In discernment, but fell in love

  • Thread starter Thread starter bardegaulois
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pope Alexander VII condemned that kissing for the sake of the carnal and sensible delights was merely a venial sin.
The Holy See in Denzinger 2060 condemns:
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 is very broad. It is not just carnal delights included in the decree. If someone deliberately and knowingly intends any other positive sensations, then these are also mortal sin (because they are “sensible delights.”) And the underlying principle is that no delectation (that is knowingly and deliberately consented to) is permissible outside of the married state.

Therefore, although kisses are never intrinsically evil, avoiding passionate kissing is a bare minimum for everyone. For others, particularly those who have ever had a heinous addiction, many more precautions are often warranted. I worded my response very carefully, a substantial minority, should avoid all physical contact in dating, not everyone. This is recommended by multiple theologians in the 1800s, particularly J. P. Gury, a theologian specifically referenced by the Holy See. Whether avoiding all physical contact is necessary pertains to the individual circumstances of the couple. For everyone, I highly recommend the advice of Fr. Chad. It is not too rigorous, such as the advice of theologians in the past that thought women were only temptations. The theory that states looking at females “dressed up” without a just cause is a venial sin (even if just looking at a woman’s face), is too rigorous. Fr. Chad’s advice is a nice middle ground threading the needle between rigorism and laxism: save kissing for engagement. If a man is the rare exception that has never struggled with the sixth commandment, he may consider kissing earlier, but everyone should avoid passionate kissing before marriage and near occasions thereof.
  1. For the point about it “not working for men,” I disagree. If a man is not attracted to a woman in any way whatsoever from the beginning, he will not develop physical attractions to her after he forms an emotional connection. If a man is heterosexual, he can form extremely close emotional connections (“emotional affairs”) with other men. Because the man is heterosexual, there will be no near occasion of sin at all for either exterior acts or interior thoughts and complacencies. Whether it is imprudent or scandalous to form a close emotional connection must also be considered.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I think that’s true of men who are naturally empathetic or respond well to “needy” women. A lot of men fall in that category (they want to be needed, they want to help others) and certain jobs like priest would attract empathetic men. The men who find needy, emotional women to be a hassle, or manipulative, or just plain weird, would self-select out of that category.
Click to expand...
A priest will need to guide a lot of people who are in emotionally vulnerable states. A typical priest, like any other adult with emotional demands put on them, will occasionally go through emotionally vulnerable periods himself, as well. It is part of the formation of a priest to learn how to navigate a state in which both he and the people who come to him for appropriate guidance and support are in an emotionally vulnerable state. It involves learning how to differentiate what someone needs and what it is appropriate for the priest or another person in the support network to give. When we are in a vulnerable state, sometimes we ask for inappropriate things. It is something anyone in a caregiving profession has to learn to navigate, and it is not learned just by reading books and following protocols. It requires a lot of personal development above and beyond what someone in a less-personal profession or vocation will need.

If the OP does not become a priest, I wouldn’t be surprised if he still enters some other profession or volunteer work that uses his empathetic nature for the good of others. This is a situation that he can learn from and put to good use in the future. He shouldn’t feel “bad” about it. He should probably be thankful it happened when he was in a state to learn from it instead of do a lot of damage by handling it badly.
 
Last edited:
I would remain friends but keep your distance with this woman. I feel that you are the nearest person and it will end in tears. This could be satin trying to preventing you from becoming a priest.
I would recommend spending more time prayer. Its not an easy journey to priesthood but praying to our lady for help with your journey will help.

God bless you
 
Wait… ANY “positive Sensations” even if NOT carnal are gravely sinful??? You’re going to have to provide some pretty firm documentation on this one…
A mother kissers her infant. She feels great delight. Has she sinned?
A father kisses his son on the head after he tucks him into bed. This delights him. Has he sinned?
Two friends kiss on the cheek (as is common in many traditional Catholic cultures). They take delight in the affection shared between friends. Have they sinned?
St John the beloved disciple nestled his head in the Lord’s bosom and took great delight. Did he sin?
I, as a man in my 30s, Kiss my elderly grandmother on the cheek. She takes great delight in this greeting. Has she sinned?

According to your definition, all of the above is sinful…because you’re condemning NON-CARNAL delights. I’ve never come across this before. Never.
 
You can’t make blanket rules like that. Every situation is different. What if I as a 30 year old man am friends with a 70 year old woman? I don’t see an occasion of sin.
 
njlisa said:
But to avoid the occasion of sin, opposite sex friends should not have any sort of independent connection – no emails, texts, phone calls, or private activities.
Click to expand...
That’s not necessary unless the couple either prefers it that way (some do) or one person perhaps has a lot of trouble interacting with people outside the marriage. I have always had many male friends of all ages and types - straight, gay, married, single, all different ages - and 95 percent of them never created an occasion of sin for me or an issue in my marriage. The few that did were cut off when an issue started to arise. I also told my husband everything so there was no need for him to be monitoring my email or any of that silliness. Husband was not a very social creature so most of his interactions were at work, but I wasn’t bugging him about what he was doing with women from his office either.

We were aware of other couples who had all sorts of rules and restrictions on outside communications. But my husband and I were not that way because we were very firmly married with a capital M and both of us trusted each other to keep it that way.
 
It is the intention of the act that is evil. There is likely nothing immoral about kissing a child since delectation is not an intention at all and has virtually no chance of becoming an intention. Also, from a single kiss or two, there is often no, or little, danger of delectation becoming an intention. It is when multiple kisses are performed in succession that danger arises. Also, St. Thomas did not think kissing as a greeting was necessarily immoral if the intention was towards the custom.

It is not experiencing delight that is immoral. Also, delight is not what needs to be fled from, but rather, performing acts “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delights.”

Passionate kissing should be entirely avoided between couples because couples often choose one type of kiss over another precisely since it feels better. And even if your intentions were pure, purposely choosing acts with high delectation could easily become your intention (“I want to keep doing X because it feels good”). This is why it is near occasion of sin. Finally, as St. Alphonsus says when talking about “making love,” even if a man’s intentions are currently pure, very few couples that conduct themselves in this way find themselves entirely free of any fault in the long term.

St. Alphonsus:
“Some young men will ask: Father, is it sinful to make love? I say: I cannot assert that of itself it is a mortal sin; but persons who do so are often in the proximate occasion of mortal sin; and experience shows that few of them are found free from grievous faults. It is useless for them to say that they neither had a bad motive nor bad thoughts. This is an illusion of the devil; in the beginning he does not suggest bad thoughts; but when, by frequent conversations together, and by frequently speaking of love, the affection of these lovers has become strong, the devil will make them blind to the danger and sinfulness of their conduct, and they shall find that, without knowing how, they have lost their souls and God by many sins of impurity and scandal. Oh! how many young persons of both sexes does the devil gain in this way! And of all those sins of scandal God will demand an account of fathers and mothers, who are bound, but neglect, to prevent these dangerous conversations. Hence, they are the cause of all these evils, and shall be severely chastised by God for them.”
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
If a man is not attracted to a woman in any way whatsoever from the beginning, he will not develop physical attractions to her after he forms an emotional connection.
Click to expand...
This implies that a man who finds a woman physically repulsive before he gets to know her couldn’t possibly develop an erotic attraction to her when he gets to know her better. That’s simply not true.
 
PetraG said:
This implies that a man who finds a woman physically repulsive before he gets to know her couldn’t possibly develop an erotic attraction to her when he gets to know her better. That’s simply not true.
Click to expand...
It’s always the good looking women who fall for the ugly guys in movies/books; (beauty and the beast) 😜😁
 
I disagree. While it’s not impossible for attractions to change, they rarely do, and definitely not from a man’s volition. A man being around a woman frequently that he is not attracted to at all, will not cause him to become attracted to her. Also, note: I know full well that there is the elephant in the room that women can change their appearance with time, I just did not have time to write all the nuance.

However, if there is no physical attraction whatsoever from the onset, then I disagree that there is any significant chance that it will develop with time. It is possible for someone to realize they are actually more attracted to someone than they originally thought they were in the beginning, but if there is no physical attraction whatsoever in the beginning, then for men, it likely will not develop in the future. This is why orientation change efforts are so futile. If say a homosexual male does not have any physical attractions towards a women, research shows that this is very difficult to change!
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
I disagree. While it’s not impossible for attractions to change, they rarely do, and not from a man’s volition or experience. Also, note: I know full well that there is the elephant in the room that women can change their appearance with time, I just did not have time to write all the nuance.

However, if there is no physical attraction whatsoever from the onset, then I disagree that there is any significant chance that it will develop with time. It is possible for someone to realize they are actually more attracted to someone than they thought they were in the beginning, but if there is no physical attraction whatsoever in the beginning, then it likely will not develop in the future. This is why orientation change efforts are so futile. If say a homosexual male does not have any physical attractions towards a women, then this is very difficult to change!
Click to expand...
Well, if you can go back and say “oh, I was actually more attracted to her than I thought.” that’s using a high-powered retrospectoscope. Your premise only works if you can say, “don’t worry, you know her well enough, so if you find you have zero attraction to her now, that’s is definitely never going to change.” Not so fast.

This is quite different than never feeling an attraction to any women, not even an imaginary woman you have only met in your mind. It is not at all impossible that someone who never had much interest in sex could develop one when they meet someone who shows an interest in them they never felt before.

Keep in mind that one of the biggest aphrodisiacs (and also one of the biggest turn-offs, ironically enough) can be the information that someone finds YOU very attractive. There is a “look” that makeup can’t put on someone’s face, and it is very flattering, very alluring. If a woman develops feelings for a man, she can look at him in a way she never did before, and that can really change things. (That’s just one example…trust me, emotions are very strange things.)
 
Last edited:
First, men are extremely visual and it is typically very easy for them to correctly know if no attraction exists at all.

Secondly, the danger to a man of finding out that he is actually physically attracted to a woman that he thinks he is not attracted to is small (since men are visual so know pretty well if no attraction exists at all). Fleeing from sin does not imply that we should be paranoid about the smallest dangers. For example, a man does not have to remove himself from society to avoid lust. As another example, text messaging a woman could pose the slightest danger, but it is rigorism to say morality obligates you necessarily to remove all your female friends because of any minute danger.

Finally, for men, their attractions are just as fixed towards some women and not others as a homosexual’s attractions are fixed towards some men and not others. I disagree that there is a difference between a homosexual changing his attractions to be towards someone he is not attracted to at all and a heterosexual changing his attractions to be towards someone he is not attracted to at all. That was my point.

I am not negating that rare exceptions exist. Also, I am not saying that changing attractions is 100 percent impossible and has never, ever occurred. However, if a man finds out that a woman is attracted to him, but he is not attracted to her at all, then I still maintain that this poses essentially no risk of him becoming physically attracted to her.

I know men are very different than women and this is causing confusion.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
…However, if a man finds out that a woman is attracted to him, but he is not attracted to her at all, then I still maintain that this poses essentially no risk of him becoming physically attracted to her.

I know men are very different than women and this is causing confusion.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. I’m over 50, let’s just say that. I don’t need to be given theories about human males. I’ve known enough men to know that the wise ones do not presume that their feelings towards some woman or other are never going to change.

Young people think the opposite sex is the only mystery. They can come to think they have themselves and their own sex all figured out. Old people realize that everybody is a mystery, including themselves. When you’ve seen a few friends go through their “mid-life crisis,” you’ll know what I mean.
 
Hello.
It worries me that you say that you are afraid of letting down the people who expect you to become a priest. That is not a valid reason for wanting to be a priest. It is a call from God. He is the one you should be afraid of letting down, that is in case He is really calling you, which you really need to discern.

in regards with your affair with your friend, I think you are both passing through a difficult period and kind of clinging to each other, mistakenly thinking you are in love. But if in twenty years you were never in love with her, it is very unlikely that you are now, and if you make her break her marriage and leave her husband, her child will be affected, and you both will doscover too la te that you were wrong and that you did wrong.
Also that idea that you can carry someone’s burden is dangerous, for you now and in case you become a priest. You may fall in worse traps than this one with women who may go to Confession with you and whom you would feel inclined to help them carry their ‘burden’.
I agree with everyone here who has adviced you not to see her or talk to her anymore. As St Augustine said: you should never get near temptation, you should run from it!!
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Many women have some kind of conscious or subconscious “Thorn Birds”-type fantasy about being so desirable that they could attract a priest or a seminarian away from his vows or potential vows. They see such a man as a challenge on some level, or they’re excited by all the drama of the questionable/ forbidden attraction. That is part of why the book was so popular.
Click to expand...
I have read the book and I have seen the mini-series, and I have no problem with it being read or viewed by an adult Catholic strong in their faith who is not tempted to think that a priest having an intimate relationship with a woman is a good thing. The mini-series was outstanding, and Richard Chamberlain was put on this earth to play such a part (his lifestyle notwithstanding).

I do have to wonder sometimes, if women who dress immodestly for Mass, and seem deliberately to be so doing (I am not referring merely to wearing jeans or sleeveless dresses), are at the very least trying to get noticed, and get reprimanded for it — that way, in their minds, perhaps someone is acknowledging that they are sexually attractive, and perhaps this ratifies them. If that is the case, is it just attention-seeking — or is it more? I do wonder.
 
alphonsus1 said:
The Holy See in Denzinger 2060 condemns:
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 is very broad. It is not just carnal delights included in the decree. If someone deliberately and knowingly intends any other positive sensations, then these are also mortal sin (because they are “sensible delights.”) And the underlying principle is that no delectation (that is knowingly and deliberately consented to) is permissible outside of the married state.

Therefore, although kisses are never intrinsically evil, avoiding passionate kissing is a bare minimum for everyone. For others, particularly those who have ever had a heinous addiction, many more precautions are often warranted. I worded my response very carefully, a substantial minority, should avoid all physical contact in dating, not everyone… For everyone, I highly recommend the advice of Fr. Chad. It is not too rigorous… a nice middle ground threading the needle between rigorism and laxism: save kissing for engagement. If a man is the rare exception that has never struggled with the sixth commandment, he may consider kissing earlier, but everyone should avoid passionate kissing before marriage and near occasions thereof.
Click to expand...
I do not dispute what Denzinger 2060 says. I would hope that no one would “kiss just for the sake of kissing”, but rather, as a chaste show of affection and admiration that appears in cultures the world around. It should not be done for delight, but as I said, as a show of affection. That being the case, I do not think it is even a venial sin. Please see the distinction I make.

I just have to say, that to tell someone that they must avoid all chaste physical displays of affection until engagement, is pretty darned strict. Do we not have enough problems relating to the rest of the world as it is? Yes, in a normal male, and in many normal females (I wouldn’t know this part first-hand, I’ve never been a female 🥶), there will be very slight, easily ignored arousal, not intended, just “there”. If someone is so libidinous, that they are tempted to grave impurity by a three-second kiss, or by hand-holding, I’d suggest they get to a doctor or a psychiatrist. If their libido is truly “on fire”, there would have to be medication for that. I do know that many medications have the unintended side effect of reducing libido considerably.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top