Reason I’m Not a Catholic, #69

I’m quite happily married to a Catholic cutie. We married in a Catholic church. My son attended a Catholic School through 6th grade. Hell, I attend a Catholic church almost every Sunday with my family. I’ve been asked a number of times by a number of people – include our priest, who I like and respect a great deal – why I don’t just convert.

There are copious reasons (that I’m not particularly interested in getting into here today), but I just added one more today thanks to this tidbit on Catholic Theology and Oral Pleasure explaining how the Church does not allow oral sex, even as part of foreplay:

The first and practical reason, admitted by all the traditional authors, is that there is a concrete danger of completing the act before natural intercourse can begin. The similarity of the stimulation caused by oral relations to natural intercourse makes it likely that from time to time, at least, if a couple uses this means of stimulation, the man will ejaculate before natural intercourse. This would make the relations non-procreative, and thus wrong.

Shall we cue up a little Monty Python? Yes, why don’t we…

The second and moral reason is that, unfortunately, a couple may develop a concrete preference for oral stimulation over natural sexual intercourse—what St. Alphonsus calls an affectus sodomiticus, an attraction to sodomitical sex. So they get into the situation emotionally of preferring an unnatural act and having the natural one only because they are morally bound to. This is all the more common in our time where many young people engage in oral sex exclusively so as to avoid conception, and once they are married, they end up preferring it.

A preference for unnatural sex? For shame… [g]od forbid we – consensually, of course, always – pleasure our spouse or accept pleasure from them in a manner that might not at least potentially conceive a child.

This being said, even the relatively (but not completely) austere St. Alphonsus allows oral contact with the spouse’s genitals obiter, that is, “in passing,” as a brief expression of reverence or affection without oral penetration. That ought to be romantic enough for anyone and would avoid developing an affection for an unnatural act.

Oh, good, I can at least get a little head/give a quick lick, so long as it occurs ‘in passing’, whatever the hell that means. Oh, wait, reading that again, maybe not even that. ‘Oral penetration’? What are we even talking about here?

And then having some celibate-but-sex-obsessed way-too-self-important man telling me that anything ‘ought to be romantic enough for anyone? Puh-lease.

Of course, the man may help his spouse manually to reach completion, as long as he does before or after her and in the natural manner.

Of course, before or after, in the natural manner 🙄

So, today’s reason in a nutshell: Any god that is looking down from their lofty perch and condemns me because I’m showing my love for my spouse incorrectly is simply not my god.

Cue up the boys again…

Happy Valentine’s Day! Celebrate in whatever manner you both see fit!

🙇👅🍆