Is holding hands and kissing before marriage a sin?

[Avermaria]

I know this might sound scrupulous and even I would have laughed before if someone had asked me this question. I ask because I read part of St. Alphonsus Liguori's "Theologia Moralis" which asks and answers several questions on the sinfulness of several topics. 
 In it, he states that hand-holding and kissing, when not married, are sinful as these are "lustful" acts which are to lead to insemination. He states that even if there is no further danger of further acts or of insemination outside of marriage that it still constitutes a mortal sin. 
 He says "namely to pinch the hand of a woman, to intertwine fingers, etc., as a mortal sin due to the carnal enjoyment which then takes place, or at least on account of the proximate danger of it." I never considered these acts as particularly lustful and more innocent than anything else but this startles me as my entire view of courtship, romance, and dating is exposed as literally damning.

 

[Avermaria]

I know this might sound scrupulous and even I would have laughed before if someone had asked me this question. I ask because I read part of St. Alphonsus Liguori’s “Theologia Moralis” which asks and answers several questions on the sinfulness of several topics.
In it, he states that hand-holding and kissing, when not married, are sinful as these are “lustful” acts which are to lead to insemination. He states that even if there is no further danger of further acts or of insemination outside of marriage that it still constitutes a mortal sin.
He says “namely to pinch the hand of a woman, to intertwine fingers, etc., as a mortal sin due to the carnal enjoyment which then takes place, or at least on account of the proximate danger of it.” I never considered these acts as particularly lustful and more innocent than anything else but this startles me as my entire view of courtship, romance, and dating is exposed as literally damning.

(I dont know why it formatted strangley in the first post so I re-did it in the form of a reply)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Saints are not infallible.
Saints also lived in a certain time and place. The social customs of St. Alphonse’s day would discourage such physical contact unless and until the couple were married. There would have also been other customs regarding chaperones, appropriate dress etc that we likely don’t follow today. For example, women didn’t go around in trousers, or in skirts above the knee, in St. Alphonse’s day; a woman walking down the street in those outfits in his time would likely be seen as committing a grave sin of indecency.

Today our Western culture permits hand-holding between unmarried couples, and also permits some kissing in moderation between unmarried couples, assuming it’s not being done in a lustful manner and not creating a temptation/ occasion of sin.

This sort of statement by St. Alphonse is like when St. Bridget of Sweden criticized marital sex as immoral, or when St. John Vianney went on a crusade against dancing in his town. You have to look at the social context and customs of the time. Times change, customs change.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Church forbids premarital sex whether it’s the first date or 100th date.

The Church does NOT provide official guidelines for unmarried couples about when to hold hands and when to kiss. Again, these things are determined by the culture.

We are discussing matters where the Church has not laid down a clear moral rule. The OP is wondering whether they should, in lieu of an official church rule, use the writing of a saint from several hundred years back and from a different culture.

If you use common sense you can tell when appropriate social norms (such as clothing, hair length, hand-holding, dancing) is determined by the culture, vs determined by God’s law laid down by the Church. No one using their common sense would say, “Oh dear, it’s so immoral today, let us all dress and act like proper people of 1650!” And whatever era you pick is guaranteed to have plenty of immorality of its own.

 

[Rau]

The Church forbids premarital sex whether it’s the first date or 100th date.

Correct. But “western culture“ takes a very different stand.

 

[Irishmom2]

You may want to use the search feature. There are many threads about this for your perusal.

There is this one, currently “running” right now.

"Keeping the kiss for marriage – do I or don’t I?" An article Moral Theology

This is a drastic view. Or is it drastic? Read this article and see.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Correct. But “western culture“ takes a very different stand.

As I noted, the thread is not discussing an issue such as premarital sex where the Church has clearly spoken to the issue.

In any event, I’ve said my piece, and I’m out.
If somebody still wants to worry that they’re in mortal sin because they held hands with a guy they aren’t married to, feel free.
One thing I’ve learned from this forum is that there are people who just never stop finding new sins under every bush and worrying about them. I don’t find that a productive use of time.

 

[alphonsus1]

I wanted to make a couple points about what St. Alphonsus believes.

1. St. Alphonsus does not think that chaste looks and touches are mortal sins from the sole consideration of being near occasions of sin. Still though, this is excluding looking with the motive of venereal pleasure, since there is no doubt that an act with this motive is objectively grave in the unmarried. Rather, St. Alphonsus excuses a man from all sin if he has a just cause for looking at women. He also treats it as no more than ordinarily venially sinful, even when there is no just cause for looking (but still, this is assuming there is no habit). However, St. Alphonsus does treat chaste looks at women, with no or idle cause, as at least venial, if not mortal, in the habit. Also, St. Alphonsus does not believe that chaste touches and hand holding are absolute occasions of sin. If these acts are sinful on account of near occasion of sin, then it is due to the acts being relative danger of sin, not due to them being absolute danger of sin.

Some definitions. Relative proximate danger depends upon individual and cultural specific factors that differ from one individual to another or one culture to another. Absolute proximate occasions are proximate by the very nature of the occasion for everyone (or for some subset of humanity). St. Alphonsus thought chaste looks and touches could be relative proximate danger for some individuals, but he did not treat these occasions as absolute occasions applying to all people and all times.

1. St. Alphonsus with Tradition very clearly treat looking at the face of a women or holding hands as something that, in theory, can differ in danger from one culture to another. Whether an occasion is no longer dangerous today depends upon whether the danger is indeed diminished in present circumstances. This is likely the case today: either the manuals were slightly too strict (even during their time) or the frequency of the exposure to occasions can make it such that just looking at the face of a woman is not dangerous today, except perhaps if a man is very attracted to a woman. Only in this case is there likely any venial sin on account of near occasion of sin. Note that even for occasions that are relative proximate danger, it is an error to only consider ways that the occasion can be less dangerous today without equally considering ways that the occasion can be more dangerous in present circumstances. Also, it is an error to not consider the possibility that an occasion is proximate danger in the habit although it may not be proximate danger on any specific time in isolation.
2. The question the poster refers to is about the intention of pleasure. It is always objectively grave for the unmarried to intend even the smallest degree of venereal pleasure, regardless of the act in question. Therefore, objectifying women by intending pleasure, even through hand holding, is grave matter. To repeat, a couple holding hands can never be motivated by venereal pleasure.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

One thing I’ve learned from this forum is that there are people who just never stop finding new sins under every bush and worrying about them. I don’t find that a productive use of time.

Taking the most maximalist view of sin at all times is just a sign that you’re a “real” catholic. Or something.

 

[1ke]

St Alphonsus is a saint and a holy man, no doubt. Remember, Saints are not infallible.

His writings are not doctrines.

 

[Avermaria]

Blockquote
Therefore, objectifying women by intending pleasure, even through hand-holding, is a grave matter. To repeat, a couple holding hands can never do so with the motive of venereal pleasure.

So we define hand-holding as sinful because it brings about venereal pleasure, and I assume love is included in this? So two questions arise from this. First, does this mean that hand-holding and such similar acts if done without being accompanied by sex are sinful as you aren’t completing the entire marital act? Like you would be doing the act for venereal pleasure like you would be doing sex unlawfully because you don’t reach its natural goal of insemination.
Second, does this mean that a married couple should be forbidden from hand-holding and kissing in public? If it is forbidden for non-married people to do then would it not be immoral for them to look upon as well?

Does the Doctor answer either of these two questions in his book or another one?

 

[DivineMercy01]

If you’re dating someone it is always more important to ask yourself how you can honor your boyfriend or girlfriend rather than “how far is too far.”

A good litmus test for if you are “using” the other is “if you wouldn’t want your future spouse doing this with someone else, don’t do it.” Another one I’ve heard is that you shouldn’t be touching where a bathing suit would cover.

The Church does not have specific teaching on kissing or holding hands before marriage, but some couples do choose to abstain from kissing before their wedding day.

 

[SPBlitz]

The question the poster refers to is about the intention of pleasure. It is always objectively grave for the unmarried to intend even the smallest degree of venereal pleasure, regardless of the act in question. Therefore, objectifying women by intending pleasure, even through hand holding, is grave matter. To repeat, a couple holding hands can never be motivated by venereal pleasure.

So wait, if you’re romantically attracted to someone, then holding their hand because you are romantically attracted to them is a grievous act? That can’t be right.

 

[Rau]

I wonder - did Alphonsus ever marry?

 

[Polak]

This sort of statement by St. Alphonse is like when St. Bridget of Sweden criticized marital sex as immoral

Really? Interesting. I have never heard about this. I don’t see how such an argument could possibly be made in line with Church teaching.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Really? Interesting. I have never heard about this. I don’t see how such an argument could possibly be made in line with Church teaching.

The saints can definitely be wrong about stuff.

 

[Montrose]

I know this might sound scrupulous and even I would have laughed before if someone had asked me this question. I ask because I read part of St. Alphonsus Liguori's "Theologia Moralis" which asks and answers several questions on the sinfulness of several topics. 
 In it, he states that hand-holding and kissing, when not married, are sinful as these are "lustful" acts which are to lead to insemination. He states that even if there is no further danger of further acts or of insemination outside of marriage that it still constitutes a mortal sin. 
 He says "namely to pinch the hand of a woman, to intertwine fingers, etc., as a

Rule of thumb. Don’t do anything you would not do in front of your parents.

 

[Pitcairn17]

He says : “… to pinch the hand … a mortal sin…” I didn’t realize hand pinching was a thing in Alphonsus’ day. So he’s saying that “hand pinching” is the moral equivalent of adultery? Of abortion? Of murder? Irrespective of the fact that the Church itself isn’t saying this, the fact that a canonized saint holds such opinions is troubling.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Alphonsus wasn’t wrong about this; modern culture has simply moved to reject his position.

I was referring to St. Bridget of Sweden’s hang ups about sex. I don’t want to argue about St. Alphonsus’ teaching; it’s been done to death. Just making the limited point that just because a saint said or wrote something doesn’t mean it’s infallible truth.

 

[Montrose]

I was referring to St. Bridget of Sweden’s hang ups about sex. I don’t want to argue about St. Alphonsus’ teaching; it’s been done to death. Just making the limited point that just because a saint said or wrote something doesn’t mean it’s infallible truth.

That’s true. St Thomas Aquinas wrote that he didn’t believe in the Immaculate Conception.