French kissing

[kalbertone]

Huh? Incorrect.
I quoted that from the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI just a few years ago!

There is no question here - we are to avoid the near occasion of sin (see any good work of moral theology, or theological dictionary etc.

There is modest and chaste kissing and immodest and unchaste kissing. Can kissing be a good sign of affection? yes. Can it be lustful? that too can be --and often is in our culture.

I do not have time to rehash all this here – remember too that the Catechism is not an exhaustive text -it is not meant to be. It is not a moral theology textbook that gets into all sorts of detailed questions. Feel free to contact the Catholic Answers Apologists they can assist in more detail…

But please cease posting on this thread -it is an OLD THREAD–we are not to revive them.

Pope Benedict stated the compendium does not take the place of the 1992 Catechism which mentions ZERO on occasion of sin.
That there is a prayer,there are dozens of prayers that do not necessarily imply or involve doctrine.Where in the compendium itself does it mention occasion of sin ?

 

[Bookcat]

Pope Benedict stated the compendium does not take the place of the 1992 Catechism which mentions ZERO on occasion of sin.
That there is a prayer,there are dozens of prayers that do not necessarily imply or involve doctrine.Where in the compendium itself does it mention occasion of sin ?

(It is yes still taught-and will be - Priests in confession will tell one “avoid the near occasion”, mortal theology works and courses, spiritual theology etc…)

The Catechism is not meant to be to be some “if you do not find it there -the Church does not teach it” document. Not at all.

And I quoted right from the Compendium. I mentions it right in the act of contrition given in the compendium.

From: Compendium of the Catechism -issued by Pope Benedict XVI:

Act of Contrition

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Amen.

Yes that prayer involves doctrine (contrition, amendment, grace, avoiding the near occasions)–one reason to give it there in English and Latin -is to help in the Sacrament of Penance. peccandíque occasiónes próximas fugitúrum (also called “proximate occasion of sin”)

I would be simply incorrect to say " it has stopped being so,thats why you never hear about it…" — well there it is …right there in the Compendium meant for “everyman”.

Again this is an old thread. From years ago.

 

[kalbertone]

(It is yes still taught-and will be - Priests in confession will tell one “avoid the near occasion”, mortal theology works and courses, spiritual theology etc…)

The Catechism is not meant to be to be some “if you do not find it there -the Church does not teach it” document. Not at all.

And I quoted right from the Compendium. I mentions it right in the act of contrition given in the compendium.

From: Compendium of the Catechism -issued by Pope Benedict XVI:

Act of Contrition

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins because of thy just punishments, but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, who art all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of Thy grace to sin no more and to avoid the near occasion of sin. Amen.

Yes that prayer involves doctrine (contrition, amendment, grace, avoiding the near occasions)–one reason to give it there in English and Latin -is to help in the Sacrament of Penance. peccandíque occasiónes próximas fugitúrum (also called “proximate occasion of sin”)

I would be simply incorrect to say " it has stopped being so,thats why you never hear about it…" — well there it is …right there in the Compendium meant for “everyman”.

Again this is an old thread. From years ago.

Once Again,the compendium & the Catechism don’t mention it.
A prayer does not necessarily reveal a doctrine.That is the first time that prayer had that inserted in.All the confessionals that have the Contrition prayer that I^ve seen don’t have that.Then again Benedict the reactionary thinks the Pius X catechism is still valid today.He is Archaic Big Time

 

[kalbertone]

I know it’s an old thread, but it’s an important topic. I think it’s sinful for unmarried couples and have confessed it before. It’s foreplay in my opinion. If it’s not foreplay, then your not doing it right.

I think the “its not sex and it didn’t tempt us to sex” is an excuse to justify lust. The same excuse is used to justify showering together in the nude (even by people with more conservative sexual values). You could use the same justification to justify “feeling someone up” or kissing someone in “sensitive areas.”

Sounds like your suffering from the heresies Of Jansenism & Manicahaesm.The Catechism doesn’t mention it & you are called to form your conscience.If that is sin(kissing) than venerating Mary is idolatrey

 

[kalbertone]

Actually it does…one need not have a climax to have sexual pleasure. But the word used often is direct stimulation.

And yes if sexual pleasure should happen in other less direct ways…such as chaste kissing or a reasonable hug…such would be indirect and one should not consent to it.

Can we please abandon Jansenism & Manichaesm ?
Where is it in the Catechism ?
If you mention moral theology do you know most moral theologians today hold contraception as family planning morally licit.Why don’t u point to this.

Get out of the 1950s moral theology books that hailed the sexorgans dishonourable & sex in marriage suspect.

 

[Bookcat]

Already answered.

And…

Again this is an old thread. From years ago.

 

[kalbertone]

French kissing is pretty much by nature in the “directly stimulating actions” that you will note in he article from EWTN are never to be done by the unmarried.

It does not have to be “prolonged” or “passionate”…it just has to involve the tongue…

such really is to be left to the married…

Directly stimulating things…are not just near occasions …they are the very matter for sins against the virtue of chastity.

(though deliberately entering or remaining in near occasions can be sins too)

Many things of the moral life do not receive direct detailed teachings from the Magisterium…the Church teaches the virtue of Chasity etc etc…but moral theology often is left to give certain details…

It would seem to me that such kissing is pretty much by nature in the directly stimulating category.

I can not see such as just a chaste sign of affection for the unmarried…it is directly orientated towards arousing…as a form of foreplay in marriage.

 

[kalbertone]

French kissing is pretty much by nature in the “directly stimulating actions” that you will note in he article from EWTN are never to be done by the unmarried.

It does not have to be “prolonged” or “passionate”…it just has to involve the tongue…

such really is to be left to the married…

Directly stimulating things…are not just near occasions …they are the very matter for sins against the virtue of chastity.

(though deliberately entering or remaining in near occasions can be sins too)

Many things of the moral life do not receive direct detailed teachings from the Magisterium…the Church teaches the virtue of Chasity etc etc…but moral theology often is left to give certain details…

It would seem to me that such kissing is pretty much by nature in the directly stimulating category.

I can not see such as just a chaste sign of affection for the unmarried…it is directly orientated towards arousing…as a form of foreplay in marriage.

Nice try about contraception.When humanae Vitae was released Bishop Lambrocini who presented the document stated"It was not infallible". Nowhere in the language of Humana Vitae does it declare it infallible.Catholics at large reject the teaching wich further proves its not infallible because infallibilty belongs to whole church. Stuck in the 50s as usual

 

[kalbertone]

Humm…

Don’t do it. Wait for marriage

Nice try on contraception. when Bishop Lambriscini presented the humanae Vitae encyclicle to the world he stated “it was not infallible”. In the language of Humanae Vitae nowhere does it state infallibilty.With the rejection of it by catholics at large that too proves its not infallible since infallibility belongs to the whole church

 

[kalbertone]

Unless you are French…and are kissing in a moderate chaste way (ie not what we term french kissing)…then such is for the married…(for such is usually geared toward directly arousing the parties…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8096972&postcount=4

That document you quoted in 1997 was laughable.The pope cannot declare or pass on infallibilty thru the holy office or a Vatican committee.I wonder what they think about the Catholic church holding slavery as moral & of natural law for centuries,that must be infallible too since it wasn’t formally condemned till Vatican II.

As far as lust goes in modern scholarship the greek word for woman in the(whoever looks at a woman to lust) is also translated as wife.Some scholars refer to Christs statement as referring to as coveting another mans wife. It was also not considered adultery at the time for a man who was married to sleep with a unmarried woman because THE UNMARRIED woman was not considered another mans property.
Interesting.
Not advocating this but it puts things in perspective

 

[Bookcat]

With the rejection of it by catholics at large that too proves its not infallible since infallibility belongs to the whole church

Such would be an incorrect understanding of infallibility. Even if many Catholics rejected the Teaching -such does not make a teaching not infallible or make those Catholics who reject such correct. If that were so - Jesus would be have to be taught as being not divine - for many many unfortunately fell into Arianism back in the fourth century.

 

[Bookcat]

.Then again Benedict the reactionary thinks the Pius X catechism is still valid today.He is Archaic Big Time

That document you quoted in 1997 was laughable.

I am not going to continue to respond here. The Teachings of the Church and orthodox moral theology have been presented.

It is important to be respectful of Pope (now Emeritus) Benedict XVI et al.

And again this is a thread from YEARS ago that you decided to bring back to life -which is not something we really are to do here in the Forum.

 

[on_the_hill]

The Catechism is not meant to be a moral theology textbook or an exhaustive source.

Thank you.

Some folks have a strong desire to treat it as sola scriptura.

 

[kalbertone]

Such would be an incorrect understanding of infallibility. Even if many Catholics rejected the Teaching -such does not make a teaching not infallible or make those Catholics who reject such correct. If that were so - Jesus would be have to be taught as being not divine - for many many unfortunately fell into Arianism back in the fourth century.

It was the laity that saved the Church from Arianism.As Cardinal John Henry Newman pointed out in his research,most laity resisted Arianism.It was the Bishops who embraced Arianism & Pope Liberius who signed the Arian confession.It was the laity who resisted & faced persecution in droves.Eventually the laity had to be listened to.Even The CCC 250 acknowledges that in defense against those who tried to deform the Trinitarian formula…the TRINITY was sustained by the Christian people^e sense of faith

 

[Bookcat]

I am not going to continue to respond here. The Teachings of the Church and orthodox moral theology have been presented.

And again this is a thread from YEARS ago that you decided to bring back to life -which is not something we really are to do here in the Forum.

 

[Bookcat]

It

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11852302&postcount=127