What does the Church Teach about Oral Sex?
Some surprising answers to a common question
One of the most common (and frequent) questions Busted Halo gets from people is, What exactly does the Catholic Church teach about oral sex? It is an understandable question that is not easily answered with a simple yes or no response. The fact is, the Church’s teachings can’t be compartmentalized into questions on only one form of sexual expression. In order to understand what the church says about oral sex, one must first be aware of the Church’s teachings on the nature and purpose of all sexual expression.
First and foremost, the Church reserves all sex for marriage. This is not simply a way to restrict our natural sexual impulses, but rather to use them for what they were properly intended, namely for procreation of children and to build unity between husband and wife. Even Pope Benedict has spoken openly of his concern that limiting the Church’s attention on sex to “just moral prohibitions” can lead people to “have the impression that the church’s real function is only to condemn and restrict life. Perhaps too much has been said and too often in this direction—without the necessary connection to truth and love.”
While you won’t read any definitive lines in the Catholic Catechism when it comes to oral sex, the church does draw some directives from its traditional teaching on sexuality to provide some guidance. Many people are surprised to hear that even within marriage, the church makes a distinction between oral “sex” and oral stimulation. If we define oral sex as orally stimulating the male partner to orgasm, then the church would prohibit that even for married couples.
Getting Specific
Two books that offer specific directions about the Catholic Church’s teaching on oral sex are Christopher West’s Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2000) and Vincent Genovesi’s In Pursuit of Love: Catholic Morality and Human Sexuality (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996).
Christopher West is a popularizer of the “Theology of the Body” based on Pope John Paul II’s book Love and Responsibility. He has written several books and articles on the subject, and in Good News About Sex , which is a practical summary of this theology, West offers some instances in which oral stimulation (stimulating genitals but not to the point of ejaculation) is perhaps acceptable within marriage:
- Foreplay: If it is used in the act of foreplay that leads to sexual intercourse where the male climaxes into the female, then oral stimulation is certainly permissible for a couple to engage in within marriage.
- The Big O: If a man was able to orgasm during sexual intercourse but his wife did not, he may bring his wife to orgasm after intercourse in whatever way he chooses (manual or oral stimulation). West writes, “Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration.”
- No substitutions, please: Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse, but oral stimulation can be used to lead a couple to vaginal intercourse. Pope Benedict also points couples towards discovering love within sex instead of settling for substitutions for the real thing, stating: “No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery.”
- Men: No sex 4u: The reverse, however, is prohibited. A man’s orgasm is always tied to his fertility so therefore the church states that oral sex that would end with a male orgasm outside of sexual intercourse is not permissible.
- Intimacy Over Arousal: Not every single sexual act, per se, need be procreative, but within a “sexual session,” if you will, there needs to be openness to procreative activity. So there can certainly be oral stimulation throughout sexual activity within marriage, but if one is using oral sex simply to avoid pregnancy yet achieve orgasms, then one is limiting their sexual union to merely give arousal rather than intimacy.
- Premature ejaculation?: For something to be sinful there needs to be both intent and full knowledge of that intention to do evil. If one were to get very turned on and orgasm prematurely, that indeed is not a sinful act. Accidents happen. One needs to be mindful of their intention to sin.




Nice article, very informative.
Yes…Nice Article Mike. I’m still not sure though why the church is so concerned with procreation. Would it be a sin (in the eyes of the church) for a married couple to never have kids? I think in oral sex (while neither supporting nor criticizing it), if a man climaxes outside of a woman, he neither provides opportunity for life nor kills any life. This seems to very closely related to the church’s position on condoms. Are all married couples supposed to either have 10 kids or have sex twice in their lives? I guess that’s where NFP comes in….but even that would be an action with the intention of preventing procreation! Let’s be honest…I’m confused.
Excellent piece, Mike! Something that all readers of my Pure Sex, Pure Love column should consult as well…
Very informative article, but seems to assume that procreation is always possible. What if the wife is unable to conceive or, as happens, is unable to have intercourse? Why should lovemaking that leads to ejaculation in these circumstances be sinful?
But what is wrong with bringing your wife to orgasm if we do not have intercourse? No fertility is lost. Pleasure cannot in itself be evil. This is truer when is oral sex is an expression of affection and passionate devotion.
Great article Mike. Marc to respnd to your comments. NFP is not preventing creation. All necessary elements are present God can still act to create a human soul even when a man and woman are sure that they are not fertile at the time of intercourse. Many will attest that he He does still create even when couples are using NFP methods that are 98 – 99% effective in avoiding pregnancy. Think of it this way if God intended a woman to conceive everytime a husband and wife have sex then why didn’t He make woman fertile all the time as men are? It is because He wanted husbands and wives to enjoy the unitive nature of the marital embrace even when a child is not the product. NFP allows the option to avoid pregnancy when we discern, through prayer, that having a child at that particular time would not be prudent, but is still open to creation.
My wife is not Catholic and had her tubes tied when she was in her early twenties. We had all the children she could comfortably raise and decided she did not want to have any more. So, since it is impossible for her to have any more children (and is now in her 60’s), does that mean that any kind of sexual climax is OK for me, including oral sex since procreation is not humanly possible in our situation?
What about the mental attachment that a person can have after giving oral sex. Example, become mentally obsessed with your wife genitals? (I think this should be also considered, because it can be enslaving). Also women can get obsessed with the man’s genitals. There is a lot of evidence of that (sex addicts, etc.).
I think if it is OK to perform oral sex, it should be discontinued if it is becoming a vice for anyone of the couple.
Sorry. Isn’t there a source where the Church says what is a sexual perversion and what isn’t?. Because any perversion is bad (is demonic in its origin). I think it would be important for the Church to clearly define this. Officialy. (Sorry for not putting all my comments in one).
Tom and Gerardo–
Tom the answer is no here. There is the unitive aspect of sex that needs to be part of this as we said above: “Oral sex or stimulation can never be used as a replacement for sexual intercourse. Stimulation is another matter.
And Gerardo, we’re not specifically talking about addiction here, but you make a good point, but there’s lots to consider. See our series “Skin Deep” at http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/skin-deep-part-1/
It seems a little restrictive if the male, despite using medicine to overcome impotency, that a married couple’s days of intimacy are over because male penetration is not possible and oral sex is the only way to achieve a climax for both of the couples. But, it appears that if the male ejaculates while trying to have sex it is all right to perform oral sex on the spouse. Am I missing something?
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.