Is Hugging/Kissing acceptable when done on their own?

[YinYangMom]

CuriousInIL:

I agree with this but have no basis for believing that the underlined portion of the quote is fully in line with Church teaching. I am not saying that it is not, I am saying I have nothing to support it.

If this is true and supportable, then, for me at least, that answers my question/hypothetical.

To be clear, let me state what I think would be the hypothetical situation. Intimate kissing and hugging between spouses which is so intense it could lead to sex (full arousal by both), but does not. And, because of, for example, schedules, both spouses no that they have only 5 minutes and there is no time for sex now, nor do they have in mind when the next time for sex may be. Not saying they will permanently abstain, simply that in their minds at that time it is not this is in contemplation of tonight or tommorrow or next week. It simply is what it is at that point. Does this help clarify? (Actually I think I confused myself more and should stand on the first part of this post. )

The support you are seeking comes from Christopher West’s “Naked without Shame” available from the Gift Society for $3.90.

As for your example, the way you described it seems to me to be unitive in intent and purpose and therefore ok, specifically because it was mutually given and received.

 

[YinYangMom]

Dmitri451:

Husbands and wives should learn to take unashamed and guiltless joy in their nakedness with each other. It is an affirmation that sex is good and that God made it for our benefit.

It takes a while to get into that ‘before the Fall’ framework of our humanity…thank goodness for JP II’s Theology of the Body - it has been so liberating!

 

[cynic]

Dmitri451:

Let’s consider what is probably a fairly common example. When my wife and I get dressed in the morning, we often see each other naked. Of course, I like to see my wife naked, and she likes to see me. Often, we hug and kiss each other like this, and even briefly and gently caress and kiss each other’s private parts. There is no intention to have sex right then, or perhaps even for a few days.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, PEOPLE!

It’s obviously sexual, and it definitely expresses our love and intimacy. As long as we don’t arouse each other to the point where we are tempted to masturbate, and this point will be different with each couple, this is a perfectly acceptable way for a husband and wife to express their affection.

Husbands and wives should learn to take unashamed and guiltless joy in their nakedness with each other. It is an affirmation that sex is good and that God made it for our benefit.

er, thanks for all that information. No, I was just talking about ‘making out’, nothing else.

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

er, thanks for all that information. No, I was just talking about ‘making out’, nothing else.

Hmmm…now that’s interesting…

‘making out’ to me conjures up teenage intentions of going as far as they can without going all the way.

Why would a married couple intend to ‘just make out’??

All along this thread I was thinking you were asking about a couple who only has 10 minutes because one reason or another and chooses to ‘squeeze in’ and good ‘squeeze’ with that time…all out of love and affection and mutual…

But ‘making out’ sounds like a married couple decides to spend 40 minutes on the couch or in a bed doing everything else but…and this, seems to me, to be outside Catholic teaching.

I could be wrong though, as I noted, I just can’t imagine wanting to do everything else but with my husband if the time’s available to us.

I’ll be interested to see what others have to say about that.

 

[cynic]

YinYangMom:

Hmmm…now that’s interesting…

‘making out’ to me conjures up teenage intentions of going as far as they can without going all the way.

Why would a married couple intend to ‘just make out’??

All along this thread I was thinking you were asking about a couple who only has 10 minutes because one reason or another and chooses to ‘squeeze in’ and good ‘squeeze’ with that time…all out of love and affection and mutual…

But ‘making out’ sounds like a married couple decides to spend 40 minutes on the couch or in a bed doing everything else but…and this, seems to me, to be outside Catholic teaching.

I could be wrong though, as I noted, I just can’t imagine wanting to do everything else but with my husband if the time’s available to us.

I’ll be interested to see what others have to say about that.

no I meant kissing and hugging. Not “everything but”… no direct sexual stimulation. For arguments sake, during a time when they either have to abstain from relations, or they might simply not feel like doing that, I wondered how catholics regarded it.

 

[Dmitri451]

cynic:

er, thanks for all that information. No, I was just talking about ‘making out’, nothing else.

Cynic, you write:

I think you missed my point. My point is that if it’s OK to do the things I described, then it should be obvious that doing the things you describe would be OK, too, provided you don’t cause your wife (or more likely, that she doesn’t cause you) to be aroused to the point that she (or you) would be tempted to “finish things off” by herself (yourself).

How could one possibly think that cuddling on the couch, hugging and kissing, would not be permitted to a married couple? I would think that things like that, ESPECIALLY during times when you must abstain from intercourse, would be almost mandatory!

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

no I meant kissing and hugging. Not “everything but”… no direct sexual stimulation. For arguments sake, during a time when they either have to abstain from relations, or they might simply not feel like doing that, I wondered how catholics regarded it.

Oh, ok.
Well then, the original response holds…so long as the giving of the hug/kiss is done in love **for **the other, and the other lovingly accepts the gift -as well as returns his/her own…then we Catholics find it keeping with the way God intended human love to be in the beginning - before the Fall - and it is good.

 

[cynic]

that’s all fine and good, but from what I know catholics are allowed unity/intimacy- and the satisfaction therein - only in the process of being open to life. They aren’t to be separated. So it would seem that intimate acts of affection, whether sexual or not, should be limited to when they will serve this function.

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

that’s all fine and good, but from what I know catholics are allowed unity/intimacy- and the satisfaction therein - only in the process of being open to life. They aren’t to be separated. So it would seem that intimate acts of affection, whether sexual or not, should be limited to when they will serve this function.

The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated. Sometimes they must. Examples:

• Menopause
• Mid term illnesses (recovering from a stroke, vehicle accident, heart attack, surgery, chemotherapy)
• Having a parent or child in long term care at a hospital (taking care of the home, holding down a job, taking care of the other children in the house, and spending time in the hospital with parent or child for an extended period of time)
• The death of parents or a child (waiting out the stages of grief)
• Having extended family members living in your house for months at a time.

Life happens. Obligations can interfere with our ability to love our spouses completely as often as we’d like. So we have to adapt. This is what these intimate displays of love are all about. This is the unitive aspect of displays of affection. It helps the other person feel secure in the relationship when circumstances keep a couple from connecting as often as the wish they could. It keeps jealousy at bay. It fosters patience and caring and builds up anticipation for the time they can finally reconnect.

John Paul II helped us to see God’s original plan for marriage and it is beautiful - so loving, so giving, so spiritual. He calls us to live today according to that original plan - before the Fall of Adam and Eve. He encourages us not to forsake unitive for procreative and vice versa. He shows us how to balance the two by keeping God center in our lives.

So while you state your understanding is that the two cannot be separated, people here have already shown that Church teaching does not support that understanding. Certainly if you are more comfortable not separating the two for your own relationship that’s perfectly fine and accetable by Church teaching since all couples must discern for themselves what God’s will is for them. I hope, however, that you will not present your understanding, your preference, to other Catholics and non-Catholics as the teaching of the Church on the matter, as John Paul II’s Theology of the Body would show it is not the case.

 

[Listener]

Excuse me, but as a person who has been married over 40 years, I’m finding this thread totally ridiculous. If you can’t hug or kiss your own husband, who on earth CAN you hug and kiss? What are you supposed to do, sleep in a separate bedroom during your “forbidden” NFP time? Even if you did “slip up” during your forbidden NFP time, how on earth could this be a sin. After all, YOU’RE MARRIED!!!

It is sure nice being past a certain age and not having to worry about this stuff any more!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

YinYangMom:

The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated. Sometimes they must. Examples:
…
So while you state your understanding is that the two cannot be separated, people here have already shown that Church teaching does not support that understanding. Certainly if you are more comfortable not separating the two for your own relationship that’s perfectly fine and accetable by Church teaching since all couples must discern for themselves what God’s will is for them. I hope, however, that you will not present your understanding, your preference, to other Catholics and non-Catholics as the teaching of the Church on the matter, as John Paul II’s Theology of the Body would show it is not the case.

Hi

I have not had time to read this whole thread, but I do know that the Church teaches that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Its not up to us to discern whether or not we want to adhere to this. These two aspects are inherent to the act. The procreative aspect does not mean that the wife will get pregnant from the act, it can be there even for people that are not fertile.

From the CCC point 2366:
So the Church, which “is on the side of life” 151 teaches** that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act must remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” **

“**This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” ** 153

Here is an excerpt from the document referenced by the Catechism:
Paul VI, Humanae vitae 11

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy,”[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. ** In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. ** Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, **teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12] **
NOTES
11. Cf. Pastoral Const. Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.
12. Cf. Pius XI, encyc. Casti Connubii, in AAS XXII (1930), p. 560; Pius XII, in AAS XLIII (1951), p. 843.

 

[vluvski]

YinYangMom,
The procreative and unitve aspects of sex cannot be licitly separated.

Many posters are confusing the procreative aspect of sex with the reproductive aspect of sex. Reproductive sex is not required by the church, only that each act of sex be in favor of (pro-) life (creation).
The woman’s fertility is one aspect of God’s creation, so by intentionally abstaining from sex during infertile times because of serious reason to avoid pregnancy, we are embracing God’s design for creation, thus being procreative despite not being reproductive.
If we bring in barriers, contraceptives, or otherwise frustrate the marital embrace, we are no longer embracing the way God intended sex, and therefore are not being procreative.

 

[LittleDeb]

cynic:

that’s all fine and good, but from what I know catholics are allowed unity/intimacy- and the satisfaction therein - only in the process of being open to life. They aren’t to be separated. So it would seem that intimate acts of affection, whether sexual or not, should be limited to when they will serve this function.

I think this boils down to a confusion over what you might believe, not over what Catholics might believe.

What I am reading in your statements is that you figure if abstinence is involved, then no intimacy is allowed as it may cause a couple to ‘slip.’ This could not be further from the truth.

What the rest of us are trying to help you understand is that the DIRECT time involved might be separated from a kiss and a hug to when you actually participate in the marriage act. That is fine!!Your definitions of intimacy, unity, and procreative, seem to be skewed towards rigid ideas.

YingYangMom was trying to help you understand on your terms but it seems to be causing confusion. What she meant was that all acts of intimacy have some unitive qualities to them. She is saying that just because you cannot participate in the marriage act in that particular moment doesn’t mean you cannot show affection.

What is confusing to the rest of us is WHY anyone would want to ‘just make out’ and then stop. It just doesn’t make sense to any of us why you would want to push yourself to a point of total sexual arousal and then just stop.

The sin there would be a sin of selfishness (on both people) not a sexual sin.

 

[Dmitri451]

cynic:

For husband and wife, is it ok to passionately hug and kiss (clothed) if there is no intention to have ‘relations’? From what I read it sounds like all contact that is possibly arousing - even if not deliberately so - should be restricted to the moments directly prior to ‘relations’ and not done at all outside of this time. So other than small kisses and holding hands, all other forms of contact should be avoided. Is this what you have to believe?

Without getting as graphic as I did in previous posts, let me reiterate the obvious:

Of course it’s OK to show passionate affection for your spouse, even with your clothes on, if there is no intention to have ‘relations’ (presumably right then).

I would probably even go so far as to say that if the only time you show passionate affection for your spouse is when you’re naked, then you’re not living up to your obligation to make them feel loved.

Just don’t let yourself or your wife get to the point where either of you feels the temptation to masturbate, or where you run the risk of climaxing without intercourse.

Can it be any plainer?

 

[YinYangMom]

lifeisbeautiful:

Hi

I have not had time to read this whole thread, but I do know that the Church teaches that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Its not up to us to discern whether or not we want to adhere to this. These two aspects are inherent to the act. The procreative aspect does not mean that the wife will get pregnant from the act, it can be there even for people that are not fertile.

From the CCC point 2366:
So the Church, which “is on the side of life” 151 teaches** that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act must remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” **

“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” 153

Here is an excerpt from the document referenced by the Catechism:
Paul VI, Humanae vitae 11

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy,”[11] and they **do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. **In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, **teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12] **
NOTES
11. Cf. Pastoral Const. Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.
12. Cf. Pius XI, encyc. Casti Connubii, in AAS XXII (1930), p. 560; Pius XII, in AAS XLIII (1951), p. 843.

The acts here are addressing the marital embrace. It is not separating out passionate kissing and caressing as the OP is wondering about.

YES, whenever a married couple goes all the way the act itself must be both unitive and procreative…at that point the two are inseparable, as you’ve noted.

But when one partner is unable to engage in the ‘act’ for a period of time (as noted in my examples), passionate kissing and caressing fulfills the unitve aspect of sexual intimacy even though the procreative aspect is not possible at that time.

 

[YinYangMom]

vluvski:

YinYangMom,
The procreative and unitve aspects of sex cannot be licitly separated.

Many posters are confusing the procreative aspect of sex with the reproductive aspect of sex. Reproductive sex is not required by the church, only that each act of sex be in favor of (pro-) life (creation).
The woman’s fertility is one aspect of God’s creation, so by intentionally abstaining from sex during infertile times because of serious reason to avoid pregnancy, we are embracing God’s design for creation, thus being procreative despite not being reproductive.
If we bring in barriers, contraceptives, or otherwise frustrate the marital embrace, we are no longer embracing the way God intended sex, and therefore are not being procreative.

I fail to understand how this explanation applies to my post.

When I said the unitive and procreative could be separated and sometimes must I specifically cited examples of how that would look…where did I mention ABC or suggest they could be separated just because they wanted to separate them?

 

[vluvski]

YinYangMom:

I fail to understand how this explanation applies to my post.

When I said the unitive and procreative could be separated and sometimes must I specifically cited examples of how that would look…where did I mention ABC or suggest they could be separated just because they wanted to separate them?

Let me clarify: Your examples are perfectly permissible situations. However, it is only the reproductive, not the procreative, aspect of sex that is separated from the unitive act.
They are inseparable by any licit means.
LittleDeb shed some light on your intent here. It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

 

[YinYangMom]

vluvski:

It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

Then we’re still on the same page
You had me worried there for a second

 

[Dmitri451]

vluvski:

It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

By “the sex act”, do you mean only sexual intercourse?

Would this mean that actions like briefly and gently caressing each other’s private parts, without significantly arousing each other, would be licit? I don’t know how they could be considered anything but sexual.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

YinYangMom:

The acts here are addressing the marital embrace. It is not separating out passionate kissing and caressing as the OP is wondering about.

YES, whenever a married couple goes all the way the act itself must be both unitive and procreative…at that point the two are inseparable, as you’ve noted.

But when one partner is unable to engage in the ‘act’ for a period of time (as noted in my examples), passionate kissing and caressing fulfills the unitve aspect of sexual intimacy even though the procreative aspect is not possible at that time.

Since you said in another post: "Sex and all actions leading to it serve unitive AND procreative functions for a married couple.

Sometimes it’s all about the unitive.
Sometimes it’s all about the procreative.
Sometimes it’s all about both.
All times it’s about God."
and later said:
“The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated.”

It sounded like you use the term sex to talk about the marital act etc.

Anyways, there is no substitution for the unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Actions can be unitive, but the unitive aspect of the marital embrace cannot be fulfilled without the marital embrace, which in itself must include the procreative aspect.

Also, the Catechism says:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative** and ** unitive purposes.

It does not say or… this is why contraception is morally disordered.

This is a sticky subject and it is very personal to each couple as each couple has different boundaries or different levels they can reach without causing deliberate arousal, so I would not dare to venture into trying to say what each couple can or cannot do if they are not planning on participating in the marital embrace, although there are a few obvious things that cannot be done outside the embrace like reaching climax, etc.

Here’s a question/answer from the ask an apologist section that can help:

“Does that mean that any oral sex activity must be followed by sexual intercourse? Or is oral sex allowed so long as there is no male climax? That is, does all sexual activity have to have as the intent climax by the male during sexual intercourse or is husband wife sexual activity permissible so long as the intent is that if there is a male climax it occurs during sexual intercourse?”

"Fore play is just that. It is what happens beFORE intercourse. To deliberately arouse one’s spouse sexually is to invite him or her to intercourse. To do otherwise is to act in an overtly un-loving way. Certainly, playful actions that are sexual but do not arouse can be appropriate in marriage.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P."

link:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74232&highlight=sexual