Can Spouses Engage in Any Oral Stimulation Outside the Conjugal Act?

In the past, our Apostolate has tackled whether or not oral stimulation can be done as preludes to the conjugal act. But in this article, we want to answer whether limited expressions of oral stimulation could be done even outside the conjugal act itself, outside a proximate danger of orgasm.

---

In light of the article we wrote on the moral permissibility of incomplete expressions of sexual pleasure between spouses outside the conjugal act, several people have been asking for more clarity on which incomplete acts would be able to make the cut and which acts would need to be reserved for the conjugal act itself. To be more precise, some ask whether it could conceivably be morally permissible for spouses to engage in more overt foreplay-type sexual acts such as oral-genital stimulation outside the conjugal act so long as there is no foreseen proximate danger of causing an orgasm in either the wife or the husband. 

In answering this question, we must remain clear headed about what precisely makes an incomplete expression of sexual love between spouses mortally sinful, regardless of how “obscene” or overtly sexual it may seem. Remember, moral theology is a science, and as a science, one’s feelings or emotional intuitions about an act, even a sexual act, must give way to the objective rational and theological criteria which must at all times govern Catholic moral discernment. Keeping this in mind, what precisely makes a sexual act morally sinful between married couples? Most moralists are agreed that only the following conditions categorically render a sexual act mortally sinful between spouses: adultery (this would include all forms of pornography), masturbation (i.e., onanism or pollution which includes both artificial insemination or any deliberate provocation of an unjustified risk of orgasm outside the marital act), contraception, marital rape, or any sexual act that is intentionally meant to signify something gravely evil (such as, for example, simulated acts rape or fornication).

Short of these acts, sexual sins between spouses, at least categorically, would not exceed venial sin. Therefore, when discussing the morality of incomplete sexual acts between spouses, we must simply ask whether any said incomplete sexual act involves any of the aforementioned sins. 

Now there are two sins one could argue could very well be present if spouses engage in oral-genital stimulation outside a mutual intention to consummate this stimulation through intercourse: an unjustified risk of orgasm outside the conjugal act or an inordinate or hedonistic preoccupation with sexual pleasure. Remember, we have already proved that, in general, spouses can licitly enjoy mutual incomplete sexual acts. St. Alphonsus held this view, and while he did not approve of oral-genital contact even as foreplay, most moralists of the last century thought his moral reasoning pertaining to simulated intercourse was unsound, as it was, in their view, grounded more in his sense of custom than in the natural law itself. More on that in a future article. Therefore, if we suppose (as we have shown before) that oral-genital contact is a permissible form of sexual foreplay leading up to the marriage act, then it would seem the only circumstance which could even in principle make it a mortal sin for spouses to engage in oral-genital stimulation outside an intention to perform the conjugal act would be if such stimulation necessarily constituted a proximate danger of orgasm outside conjugal intercourse. Typically, moralists would say that such a proximate danger is realized when the subject becomes aware that if such stimulation were to continue, there is a greater likelihood than not that pollution would ensue. Otherwise, the danger would  be remote. 

Given this understanding of what constitutes a proximate danger of pollution, it becomes quite clear that this will on some level vary from person to person. What may constitute a proximate danger of pollution for some, may for others be remote, and for such people, the only danger it seems to me would be for this to become an occasion for an inordinate preoccupation for sexual pleasure. This, however, would constitute a venial sin as opposed to a mortal sin, and it is not by any means clear to me that every instance would necessarily involve such an inordinate preoccupation. Fr. Felix Cappello (Servant of God) knew this quite well when he commented on this very issue:

“Those are called imperfect acts, in which the ultimate termination of venereal acts does not occur, which is the full effusion of semen (or the full resolution of nature, i.e., orgasm). Such are touches, kisses, embraces, obscene words. These acts, even if they are not directed to the marriage act, are licit if they are performed for some honorable purpose, e.g. to foster mutual love, and there is no imminent danger of pollution; they constitute a venial sin if they are performed for pleasure alone. Some make an exception for certain extremely obscene acts, e.g. inserting the genitals into a woman's mouth, … licking the genitals, etc., which are sometimes performed between spouses. These acts, however, are not condemned as grave sins precisely because they are obscene, but because they can hardly ever be performed without imminent danger of pollution; Hence, if it were de facto clear that in certain persons those acts of this kind do not induce danger …, they would not be gravely sinful.” [1]

Therefore, so long as this proximate danger of pollution is avoided and spouses practice moderation and restraint in opting for this expression of sexual love, they can engage in these mutual acts together without any stain of sin on their consciences. 

---

Footnotes:

 Fr. Felix Cappello, SJ, Tractatus Canonico Moralis, De Sacramentis