Cuddling during Mass

[beckers]

We could start distributing score cards to all attendees, so they can observe the demeanor of other attendees, and rate them on a their level of reverence - on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very reverent” and 1 being “not very reverent at all”…

Attire

Physical contact with others

Reciting in unison with others at appropriate moments

Paying attention

Receiving the Eucharist on hand vs. tongue

Kneeling

Behavior of children

Punctuality/leaving early

As long as we are getting silly…

well honestly sometimes i feel as if people are doing that. Keeping a score card of what they do and don’t like or what someone did wrong or what they did to offend someone. They are not understand that nothing else matters. We are there to worship and receieve JESUS. My savior decided that even though i am sinner that I recongize and love him and that i want to change who i am to follow his way.

I also remember the story I was told about St. Padre Pio. A man was in adoration praying but always getting distracted and feeling horrible and wanted to give up. Father saw him and told him God was pleased that he was trying.

We should be thankful that all these people are coming to church instead of brickering on how they are not showing enough reverance. Jesus loves with open arms so why can’t we?

Do not be dismayed by toil or suffering, nor by the meager fruit of your labors. Remember that God rewards not according to results, but effort. - Blessed Zefirino Agostini, 1874

 

[sandraladeda]

well honestly sometimes i feel as if people are doing that. Keeping a score card of what they do and don’t like or what someone did wrong or what they did to offend someone. They are not understand that nothing else matters. We are there to worship and receieve JESUS. My savior decided that even though i am sinner that I recongize and love him and that i want to change who i am to follow his way.

I also remember the story I was told about St. Padre Pio. A man was in adoration praying but always getting distracted and feeling horrible and wanted to give up. Father saw him and told him God was pleased that he was trying.

We should be thankful that all these people are coming to church instead of brickering on how they are not showing enough reverance. Jesus loves with open arms so why can’t we?

Do not be dismayed by toil or suffering, nor by the meager fruit of your labors. Remember that God rewards not according to results, but effort. - Blessed Zefirino Agostini, 1874

This may be the best post I have seen here yet!!

I could not agree more!

God Bless!

 

[StatCrux]

Just to clarify my position which perhaps came out more extreme than I intended:

This wasn’t really to express my absolute disgust when people cuddle during Mass, but asking whether others thought it might be inappropriate.

I am obviously not talking about people who need *physical *support. If you are weak for whatever reason, please don’t collapse because you can’t TOUCH anyone during Mass.

If someone is at a funeral, more emotional (and physical) support is obviously needed. I don’t mean to suggest the parents or relatives of the recently deceased can’t lean on each other for emotional support.

I don’t really have a problem with someone leaning on their husband’s shoulder, but what someone called “inappropriate petting” usually follows and that’s what I don’t like. Head on shoulder OK, rubbing your significant other- not.

I think a false dichotomy is being created- either you allow couples to cuddle or you have no respect for the sacrament of marriage. Cuddling is good. It has a time and place. That time and place is not Mass.

Now I will be a little more extreme:

Why is it all about sex with some people? Cuddling does NOT equate with sexual stuff. And even if it does, sex is a picture (given to us by God) of the relationship between Christ and His Church. Why shouldn’t we all be reminded of it by Christian couples? It makes us think of Jesus and His love for His spouse (us).

Do you really think Jesus was talking about sex or anything *remotely *sexual? The relationship of Christ and His bride was not to be taken sexually. To even suggest that God’s love for us and His Church has even the slightest sexual component is absolutely horrifying. To suggest that we should look to sex to understand God’s love for us cheapens God’s love. Actually, it does far worse- it profanes it. The love God has for us is infinite and unable to be fully communicated or fully comprehended by humans. It *transcends *human love and sexuality. If you want to get a glimpse of God’s love for us, I suggest looking a a crucifix. That is the best expression of God’s love.

What evidence of the hyper-sexual nature of our fallen society!

 

[calvin1970]

To even suggest that God’s love for us and His Church has even the slightest sexual component is absolutely horrifying. To suggest that we should look to sex to understand God’s love for us cheapens God’s love. Actually, it does far worse- it profanes it. !

Wow, you really are uptight.

On the Feast of the Trinity, our priest tried to explain (I think it was St. Augustine’s) understanding of the Trinity.

He said that in the beginning there was God, and God created his angles, but they were not equal to God and so they were not able to love God back as absolutely and completely as God. That is why God made his Son, so his Son could perfectly return God’s Love. It is that perfect return of God’s Love that is the Holy Spirit.

The Son gave us the Church, and the relationship between God and the Church must be as close to perfect as we can make it in order to invite the Holy Spirit into it.

The Church gave us the sacrament of Marriage. In order for sex to be holy, it must be in the reflection of the perfect love between God and His Son, and God and His Church. That is why pre-marital, extra-marital, non-marital sex or “protected” sex is wrong, the Holy Spirit is not invited into the relationship and therefore God is not part of the relationship.

The sexual act in marriage is suppose to be the purest and most real connection between mankind and God. When the sexual act is approached in the purest intention, the love of the husband is selflessly given to the wife, the wife selflessly gives the same love back to the husband. That invites the Holy Spirit, who is the creator of life.

So you see, God’s love is perfectly expressed in the purest form of sexual intimacy. God’s Love is not cheapened, God’s Love is not profaned. God’s Love is expressed.

You need to stop thinking of sex as a dirty thing and start thinking of it as God intended it to be.

At least, that is how it was always explained to me.

 

[StatCrux]

I don’t think of sex as “dirty” or “bad.” It a beautiful expression of love between too people. It is one of the most wonderful gifts God has given to us. Although I see how you could have thought that was my opinion. I had to laugh when reading your post. Maybe the look at a crucifix was a little harsh. I still agree with it, but maybe I could have been a little less blunt.

A few things that I disagree with:

God did not create the Son. The Son existed since the beginning with the Father and the Holy Spirit. (maybe I’m wrong but I don’t think so)

The sexual act in marriage is suppose to be the purest and most real connection between mankind and God. When the sexual act is approached in the purest intention, the love of the husband is selflessly given to the wife, the wife selflessly gives the same love back to the husband. That invites the Holy Spirit, who is the creator of life.

I would say one of the most intimate (and far more intimate that the sexual act in marriage) moments between man and God is in the Eucharist. Sexual intimacy can have some aspects of God’s love but it is not the “fullest expression.”

 

[JudieK]

Do you really think Jesus was talking about sex or anything *remotely *sexual? The relationship of Christ and His bride was not to be taken sexually. To even suggest that God’s love for us and His Church has even the slightest sexual component is absolutely horrifying. To suggest that we should look to sex to understand God’s love for us cheapens God’s love. Actually, it does far worse- it profanes it. The love God has for us is infinite and unable to be fully communicated or fully comprehended by humans. It *transcends *human love and sexuality. If you want to get a glimpse of God’s love for us, I suggest looking a a crucifix. That is the best expression of God’s love.

I’m not so sure. I have heard Christopher West speak in ways that suggest the sex is eucharistic, that it is a symbol of the total self-giving love that God has for His church. Sex is not horrifying, cheap, or profane when it is the self-giving act between spouses as God intended. It is beautiful and sacred.

I am the first one to think that inappropriate PDA’s are kinda creepy, but I have no problem at all with a head on the shoulder (for a second) or a husband’s arm around his wife. They are one flesh, after all. Worshipping together strengthens the bond between husband and wife. Marriage is also a sacrament. Obviously anything sexual should not be done in church, but a little bit of warmth between spouses is endearing. I see parents showing PDA to their children. We are a community of people, families, sinners. We are not cloistered nuns. Just my :twocents:

 

[Thursday1]

Wow, you really are uptight.

On the Feast of the Trinity, our priest tried to explain (I think it was St. Augustine’s) understanding of the Trinity.

He said that in the beginning there was God, and God created his angles, but they were not equal to God and so they were not able to love God back as absolutely and completely as God. That is why God made his Son, so his Son could perfectly return God’s Love. It is that perfect return of God’s Love that is the Holy Spirit.

The Son gave us the Church, and the relationship between God and the Church must be as close to perfect as we can make it in order to invite the Holy Spirit into it.

That is incorrect. God the Father did not “Make” the Son. The Son has eternally existed. God’s very nature is trinitarian, there was never a “time” when God was unitarian.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

 

[calvin1970]

That is incorrect. God the Father did not “Make” the Son. The Son has eternally existed. God’s very nature is trinitarian, there was never a “time” when God was unitarian.

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

“although the Father begat the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity (The Trinity 1:4:7 [A.D. 408]).”

Perhaps I over simplified. The point I was TRYING to make is that the sexual act is very closely tied to the Love of God.

 

[DanB]

StatCrux,

Your original question has blossomed into a tirad of the bizarre. Time to put this one in the “Proverbial” bed!!

 

[beckers]

I’m not so sure. I have heard Christopher West speak in ways that suggest the sex is eucharistic, that it is a symbol of the total self-giving love that God has for His church. Sex is not horrifying, cheap, or profane when it is the self-giving act between spouses as God intended. It is beautiful and sacred.

I am the first one to think that inappropriate PDA’s are kinda creepy, but I have no problem at all with a head on the shoulder (for a second) or a husband’s arm around his wife. They are one flesh, after all. Worshipping together strengthens the bond between husband and wife. Marriage is also a sacrament. Obviously anything sexual should not be done in church, but a little bit of warmth between spouses is endearing. I see parents showing PDA to their children. We are a community of people, families, sinners. We are not cloistered nuns. Just my :twocents:

Also

Love is sufficient of itself; it gives pleasure by itself and because of itself. It is its own merit, its own reward. Love looks for no cause outside itself, no effect beyond itself. Its profit lies in the practice. Of all the movements, sensations and feelings of the soul, love is the only one in which the creature can respond to the Creator and make some sort of similar return however unequal though it be. For when God loves, all he desires is to be loved in return. The sole purpose of his love is to be loved, into he knowledge that those who love him are made happy by their love of him.

• from a sermon by Saint Bernard

To see a couple share love should not be the most horrible thing you see at church. You should rejoice in the fact that love is being shared.

 

[chevalier]

If you look at the end of the post there was a smily. It was said sarcastically. (or that was my take on it.)

Yours in Christ,
Thursday

Sorry.

 

[StandUp4Truth]

Does anyone else notice this? Maybe “cuddling” is too extreme to describe what these people are doing, but does anyone else find it inappropriate when a wife is resting her head on her husband’s shoulder while he has his arm wrapped around her? There are other similar things that go on too. I guess I would be OK with holding hands or something, but sometimes there is a little too much physical contact. We are suppose to be worshiping the Lord not having a husband/wife moment. Go on a date! Maybe I am being and crusty, old prude. Am I totally off base here? I admit, sometimes I can be.

Well, this may irritate some people, but my wife and I are on a date when we go to Church. Most of the time, going to Mass followed by supper is the highlight of our week - it’s been that way since we were dating.

We’ve actually found that the Mass is a lot more absorbing when we can give each other a squeeze of the hand or a knowing smile when we hear something especially relevant to us in the homily or readings. This nonverbal communication requires closer attention to what’s going on than if we were both experiencing it separately(let’s face it, most average people space off at some point and think about other things).

Everyone has different tolerance levels for PDA, so I don’t think it’s a matter of faith as much as one’s personal preference. We mostly hold hands, (although sometimes I put my arm around her or vice versa), and we always give each other a hug and a kiss on the cheek at the sign of peace. I come from a very affectionate family, so hugging and kissing each other in public is really no big deal to us. We were taught that our role here on Earth is temporary, and we need to show our love for each other because you never know what tomorrow will bring. If someone finds that gross or distracting, I would recommend that they try it before they knock it - besides, this troubled world could use a LOT more love in it.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I think we also need to remember that God gave us an “us” for a reason. He wants “us” to lean on each other and to support each other. He wants “us” to worship together.

Yes I very much agree. But, I also think that God wants us focused on him and not eachother.

 

[sandraladeda]

Yes I very much agree. But, I also think that God wants us focused on him and not eachother.

I think it is probably up to each individual to decide if hand-holding prevents them from focussing on God or not. Some are able to hold hands while focussing on God, others, such as yourself, not.

It is certainly not my place to mind-read or interpret as appropriate the level of reverence or focus of others I see at mass.

imho

 

[Conciliar]

So many of the posters here who have the most lenient attitudes have used the notion of marital closeness as part of their argument. How is your view different concerning unmarried couples?

What about teenagers? Is your view any different here?

What about kissing, even if it is not quite “making out?” And, how much is too much?

I asked these questions earlier to demonstrate something. No, we can’t know who is married and who is not… We can’t always know who is a teen and who is 22… Also, there is a point at which physical contact becomes problematic in everyone’s eyes. I’m talking about behavior that wouldn’t be offensive at a dinner party, but is out of place at the Mass.

Why is there such a point for everyone? Because of where and when it is taking place.

Sure, what constitutes “over the the line behavior” is going to be different according to diffferent people, but ultimately it is where and when the activity is taking place that makes it unacceptable.

My point? The real question here is this: Is the Mass an appropriate place to engage in intimate physical contact? Sure, we can play the game of trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where inappropriate lies on a spectrum of activities, but at the end of the day, *the one thing we all agree on *is that there is something special and sacred and holy about the Mass that can make these otherwise good activities (name removed by moderator)roper.

If those of you who have the most lenient ideas focussed more on that, I think you’d begin to raise the bar of expectation a little, and come to see that even things that are truly good - be it intimate contact between couples, or neighborly conversation, or clapping for a musician - are not necessarily fitting when introduced into the sacred time and space of the Mass.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I honestly would like to believe that the issue was not a brief head lean or a quick pat on the back or hand. If this is the situation then I feel those it disturbs are being silly. IMHO there are times when things have gotten out of hand and there is a need for quiet discussion with the offenders.

Many of us are in smaller parishes or attend the same Mass weekly or just generally know the people around us weekly. We know and understand about those that are ill or grieving. Their actions tend to be different then when it is just a touchy feely thing. So let us be adults and remember why we are at Mass.

sandraladeda- peoples actions silently ask us to make decisions on what their motives mean. It is called body language and most humans use it in everyday situations to make decisions on others behavior. Right or wrong it is how humans are hard wired.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I think it is probably up to each individual to decide if hand-holding prevents them from focussing on God or not. Some are able to hold hands while focussing on God, others, such as yourself, not.

It is certainly not my place to mind-read or interpret as appropriate the level of reverence or focus of others I see at mass.

imho

I never said I could not focus while holding hands. I just said that it was a time to focus on God and not on my wonderful husband that God gave to me. .

 

[JamesLaw]

Yeah, even though “God is love” and these people are married and living their marriage vocation publicly and expressing their faith together, I find this disgusting.

Well, “these married people” are also in love, and it is an unconcious act to hold your love… as God does for you…
“my soul clings to You; Your right hand holds me fast.”

Now, if it went beyond what you described here, I would be inclined to agree, but simply putting your arm around your spouse? Rethink this.

 

[beckers]

So many of the posters here who have the most lenient attitudes have used the notion of marital closeness as part of their argument. How is your view different concerning unmarried couples?

What about teenagers? Is your view any different here?

What about kissing, even if it is not quite “making out?” And, how much is too much?

I asked these questions earlier to demonstrate something. No, we can’t know who is married and who is not… We can’t always know who is a teen and who is 22… Also, there is a point at which physical contact becomes problematic in everyone’s eyes. I’m talking about behavior that wouldn’t be offensive at a dinner party, but is out of place at the Mass.

Why is there such a point for everyone? Because of where and when it is taking place.

Sure, what constitutes “over the the line behavior” is going to be different according to diffferent people, but ultimately it is where and when the activity is taking place that makes it unacceptable.

My point? The real question here is this: Is the Mass an appropriate place to engage in intimate physical contact? Sure, we can play the game of trying to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where inappropriate lies on a spectrum of activities, but at the end of the day, *the one thing we all agree on *is that there is something special and sacred and holy about the Mass that can make these otherwise good activities (name removed by moderator)roper.

If those of you who have the most lenient ideas focussed more on that, I think you’d begin to raise the bar of expectation a little, and come to see that even things that are truly good - be it intimate contact between couples, or neighborly conversation, or clapping for a musician - are not necessarily fitting when introduced into the sacred time and space of the Mass.

I will say it again. What is showing reverance in your opinion? What meets your standards? Is it sitting there with your hands clasped in front of you touching no one and eyes striaght foward and saying all the proper responses? Because you have no idea what is going on in that persons mind. They could be thinking the most horrible thoughts but they are perceieved to being reverant to God’s mass.

People come to mass and each person is an individual person who prays and shows God love in different ways. Who are we to judge the intent of people’s actions.

By the way we are not talking about petting or long embraces of kissing. That is wrong. But couples holding each others hands or having an arm over your spouses shoulder shouldn’t be shunned.

Now teenagers is a whole matter in it’s self. Their parents should have long ago laid ground rules about the level of touching that should be in a relationship. VERY LITTLE at all… If you see that in church you should approach the parent.

 

[Conciliar]

I will say it again. What is showing reverance in your opinion? What meets your standards? Is it sitting there with your hands clasped in front of you touching no one and eyes striaght foward and saying all the proper responses? Because you have no idea what is going on in that persons mind. They could be thinking the most horrible thoughts but they are perceieved to being reverant to God’s mass.

People come to mass and each person is an individual person who prays and shows God love in different ways. Who are we to judge the intent of people’s actions.

By the way we are not talking about petting or long embraces of kissing. That is wrong. But couples holding each others hands or having an arm over your spouses shoulder shouldn’t be shunned.

Now teenagers is a whole matter in it’s self. Their parents should have long ago laid ground rules about the level of touching that should be in a relationship. VERY LITTLE at all… If you see that in church you should approach the parent.

I appreciate your questions, but my point is being lost in them. Forget for a moment what *I think *is acceptable specifically, and what you find acceptable.

I maintain that anyone who is being honest will plainly admit that there is *a certain point *at which a display of affection which would be acceptable in another public setting is unacceptable at Mass. If you’re wiling to agree to that (and frankly it would be silly for anyone not to) the question is why? I answered it - the sacred time and place render it so. I may be surprised, but I don’t think any of us would feel the need to disagree with this.

My point then is this - we would do well to focus on what it is about the sacred time and space of Mass that places unique demands on us this way, and then revisit the original question in light of this.