In discernment, but fell in love

[HomeschoolDad]

In the world outside of orthodox Catholicism, I know people engage in prolonged kissing and similar impure acts, even if they do not “go all the way”, and they think this is OK. Of course, we do not. We are right and they are wrong. However, to curtail physical affection the way it is described here, first of all, our young people will have to date and court only among themselves, because nobody else is going to go along with this. In the secular dating world, it seems to be true that sex is just mutually expected anytime between the third date and the sixth date, often before this. As I understand it, “hookup culture” has as one of its core ideas “have sex first, then see if you’re compatible in other ways”. This is not our way, but on the other hand, forcing couples in dating and courtship to show no physical affection whatsoever until they are engaged, or beyond even that, is “too far the other way”. As I said previously, traditional Catholic teaching (at least in the 20th century) has been that chaste displays of affection are acceptable, as long as they are just that — chaste — and any sensations experienced are neither intended nor taken delight in.

 

[tafan2]

Leaving aside the case of SSA, in normal circumstances, men can often find themselves devoping an emotional attraction to a woman overtime, based on that woman’s behavior towards him.

 

[tafan2]

I am 100% a man, and you are wrong. Happened to me. And I have seen many relationships develop over time.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Leaving aside the case of SSA, in normal circumstances, men can often find themselves devoping an emotional attraction to a woman overtime, based on that woman’s behavior towards him.

I am 100% a man, and you are wrong. Happened to me. And I have seen many relationships develop over time.

Quite agreed. You can meet someone (a woman) and at first blush, nothing registers, but as you get to know her, and if she is kind to you, or you come to see qualities in her that you like, an attraction can develop that didn’t exist at the outset. I’ve had it happen more than once. And it works the other way around too — a man can be instantly smitten, then as he comes to know the woman, this evaporates (“what did I ever see in her?”). It’s just human nature.

 

[alphonsus1]

There’s nothing wrong with emotional connections (“attractions”) to men or women, so long as they are prudent, with good intention, there is no scandal, etc. The danger is sin or near occasion of sin.

I claim that for the great majority of men physical attractions that do not exist at all from the onset do not develop over time. If I am not physically attracted to another person, say another man, then while I can develop an emotional connection with him (“attraction”), a physical attraction will never develop. I claim that this is true for the great majority of men.

 

[alphonsus1]

First, where we agree. I agree that it can be hard to find women who recognize sins of impurity are a great evil. Your consequentialist concerns are valid. I will even say we should consider the possibility that Pope Francis is right on tone. And I also consider the possibility that he is wrong on tone as well. Pope Francis thinks we should keep hard Truths in place, but get to know someone individually and emphasize the truths that will be most likely to be received first before moving on to the hard Truths. An example of how this could work: encourage a friend who is promiscuous to keep up his efforts in fleeing from sin. But perhaps it is not prudent to tell him right now that every bad thought that goes through his brain (with complete consent and full knowledge) is a mortal sin. This is because, as experience from accompanying fellow Catholics shows, people often do not go from being immersed in objective mortal sin to committing no objective mortal sins over night. Also, often people start their journey by accepting some of but not all of the Magisterium. For many people, they first start by removing promiscuity from their life, then they begin waiting until marriage, then they give up addictions, then they give up bad jokes/bad conversations/ and bad thoughts.

So saying a Truth when a person is most likely to incorporate it into his life, since all true statements do not need to be said immediately, by first getting to know the person as a beloved child of God, could very well be what is most likely to result in the person being free from all mortal sins five years down the road!

As far as chaste displays of affection. Chaste kisses that are neither prolonged nor passionate (and stopped immediately after any arousal at all) are moral provided the intentions and circumstances are good (and there are no sins of scandal, omission, etc). I am recommending avoiding physical contact in dating to people who have struggled with heinous addictions, who often need many more precautions than people who have never had an addiction.

I personally do not think avoiding kissing before engagement is extreme. I highly recommend St. Alphonsus because the Magisterium (in Denzinger 2725) declared that his opinions on Faith and morals could be quietly accepted without weighing the reasons on either side. Wow, just wow.

By the way, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, St. Albert, etc, were massively more “rigorous” than St. Alphonsus. It is rigorous to say passionate kissing in marriage not connected to the marital act is a mortal sin, to say NFP is always sinful, to say there are numerous mortal sins in the natural marital act itself, etc. That is rigorism. St. Alphonsus is not “rigorous.” Pope Gregory XVI, when elevating him to be a Doctor, said that St. Alphonsus threaded the needle between rigorism and laxism!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As far as chaste displays of affection. Chaste kisses that are neither prolonged nor passionate can be moral before marriage provided the intentions and circumstances are good. I am only recommending avoiding physical contact in dating (before engagement) to people who have struggled with heinous addictions.

If it has to be, then I suppose it has to be, but the partner of such a person would have to find it kind of bizarre — “I realize you can’t hold hands with me or kiss me, because it will ‘give you problems’”. That would be very humiliating to have to admit to a partner. Again, I’d recommend seeing a doctor or psychiatrist, if libido creates that kind of situation.

I personally do not think avoiding kissing before engagement is extreme. I highly recommend St. Alphonsus because the Magisterium (in Denzinger 2725) declared that his opinions on Faith and morals could be quietly accepted without weighing the reasons on either side. Wow, just wow.

I do think it is extreme, and I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I am not suggesting that morality changes, that right and wrong changes, but in a 20th- and 21st-century Western cultural context, chaste kissing is expected, for lack of a better word, as part of courtship. Perhaps 400-500+ years ago, when many marriages were arranged, and when men and women interacted far less freely than today, you could make a case for that. But quite frankly, if a partner refused even chaste kissing in today’s world, they would be suspected of being homosexual or asexual. It just wouldn’t be understood that a heterosexual dating or courtship partner could refrain from this.

Still, if faithful Catholic couples choose this during dating or courtship, I wouldn’t stand in their way. I have been in a few fairly brief relationships in my dating days when the kiss just didn’t take place. No reason for it, that was just the way it was. I can think of one young woman, who would make an outstanding wife for any man (and she has, for one very fortunate man). We went out a few times, but never exchanged a kiss. It just didn’t happen. No harm, no foul.

 

[alphonsus1]

I want to reply to this because I still do not accept your premise. While this is a prudential judgment, so I am not about to call it Church teaching, I personally favor seeking a woman willing to follow (and believe) the Church’s infallible Magisterium. She would therefore oppose direct contraception. This one condition already narrows the dating pool dramatically.

From this pool of women who agree with the infallible Magisterium and think direct contraception is a crime, I do not think it should be too hard to find a woman willing to compromise and not kiss until engagement (even if she herself would be willing to kiss earlier).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I want to reply to this because I still do not accept your premise. While this is a prudential judgment, so I am not about to call it Church teaching, I personally favor seeking a woman willing to follow (and believe) the Church’s infallible Magisterium. She would therefore oppose direct contraception. This one condition already narrows the dating pool dramatically.

I favor this as well, and yes, it narrows the pool dramatically, as you say.

As you well point out, a woman of that mindset would not have a difficult time accepting this, but it would still be a little bizarre and, if the reasons for it were given, it could be very humiliating to the partner making such a request.

This is not a conversation that could possibly take place anywhere except in very conservative, traditional Catholicism, and possibly Hasidic Judaism. I don’t know where Islam stands on such things. Secular readers, upon seeing a discussion such as this, would think that we are all stark raving nuts. I am not saying that you are, and I am not saying that I am, I am just saying that they would see it this way.

 

[twf]

“It should not be done for delight.” That’s where I’m hung up. I think it’s a language issue. I don’t associate the word “delight” with carnal or sexual pleasure. As a parent I think it’s delightful to kiss my child on the head. Very delightful. Certainly not sexual, but very delightful. Kissing one’s grandmother could be delightful for her as well…the examples are endless.

 

[AlbMagno]

From this pool of women who agree with the infallible Magisterium and think direct contraception is a crime, I do not think it should be too hard to find a woman willing to compromise and not kiss until engagement (even if she herself would be willing to kiss earlier).

This is the coldest and most systematical comment about dating that I’ve read.

I love it

 

[HomeschoolDad]

“It should not be done for delight.” That’s where I’m hung up. I think it’s a language issue. I don’t associate the word “delight” with carnal or sexual pleasure. As a parent I think it’s delightful to kiss my child on the head. Very delightful. Certainly not sexual, but very delightful. Kissing one’s grandmother could be delightful for her as well…the examples are endless.

By “delight”, I meant to describe kissing for its own sake, “for the thrill of it”, not as a way to show affection or love. It feels good, it is exciting, it is pleasant, but none of those things, taken by themselves, are sufficient reasons to kiss someone, and I think that is what the passage from Denzinger was referring to — while it may be indulged in for pleasure without the act, in and of itself, rising to the level of mortal sin, still it remains venially sinful. Kissing for that reason, “because it’s fun”, is really kind of objectifying the other person. On the other hand, to kiss one’s beloved, or one to whom someone has a romantic attachment, as long as it is brief and chaste, is no sin at all. It may “cross a Rubicon” of sorts — “well, I guess we’re a little more than just friends now” — but sometimes “crossing a Rubicon” is just part of life.

I would like to assure CAF readers, especially non-Catholic and secular CAF readers, that the recommendation of withholding kisses, or any other form of physical affection, until engagement (or possibly until marriage), is not the teaching of the Church, nor is it common practice, even among more traditional Catholics. It is a highly restrictive practice that, quite frankly, I had never heard of until I read it here. I would really hate to see young, faithful Catholics struggle with scruples, worrying that they committed a mortal sin because they briefly and chastely kissed their boyfriend or girlfriend good-night after they’d been out to see a movie.

It is the teaching of the Church, on the other hand, that we are to avoid passionate, prolonged kissing or other prolonged physical manifestations of affection (“making out”, “necking”, “heavy petting”, and so on) that the secular world just takes for granted — this inflames the passions and can make for grave temptations against purity. There is a world of difference between a brief kiss, or chastely holding hands, and a prolonged “make-out session”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would like to assure CAF readers, especially non-Catholic and secular CAF readers, that the recommendation of withholding kisses, or any other form of physical affection, until engagement (or possibly until marriage), is not the teaching of the Church, nor is it common practice, even among more traditional Catholics. It is a highly restrictive practice that, quite frankly, I had never heard of until I read it here.

The particular poster alphonsus1 has posted quite a few unusual opinions on interactions between couples, which are neither the teaching of the Church, nor normal behavior among Catholics. Not much one can do about such repeated posts except to just keep pointing out that they aren’t the teaching of the Church.

I would further suggest that a protracted discussion of a fringe opinion on kissing is likely veering outside the scope of the OP’s original topic.

 

[alphonsus1]

. . . . Finally, like I keep saying, even for couples where it is not near occasion of sin to have brief chaste kisses before engagement, then although it would not necessarily be obligatory for the couple to avoid kissing, it could still nonetheless be phenomenal advice!

 

[twf]

sensible delight

You have now stated multiple times that the Holy See condemns not only carnal kisses, but any kisses that involve “sensible delight”. I still don’t understand what this means. Carnal pleasure I understand. As I’ve said now in more than one post…“delight” in physical contact takes many forms. St. John the beloved disciple undoubtedly took delight in the physical action of resting his head in the Lord’s bosom (as Scripture records he did). I take delight in the physical action of kissing my son on the head. Dear platonic same sex friends take delight in the physical act of greeting each other with a hug. I take delight in the physical act of kissing the statues of Our Lord, Our Lady, and the saints.

These are sensible delights derived from physical displays of affection or reverence. They are very different from carnal delights. Can you please describe the sensible, yet non-carnal delights, that the Holy See allegedly condemns as mortal sin? I just don’t get it…these kisses are NON-CARNAL…nothing sexual, no arousal…yet they are mortal sin because of “sensible delight”. All the scenarios I describe above, which are platonic, non-sexual, and even religious in nature, involve “delight” in physical contact…so what the heck is this “sensible delight” that is MORTALLY SINFUL yet allegedly not at all sexual? If there is a whole category of “delight” that is mortally sinful that isn’t related to sexuality, then this needs to be spelled out…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Finally, like I keep saying, even for couples where it is not near occasion of sin to have brief chaste kisses before engagement, then although it would not necessarily be obligatory for the couple to avoid kissing, it could still nonetheless be phenomenal advice!

As a person who was married for 23 years, it’s not “phenomenal advice”, nor is it required by the Church, nor is it the way typical couples on the path to marriage behave.

Your comments have also derailed the thread, which was not in any way about the OP kissing the lady he was perhaps getting too involved with.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This is a misinterpretation of Pope Alexander VII. The decree by the Holy See does not permit intending pleasure so long as you accompany it with other good intentions. Rather, it categorically condemns any intention of pleasure. Tradition confirms this interpretation. The decree is very broad and condemns as improbable that any intention of carnal pleasure is not a mortal sin (objectively). It also goes much further than that and condemns as improbable that any intention of sensible delight is not a mortal sin (objectively).

Secondly, the Church obligates us to avoid near occasions of sin. Therefore, if it is true that it is near occasion of sin for a couple to make physical contact before engagement (say because of a past heinous addiction), then the Church would entirely obligate the couple to refrain from all near occasions of sin (all physical affection in this case).

And besides, given only brief, chaste kisses stopped immediately after any arousal (and preferably before) is prudent before marriage, why should a couple go to the maximum that they are allowed to do immediately? Why not take it slow, and build up, starting with no physical contact (before engagement) and build up to brief chaste kisses after engagement? Why go up the maximum that you can do before marriage as soon as possible? Is not taking it slow and waiting until engagement pretty awesome advice?

If I kiss a beloved one, I do not do it to get pleasure out of it, I do it to show my affection. Any pleasure that comes from it is an unavoidable side effect.

“No physical contact before engagement” is an extreme point of view and is far beyond what is required by Church teaching. People who wish to select only marriage partners who would accept this will be very, very limited as to whom they could ever marry. If a couple wants to engage in a “Josephite courtship”, that is their choice, but it is not common, and I would venture to say, has never been common except in arranged-marriage situations (and not always, even then). And I hesitate to ask any more questions, lest this thread become even more derailed than it already has been, but following your reasoning, why allow any physical contact even during engagement? What changes then? If physical contact creates unwanted arousal, or can be called “pleasure seeking”, how does being engaged make it any more licit? Engagement is not matrimony.

Again, this is a conversation that could never take place except among very, very conservative Catholics, Hasidic Jews, or possibly very strict Muslims.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Finally, like I keep saying, even for couples where it is not near occasion of sin to have brief chaste kisses before engagement, then although it would not necessarily be obligatory for the couple to avoid kissing, it could still nonetheless be phenomenal advice!

Quite agreed. I am not one to “mute” threads or to “cut and run” from volatile discussions, but I have said all I am going to say about it. I would just say to any non-Catholic or secular readers, or anyone new to these forums (especially younger people of dating age), Catholic teaching does not forbid chaste kisses or other chaste physical affections during dating, courtship, and engagement.

I will welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of any priest on this forum.

 

[Ean_Fanaiochta]

I have never read anything so detailed about the morality of kissing.

I was a Baptist during my dating years. As it turned out, I seriously dated only one man and ended up marrying him going on 35 years ago. But the Baptist “rule” on kissing, dating, was simple. Do not sleep with your date. Save that until marriage. And of course you don’t date or flirt with someone who is already taken.

All of this analysis about kissing seems unnecessarily complex.

My apologies to the OP as this is totally irrelevant to his post, except for the admonition to stay away from people who are already married.

 

[PetraG]

Avoiding kissing for carnal or sensible delights before marriage is not a “fringe” idea, it is obligatory under the moral law. As far as avoiding physical contact in dating (if it is near occasion of sin, say for someone who has had a past heinous addiction), this is indeed obligatory if it is near occasion of sin.

Finally, like I keep saying, even for couples where it is not near occasion of sin to have brief chaste kisses before engagement, then although it would not necessarily be obligatory for the couple to avoid kissing, it could still nonetheless be phenomenal advice!

This is the kind of post that makes me wish this were called something like “Catholic Social Forums” and not “Catholic Answers Forums.”

Catholic Answers has some really top-notch apologists who do careful research and really know what they’re talking about. They give reasoned and well-thought-out answers in their tracts.

The problem with this forum is that as valuable as it is as a resource to socialize and exchange ideas with other Catholics, a lot of the answers here are not the teachings of the Catholic Church. That doesn’t make the forum bad. It is a bit misleading to call it “Catholic Answers,” though.

Your answer is simply not correct, because the phrase “for carnal or sensible delights” is so vague. Getting out of bed in the morning and giving thanks that you’re still alive and your legs work is a “sensible delight.” Anything whatsoever you do with your body can be a “sensible delight.”

Sure, a couple could decide not to kiss at all during their engagement. I have no idea where you got the idea that this could be anything like “phenomenal advice.” I’d say it is extreme advice, in most cases. To date and to insist that there won’t be so much as a kiss until after marriage vows are exchanged is going to convince a lot of sensible people that maybe you aren’t cut out for marriage. If that is the kind of boundaries you really need in order to stick with chaste thoughts, you may be a better candidate for a cloister. One person has this gift, another person has another gift. A monk or a nun can afford to steer far clear of the fire altogether, but a married person has to have a bit more capacity to draw near to the fire than what you’re suggesting. If you don’t have that, I’d have to wonder if marriage is for you. It isn’t as if the need for self-discipline goes out the window when the vows are said. Oh, no, a life of self-mastery is just beginning. It generally requires kissing taking place when no more than kissing is going to be taking place.

That was also NOT Church teaching. It is what I think. This isn’t actually Catholic Answers forums. It is Catholics Giving Answers forums. There is a big difference!