When pollution danger is excluded, only the spouses do not sin with one another.So Denzinger 2060 says it is erroneous to believe that a kiss is “merely a venial sin when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, even if the danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.” I wonder if it only applies to the unmarried or for everyone.
Various Errors on Moral Matters *
[Condemned in decrees of Sept. 24, 1665, and of March 18, 1666
B. On the 18th day of March, 1666
…
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.
I recall a thread in the old CAF discussing that it was likely sinful for a man to kiss his wife in the morning as he was leaving for work. Same idea as your thought. If one sweeps away modern marital understandings such as “Theology of the Body,” and returns to bedrock sources such as Denzinger, it reinforces the belief that the Church at its core was, and remains, extremely uncomfortable with the idea not so much of marital intimacy, but the enjoyment of it.The problem with this is that the wording is so ambiguous and seems that passionate kissing done outside the marital act is forbidden.
You realize that the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are in Denzinger? Theology of the Body admittedly isn’t in Denzinger, but one could also use Denzinger to cite Quo Primium on why the OF is invalid and be just as wrong. An erroneous citation is not the fault of the source. Sources can be abused.If one sweeps away modern marital understandings such as “Theology of the Body,” and returns to bedrock sources such as Denzinger, it reinforces the belief that the Church at its core was, and remains, extremely uncomfortable with the idea not so much of marital intimacy, but the enjoyment of it.