Condemnation of Kissing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter smileyscout
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
smileyscout said:
EDIT: Well at least I have corroborating evidence that the source of the quote from Pope Alexander VII exists thanks to Time from 1956.

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824439,00.html
Click to expand...
The quote by Alexander VII seems to say that kissing, with no intent to go farther, is a venial sin, not a mortal.

There are two fundamental church documents on kissing, answered the journal’s theological advisers: one by the Council of Vienne (1311-12), one by Pope Alexander VII, who reigned from 1655 to 1667. Both agree that if two unwed people kiss with intent to fornicate, they commit mortal sin, whether or not fornication follows. But if there is no such intention, if the kiss is only "a carnal delight limited to the act of kissing . . . if further consequences are neither indulged in nor thought of, the sin is only a venial sin."
Read more: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824439,00.html#ixzz0lyMpjyue
 
I read the quoted passage of Father Morrow, and I listened to the quoted passage of the audio file.

I don’t have any solid answers, just some thoughts.

1 I would NEVER argue that couples who choose not to kiss until they are married are doing anything wrong, or that they are crazy. That is a personal decision, and it should be honored, and even respected. I don’t think they are making that decision

2 The quotes seem to say that anything that causes a person to experience sexual desire/pleasure should be avoided. I don’t see a theological problem with this, but a practical one. Every adult knows from experience that even looking at someone can spark desire/pleasure. A couple sitting across the table at the restaurant staring intently into each other’s eyes know this first hand. They are experiencing desire/pleasure by doing staring into each other’s eyes. Is this sinful?

3 If it is sinful to look at a person of the opposite sex, since this can lead to arousal, should we avoid looking at the opposite sex entirely? A poster on another thread (I think it was presidentjlh sorry if that’s wrong! :)) said that he was doing this to avoid temptation, and was criticized for this.

Some societies have even tried this wholesale. In Korea, Confucius was very influential (moreso than in China!) and he taught that men and women should never occupy the same space after the age of seven. Women were only allowed out of the house a specific time of day, and the city would ring a bell to let all the men know that they needed to go inside so that they wouldn’t be outside (in the same space) at the same time as the women were outside. Those women were the lucky ones; some women never even left the house or their gardens.

These rules also held for the Korean emperor. He was only permitted to be in the same space as his wife during the night, in their sleeping quareters. During the day, he could not be in the same room with her. Sitting down and eating dinner with her would be a massive taboo.

Now, I DON’T think that the “no kissing” people are actually arguing for this. **However, I don’t think that they can argue against it without compromising on their principles. If doing anything that can arouse sexual desire and pleasure is sinful, why not embrace these examples? If we should be extra careful to avoid the occasion to sin, why not go above and beyond and simply **

4 I have to admit Father Morrow’s suggestion is far more permissive than I would have expected, or would have advised myself!

“For the committed Christian, and indeed anyone committed to chastity, kissing in courtship should be limited to saying goodnight and should be done standing. A man courting a young woman might kiss her tenderly, slowly,once… twice, and then hug her warmly. After this he says some complimentary words of love, says goodnight, and gives her a final gentle kiss” :eek:

To be honest, I would consider that an occasion to sin. Though that could just be me. 😊

5 I definitely agree that passionate kissing/French kissing, etc should not be permitted. I don’t think that’s even up for discussion.
 
valient_Lucy said:
The quote by Alexander VII seems to say that kissing, with no intent to go farther, is a venial sin, not a mortal.

There are two fundamental church documents on kissing, answered the journal’s theological advisers: one by the Council of Vienne (1311-12), one by Pope Alexander VII, who reigned from 1655 to 1667. Both agree that if two unwed people kiss with intent to fornicate, they commit mortal sin, whether or not fornication follows. But if there is no such intention, if the kiss is only "a carnal delight limited to the act of kissing . . . if further consequences are neither indulged in nor thought of, the sin is only a venial sin."
Read more: time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824439,00.html#ixzz0lyMpjyue
Click to expand...
Time is not going to be of course a theological source…and as we know secular media often get theological sources etc wrong.

As noted above…there is a chaste kissing and a kissing that is sinful…

as for sexual pleasure …it is important to distinguish from direct sexual pleasure and indirect…catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=36447

one needs to know oneself …
 
You will get any number of responses on what is and is not sinful or allowed between all kinds of couples.

Let me clarify; before finding this site, I spent over a year following a website where Catholic priests answered questions form visitors on a monthly basis. I stopped visiting once I saw the answer to a persons question on foreplay for married couples, in which the priest linked them to a document saying that a couple should never touch, fondle, caressmanually stimulate or orally stimulate each other’s privates, and that the woman’s pleasure is of no consequence, since she is available only to bare children. I was appalled. I couldn’t imagine any church teachings that married couples are mortally sinning by touching one another. I think this was written by a canonized saint to boot.

Anyway, the point is, you’ll hear every answer fro here to Sunday about sexual morality.

My opinion? I’m not a Duggar, darn it. I don’t feel like jumping my boyfriend when I kiss him goodnight. It’s not hard to tell when your little pecks are crossing the line into temptation. Don’t be stupid, stop when you feel things are getting too heated, and you’ll be fine. If I listened to every priest I ever read from on the internet, I would not be not using a computer, never watching another film as long as I live, wearing a mumu over a turtleneck and just praying for God to somehow land a husband in my lap

No, I’m being serious. Some of the links people send you on this site!
 
shondrea said:
Let me clarify; before finding this site, I spent over a year following a website where Catholic priests answered questions form visitors on a monthly basis.
Click to expand...
Which website is that? (post or PM me, thanks)
 
Ron_Conte said:
Which website is that? (post or PM me, thanks)
Click to expand...
I believe it was, like, Catholic Views ask a priest? You can find it easily by Googleing

At the time, I thought it was a wonderful resource, but now, I realize that a great number of answers they gave were not Catholic answers, such as regarding masturbation.
 
shondrea said:
At the time, I thought it was a wonderful resource, but now, I realize that a great number of answers they gave were not Catholic answers, such as regarding masturbation.
Click to expand...
There were some answers on that site that are contrary to Catholic teaching, such as the claim that masturbation is not a mortal sin, the claim that IVF is not a mortal sin, and other answers which seem to undermine the Church’s teaching against intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts.
 
Sexual pleasure does not necessarily accompany the commission of a sexual sin. For example, masturbation for the purpose of IVF, or for the purpose of diagnosing infertility, would still be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even though the person does not intend sexual pleasure. If a couple engage in pre-marital sex, or if a spouse engages in an act of adultery, these acts are sinful even if pleasure is not the intended end, and even if pleasure does not occur in the consequences of the act. Intrinsically evil acts are immoral due to their moral object, not due to the purpose or the consequences.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Can a Pope Ever Be a Heretic?
co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocatrix - an article of speculative Mariology
Unam Sanctam - new translation with notes
Click to expand...
Please note, despite the fact that the poster changed his signature, these links still point to sites opposed to authentic Catholic teaching, including areas of sexuality as well as unapproved translations of the Holy Scriptures.
 
smileyscout said:
Two Questions:

Does anyone know what documents this priest is quoting? I, understandable, can’t find anything through Google.

What do you think of this condemnation of kissing? Can it be really be done by a man looking for a wife today? I really don’t want to move to the most conservative Latin Mass community I can find (that isn’t heretical) to find a woman who might want to marry me.
Click to expand...
The priest is probably not quoting a document. He is probably quoting Denzinger, which functions like a giant list that was compiled from source documents. The quote is this:

1140 40. 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.

This quote is stated in order to be condemned, not supported. The old version of Denzinger appears to be online here. The only reference provided there is a date, On the 18th day of March, 1666, and a pope, ALEXANDER VII 1655-1667.

Myself, I’d avoid sitting on the couch for a session of kissing (unless you are married to the person). Some people, though, will need you to explain that you do this because you value them, rather than the opposite.
 
Ron_Conte said:
There were some answers on that site that are contrary to Catholic teaching, such as the claim that masturbation is not a mortal sin, the claim that IVF is not a mortal sin, and other answers which seem to undermine the Church’s teaching against intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts.
Click to expand...
You don’t even READ my posts at all, do you? I already SAID that this site is next to worthless.
 
Pug said:
Myself, I’d avoid sitting on the couch for a session of kissing (unless you are married to the person). Some people, though, will need you to explain that you do this because you value them, rather than the opposite.
Click to expand...
Kissing is not a sexual act, and so it does not need to be marital, unitive, procreative, in order to be moral. Whether or not kissing is moral depends on intention and circumstances. Of course, an interior act of lust is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral, but we should not assume that lust accompanies kissing, even if the kissing is passionate. The emotion of passion is not the sin of lust.
 
rpp said:
Please note, despite the fact that the poster changed his signature, these links still point to sites opposed to authentic Catholic teaching, including areas of sexuality…
Click to expand...
My writings on dogmatic and moral theology, including sexual ethics, are based on Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teachings of the Magisterium.

I am currently working on a series of questions and answers on marital sexual ethics based on the teaching of the Magisterium in documents such as, Veritatis Splendor, Humanae Vitae, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Evangelium Vitae, Casti Connubii, and based on the traditional moral teachings of the Church concerning the three fonts of morality.
 
Ron_Conte said:
CatholicPlanet.com - my work in theology
The Catechism of Catholic Ethics - Roman Catholic moral theology
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
SacredBible.org - my translation of the Bible from the Latin
Click to expand...
These sources are NOT recommended sources for Catholic Moral Theology…especially in the sexual area…

Readers would do well go instead to sources sold by Catholic Answers such as:

shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70&cat=25&page=1
 
Ron_Conte said:
My writings on dogmatic and moral theology, including sexual ethics, are based on Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the teachings of the Magisterium.

I am currently working on a series of questions and answers on marital sexual ethics based on the teaching of the Magisterium in documents such as, Veritatis Splendor, Humanae Vitae, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Evangelium Vitae, Casti Connubii, and based on the traditional moral teachings of the Church concerning the three fonts of morality.
Click to expand...
Ron’s writings…particularly in the realm of certain sexual matters …are not recommended. Though certain things are correct…others are his own personal ideas which do NOT reflect the teachings of the Church (though he says they are!) and some in fact are plainly misreadings…

Readers are urged to go instead to sources such as Catholic Answers sells…

or contact a Catholic Answers apologist.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Kissing is not a sexual act, and so it does not need to be marital, unitive, procreative, in order to be moral. Whether or not kissing is moral depends on intention and circumstances. Of course, an interior act of lust is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral, but we should not assume that lust accompanies kissing, even if the kissing is passionate. The emotion of passion is not the sin of lust.
Click to expand...
I agree that one can kiss someone and not have it be a sexual act. Kissing someone other than your spouse can be perfectly chaste and good. However, two people who are said to be dating, who specifically arrange to be alone for a good length of time so that they can sit there glued to each other on the couch in semi darkness kissing for an extended period of time because it is as far as they want to go right now is unlikely to be moral. I cannot recommend this course of action.

Kissing can be motivated by a number of things. Exuberance or tenderness or friendship for example. This is fine. I wasn’t talking about this kind of kissing, though, since I mentioned a couch and a session in my other post.

Kissing is an action that some people choose in order to experience arousal or maintain arousal as one of their ends.
 
Bookcat said:
Ron’s writings…particularly in the realm of certain sexual matters …are not recommended. Though certain things are correct…others are his own personal ideas which do NOT reflect the teachings of the Church (though he says they are!) and some in fact are plainly misreadings…

Readers are urged to go instead to sources such as Catholic Answers sells…

or contact a Catholic Answers apologist.
Click to expand...
I think your issues with Ron Conte’s links are worth discussing. However, not at the expense of derailing this thread. Please start another thread and include example of the material you find objectionable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top