Aquinas on Kisses

[Kevin12]

I was recently reading a blog by a person who I can only describe as a radical traditionalist, possibly a sedevacantist but I’m not sure, who in a rant about the evils of kissing quoted Aquinas on “Whether there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses?” Here he says:

I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (I-II, 74, 8), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.

Now, to me it seems that Aquinas is talking about about kisses and touches outside of marriage. It would be particularly strange if it were the case that this isn’t what is meant, given that elsewhere, Aquinas says that even if a man has sex with his wife for pleasure rather than “the marriage goods” it is at most a venial sin. Anyway, this hysterical woman seemed to think that Aquinas viewed kissing and touching even in the context of marriage as equivalent to homosexuality or masturbation because they are not necessary for the procreative act, so any pleasure that comes therefrom is lust. She concludes:

“To be on the safe side and to become perfect, spouses should never touch, kiss or even see each other naked during intercourse. Kissing and touching before intercourse are also particularly problematic as they lead to intercourse that is not governed by a desire to procreate”

Now, I very much doubt even the sort of people on here who think Christoper West is the devil incarnate would agree with this (though I’ve eaten those sort of words before—there are plenty of Geocentrists and even some Feeneyites on this board), but I still can’t help but wonder, why didn’t Aquinas specify that he meant the unmarried if that’s what he meant? Because it does seem to be a possible reading of this quote that kissing is only licit in terms of something like a cultural greeting.

Now, I know that, there was a similar statement by Alexander VII:

“It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.”

But I have seen this quote paired with one by St. Alphonsus that might be a gloss on it, but in any case elaborates:

"This means that every time someone, with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, delights in carnal or sensual pleasure associated with someone with whom he is not married, he commits a mortal sin. This is not only true with kisses, but also with respect to other touches performed seeking the same type of pleasure. The reason is, the delight taken in that sort of pleasure, that is to say, the delight taken in stirring up appetites that surround the creative power is movement towards the marriage act.”

Now, this seems to be make more sense, and I’d like to think that this is probably what the Church teaches now. But the question I’m wondering about is, is the blogger right in her interpretation of Aquinas? There was a time when I would have brushed it off, but after I learned how close the Angelic Doctor’s views on predestination are to Calvin (and opposed to a Father like Ambrose who has I think a much better view)—well, for lack of a better expression, I just don’t trust him anymore, so for all I know, maybe he held, just like this anti-NPF lady, that overly sensual kissing is essentially the same as sodomy.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I’m no expert, but just looking at the text you quoted, I observe the language he uses – lustful pleasure. In other words, a desire that is in some way disordered.

Seeking pleasure for its own sake is disordered. Treating someone as an object is disordered. Deliberately getting yourself aroused over someone you’re not married to is disordered, since the purpose of such arousal is consummation. (Note: I did not say it is a sin to get aroused, but deliberately to bring it about, and escalate it, when it cannot be consummated, is contrary to right reason.)

It is not a sin to be sexually attracted to your wife, nor to take pleasure in the marital act; but it is a sin to lust after your wife – i.e. treat her as an object. Her being your wife doesn’t make her your property. She is a person who deserves your love–and yes, the full expression of that love, but not separated from love.

I think your rad trad friend is wrong, but I would rather err on that side, than on the side of “as long as you’re married, anything goes.”

 

[Kevin12]

The more I look at it, the more it seems obvious that Aquinas did not state that kisses and touches such as accompany the marital act are not mortally sinful, and that he was relating everything here to fornication. I should have seen this more clearly, as there were many obvious lapses in logic in this person’s interpretation of the passages, but I suppose I have lost trust in Aquinas to the extent that it seems there are many things I thought he would never say that he turns out to have said.

 

[Mintaka]

Re: “custom of the country” - Aquinas spent a lot of time in Paris, and there’s a reasonable belief that he and his teacher St. Albert both may have made short visits to England.

England and France were notorious for being very kissy to people who were nearly strangers, and in both medieval England and medieval France, that meant on the mouth, among both men and women. Kissing was a standard greeting and a standard farewell, and it was particularly important to kiss your lord or your boss. If the person was a good friend or comrade, you hear about knights hugging other knights and kissing them many times on the mouth, just as you hear about them doing to their parents, siblings, and other close, non-romantic family members. Ladies were expected to kiss guests and visitors on the mouth, too, although of course the ladies were expected to do it in a chaste way and the men were supposed to treat them respectfully.

England was a very kissy place from Saxon times until after King Henry VIII had done his Anglican thing (the resulting distrust of others killed it off), and Erasmus once described England as “full of kisses.” It is fair to say that the medieval ideal in England and France was that a man or a woman should be fairly demonstrative in this kind of greeting, as a sign of being open-hearted, sincere, and hospitable.

Various sorts of handclasps and armclasps, as well as handkissing (another big thing to do with your liege lord) were also part of the medieval scene, and handshakes started to appear late in the period. And yet the OP’s friend is not worried about lascivious handshakes, whereas Aquinas would probably be well aware that it could happen.

So yeah, St. Thomas Aquinas would have thought it was pretty stupid to say that nobody should kiss, particularly if that included husbands and wives.

From a modern perspective of science, we know that humans naturally touch other humans as part of being a family or being a group of allied humans, as well as for grooming each other (ie, it’s helpful to have a family member who can look at that thing on your back, or tell you that your hair is messy, or zip your dress when you can’t reach the zipper). That practice sometimes overlaps with touching for sexual or reproductive reasons, yes. But purely social touching is something that humans seem to need for comfort and well-being. Those who do not get it, particularly as children, tend to crave it more. (And if that mole on your back is doing something really weird, then having someone who can look at it and touch it and warn you about it – might be good for your health.)

So it would seem counterproductive to avoid all touching, except as a special regimen approved by one’s spiritual director or as part of a religious rule. Not getting touched at all might make you obsess about it more.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m no expert, but just looking at the text you quoted, I observe the language he uses – lustful pleasure. In other words, a desire that is in some way disordered.

Seeking pleasure for its own sake is disordered. Treating someone as an object is disordered. Deliberately getting yourself aroused over someone you’re not married to is disordered, since the purpose of such arousal is consummation. (Note: I did not say it is a sin to get aroused, but deliberately to bring it about, and escalate it, when it cannot be consummated, is contrary to right reason.)

It is not a sin to be sexually attracted to your wife, nor to take pleasure in the marital act; but it is a sin to lust after your wife – i.e. treat her as an object. Her being your wife doesn’t make her your property. She is a person who deserves your love–and yes, the full expression of that love, but not separated from love.

I think your rad trad friend is wrong, but I would rather err on that side, than on the side of “as long as you’re married, anything goes.”

Exactly what I think, too. Sexual pleasure in marriage is fine, but lust - no.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Re: “custom of the country” - Aquinas spent a lot of time in Paris, and there’s a reasonable belief that he and his teacher St. Albert both may have made short visits to England.

England and France were notorious for being very kissy to people who were nearly strangers, and in both medieval England and medieval France, that meant on the mouth, among both men and women. Kissing was a standard greeting and a standard farewell, and it was particularly important to kiss your lord or your boss. If the person was a good friend or comrade, you hear about knights hugging other knights and kissing them many times on the mouth, just as you hear about them doing to their parents, siblings, and other close, non-romantic family members. Ladies were expected to kiss guests and visitors on the mouth, too, although of course the ladies were expected to do it in a chaste way and the men were supposed to treat them respectfully.

England was a very kissy place from Saxon times until after King Henry VIII had done his Anglican thing (the resulting distrust of others killed it off), and Erasmus once described England as “full of kisses.” It is fair to say that the medieval ideal in England and France was that a man or a woman should be fairly demonstrative in this kind of greeting, as a sign of being open-hearted, sincere, and hospitable.

Various sorts of handclasps and armclasps, as well as handkissing (another big thing to do with your liege lord) were also part of the medieval scene, and handshakes started to appear late in the period. And yet the OP’s friend is not worried about lascivious handshakes, whereas Aquinas would probably be well aware that it could happen.

So yeah, St. Thomas Aquinas would have thought it was pretty stupid to say that nobody should kiss, particularly if that included husbands and wives.

From a modern perspective of science, we know that humans naturally touch other humans as part of being a family or being a group of allied humans, as well as for grooming each other (ie, it’s helpful to have a family member who can look at that thing on your back, or tell you that your hair is messy, or zip your dress when you can’t reach the zipper). That practice sometimes overlaps with touching for sexual or reproductive reasons, yes. But purely social touching is something that humans seem to need for comfort and well-being. Those who do not get it, particularly as children, tend to crave it more. (And if that mole on your back is doing something really weird, then having someone who can look at it and touch it and warn you about it – might be good for your health.)

So it would seem counterproductive to avoid all touching, except as a special regimen approved by one’s spiritual director or as part of a religious rule. Not getting touched at all might make you obsess about it more.

We still greet everyone with three kisses on the cheek in Switzerland and France. A sign of caring and affection, but absolutely nothing sexual about it.

 

[e_c]

It is really important for this issue (and almost every moral question on this forum) to understand Question 74 in the Prima Secunda.

newadvent.org/summa/2074.htm

It comes down to, what am I trying to do by this act - be cordial, express and receive intimacy (inside marriage or outside), prepare for complete intimacy (inside marriage or outside), or simulate the marital act by arousing the passions.

1. Being cordial - basically fine.
2. Express and receive - fine, provided it is within customary boundaries (which basically dictate our intentions for us in these situations) and does not become 3 or 4 (except if 3 is within marriage).
3. Preparing - fine within marriage.
4. Simulating - never okay, even within marriage.

Also, sometimes these pleasures come as an unintended (albeit foreseen) side-effect of “touches and kisses.” This has to be considered as well.

 

[Kevin12]

It is really important for this issue (and almost every moral question on this forum) to understand Question 74 in the Prima Secunda.

newadvent.org/summa/2074.htm

It comes down to, what am I trying to do by this act - be cordial, express and receive intimacy (inside marriage or outside), prepare for complete intimacy (inside marriage or outside), or simulate the marital act by arousing the passions.

1. Being cordial - basically fine.
2. Express and receive - fine, provided it is within customary boundaries (which basically dictate our intentions for us in these situations) and does not become 3 or 4 (except if 3 is within marriage).
3. Preparing - fine within marriage.
4. Simulating - never okay, even within marriage.

Also, sometimes these pleasures come as an unintended (albeit foreseen) side-effect of “touches and kisses.” This has to be considered as well.

What about kisses or touches that are simultaneous with the marital act? Though I can’t understand how it is even possible to engage therein without some kind of touches. The crux of my bafflement is that this person determined from the passage that “To be on the safe side and to become perfect, spouses should never touch, kiss or even see each other naked during intercourse.” I admit, it seems to me insane that Aquinas would really believe as this woman believed, but he has already betrayed me with things I have found in his writings before.

Also, to everyone else, it bears pointing out that social kisses have literally nothing to do with what I am talking about here, to the extent that I wonder if some people really read what I was asking. I know that social kisses are deemed acceptable by Aquinas, he says so right in the passage.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lust, even during marriage, is sinful, so Aquinas seems to be saying that if kisses, even during marriage, inflame lust, they are sinful.

 

[e_c]

Thomas is not suggesting what this blogger you read is saying. Delighting in what one is licitly doing is not sinful (i.e., enjoying, and acting to increase enjoyment of, the marital act within marriage when that act is done in an ordered way). Thomas elsewhere, if I remember correctly, suggests that it is difficult to sin during the marital act because the intense pleasure inhibits the intellect to the point where it no longer functions properly at all, like if one was dreaming (or in extreme pain, fear, etc.).

…And I don’t think he “betrayed” you either.

 

[Kevin12]

…And I don’t think he “betrayed” you either.

I certainly felt betrayed when I realized how close Aquinas’s teaching on predestination is to Augustine and, yes, to Calvin. I think this article from The Catholic Encyclopedia points out just how problematic his view is, not to mention that it was not even by any other Father than Augustine (according to the article at least).

I just want to note, I know a lot of Thomists might feel the need to defend him on that point, but please do not, I have no desire to speak of it further.