation follows immediately.  That is ok, but what the OP describes is NOT?

This is sick beyond my comprehension.  If I was a woman and was told this, I would be inclined to slap the priest who told me and would most certainly report him to my bishop.

Matt:

You need to be very careful who you listen to on this subject.  Some traditionalist priests actually shouldn't be trying to apply some of the opinions of ancient moralists to the modern context.  I know traditionalists like to think that what ALL modern moralists say is unreliable, but this is simply not true.
Reply
#7
(01-11-2016, 08:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: And you wonder why your priest will nit give you guys absolution  LOL

Excuse me?  Where does the OP say their priest won't give them absolution...?
Reply
#8
(01-11-2016, 08:14 PM)Joseph11 Wrote:
(01-11-2016, 08:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: And you wonder why your priest will nit give you guys absolution  LOL

Excuse me?  Where does the OP say their priest won't give them absolution...?

here.

(01-11-2016, 08:13 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: You need to be very careful who you listen to on this subject.  Some traditionalist priests actually shouldn't be trying to apply some of the opinions of ancient moralists to the modern context.

Modernism much?

What exactly has changed in the nature of human beings and in the essence of marriage that "old" moral law does not apply, and one must go seek the proper modern moralist?
Reply
#9
.
Reply
#10
(01-11-2016, 08:29 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(01-11-2016, 08:14 PM)Joseph11 Wrote:
(01-11-2016, 08:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: And you wonder why your priest will nit give you guys absolution  LOL

Excuse me?  Where does the OP say their priest won't give them absolution...?

The priest has responsibilities.  He's fulfilling them.  At least he's able to recognize they have no choice but to live in the same building.  I applaud him for that.

You may not have noticed it, but you assumed the role of their moral judge just right here:

(01-11-2016, 08:00 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote: And you wonder why your priest will nit give you guys absolution  LOL

As a human being, you have no such role.

Quote:
(01-11-2016, 08:13 PM)Joseph11 Wrote: You need to be very careful who you listen to on this subject.  Some traditionalist priests actually shouldn't be trying to apply some of the opinions of ancient moralists to the modern context.

Modernism much?

What exactly has changed in the nature of human beings and in the essence of marriage that "old" moral law does not apply, and one must go seek the proper modern moralist?

Not modernism.  Moral theology.  The Church can change its discipline and application of the moral law based on a genuinely better understanding of WHY and HOW human beings are the way they are  (notice I say genuinely better).  St. Alphonsus himself was considered a liberal by his Jansenist opponents.

Modernism, by the way, is a denial of God's transcendence.  It's a denial of the Unseen, the Invisible.  Ultimately, it substitutes God with the universe.  That's why Tailhard de Chardin wrote the books he wrote.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)