I am glad to re-answer this- the official documents should convince him to no longer try get you to french :kissme: and stop at a non-lustful, form of :kissme:.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3948814&postcount=137
If he keeps it up, ditch him, he who does not respect you now, is now worth your time.
p.s. I will start with the ending. The one I gave previously:
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)
“Reply to Objection 2. Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally sinful.”
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4
accounting for places it is acceptable
“I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (I-II, 74, 8), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.”
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4
Relooking at original:
Introduction
**This response has a debate outside of theology,m ending with the difinative words of the Great Summa Theologica, with Imprimatur, and written by Aquinas, the great Philosophy student.
Romance is a showing of greater truth, and the saints must be looked into
I would pray to the saints on this, it is not for us to say something is acceptable, when we cannot say it with thew credit of our conscience, and evidence, just because one does it. Personally, I see such as very special, and a gift, so why would we waste it on just any interest, rather- on a special person, further, I would look to the other moral religions, and see how much distance they put between couples. This shows it too be intimate action, but not necessarily sexual, as we hear of God’s intimacy with us, his secret relations, which we experience in true darkness, and joy.**
Love, as a gospel
So, romance is a reflection of a greater truth, therein, is this acting a dignified, true acting, which does not deny the love of our future, ordained to be spouse, whether God, or our human spouse?
How to debate this issue, who do we want to read our debate?
And so, we must approach such, as though speaking with them, and I would think prayer would be required, to ensure that it is a sign of goodness, and not simply the enjoying of a ice-cream, which incapacitates reasonable views, and creates strong empathetic responses, which could hamper the mind as to God’s intention.
It is sinful to be out of proportion with truth, without sane reason
If anything causes us into that that a person may objectify a person, it is wrong, and sexual pleasure sought for itself is wrong, I think too much focus on this aspect is likely therein incorrect, as it sets up the fellow spouse, or courter as a pleasure inducing person, and not as what they are- a person of God.
Not wrong purely as precursor, but perhaps of it’s own
I also doubt it is always a precursor to other activity. It does of course weaken the will to thoughts of more.
The opposition to chastity, or it’s addition
(in orgininal debate)
Check the source of many of those who object, many also support guy to guy or girl to girl marriage, or think it good, or are not Catholic, which makes their position in moral theology something in which they either speak in general, or not for Catholic use.
Hearing our bodies on the subject
So, is it immoral because it is embarrassing, if people were perfect, it would be, but we are not all perfect, however, the embarrassment of people, does show that they believe it somewhat wrong, or that the circumstance is not to be desired, in which they feel so, and so they believe either that it is wrong, or should be private, that is their judgment, and that of others who think that people should not publically do so, except in movies, where we acknowledge it as the telling of something private, as a society (Not necessarily as the church), as such, there is something that causes us to hide such, or ask others to.
Other possible reasoning
Also, it is a showing of weakness, and so embarrassment itself does not make this wrong, but protective of one’s emotion, and courter-
Also, we cannot say, would we do this with this or that historic figure, I certainly would not, but this is because I would keep this for a person I am infatuated, and in love with, and not relate it to a person we respect too greatly to imagine in such, it is like saying, would you do this with this and that saint- the response is negative, it would take from our perception of how great they were, and harm their message. Thinking of what they would do is better than what we would do with them**.**
Emotions are not the source, let us look at the official response, which is active
Is this hiding of emotions, and embarrassment of showing these, and the fear of incorrect views, or is it the actions of conscience, perhaps either or both, but the ultimate one is the official one-
SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)
“Reply to Objection 2. Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally sinful.”
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4
accounting for places it is acceptable
“I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (I-II, 74, 8), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.”
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4
Yet, there is also other views, other than those of Saint Thomas Aquinas.** All of them discourage this action as dangerous outside of marriage.**
(I would of course say that I always use his work as a sounding board, and have not found any source endorsing this action, so the church seems to condemn it outside of cultural reason, and of married purpose, and it’s own compass says this is mortal offense, outside of cultural or other purposes!)
It’s certainly fine for married couples, if they enjoy it.
darn it
