Is kissing a sin?

[AngryAtheist8]

I recall back in my Catholic schooldays, kissing was one of those pleasurable pastimes that was classed by the church as “putting oneself in the OCCASION of sin”, I guess that meant putting oneself in temptation. We were supposed to confess it. Spoilsports!

Apparently I was right:shrug:

Fortunately, I am not a Catholic so I don’t have to worry about it

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think you’re over simplifying the natural law arguments somewhat in the analogy you’re trying to draw. (I assume you’re trying to draw an analogy to the natural law arguments that homosexual activity, masturbation, or something similar is wrong.)

It may be helpful to examine the sin of gluttony. From Wikipedia:

So grabbing a candy bar when you’re hungry (or even when you’re not particularly hungry, but when whatever food value there is will be put to use) may be fine, depending on motivation etc - but eating to experience the flavor and then inducing vomiting is not fine, because in inducing vomiting you circumvent the purpose of eating entirely.

Likewise, engaging in sexual activities is only a problem when one does so for the pleasure but avoids the purpose entirely. (Notice I haven’t mentioned any body parts yet, it’s more than “the mouth is for eating” etc.) Sex between a man and a women who are already married is fine, because it is ordered towards creating children. Contraceptive sex is not fine because that purpose is consciously circumvented. Homosexual sex is not fine because that purpose is being ignored entirely. Again, no body parts mentioned.

I suppose you could argue that some of those acts aren’t really sex as such, and so aren’t covered by that reasoning. But this would be along the lines of arguing that “eating” a cheeseburger by chewing each mouthful and then spitting it out isn’t really eating. and so isn’t prohibited by the prohibition of gluttony. Gluttony is pursuing pleasure of taste without regards to the purpose of eating, likewise sexual sin is pursuing sexual pleasure without regards to the purpose of sex.

And again, this argument does not need to reference body parts at all.

So: the argument against kissing you provide fails because it’s simply not complete (it happens not to be completable, but it fails because it is not complete). You have not demonstrated that the mouth is not to be used for any purpose that completely ignores eating in the same way that eating is not to be used for any purpose that completely ignores nourishment or that sex is not to be used for any purpose that completely ignores procreation.

Using that logic, you could argue that being a chef is a sinful profession, since it encourages people to eat for pleasure (rather than mere nourishment).

 

[shipwrkd]

Shouldn’t kissing (even between married couples) be considered sinful since it can so easily lead to Lust?

Nope, kissing between married couples leads to kids. Kids are a miracle, how can that be lust. I haven’t lusted for my wife in 41 years but I desire her constantly and kiss often.

Let me answer your question with one of mine. Have you ever kissed your Mother? Was it lust? You asked, I think you have your answer!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

It is not at all like saying that.

First, dating is in fact a near occasion of sin. This is why people who are unable to marry should not date (i.e., middle schoolers). It’s acceptable to expose oneself to the risk of sin only when the potential outcome is better. Since dating leads to marriage and marriage is a holy state, the risk is worth the reward.

Second, one can date without ever kissing passionately. Again, kissing passionately (i.e., tongues and groping and necking etc.) arouses the body to desire, and that desire is not permissible outside of marriage. Kissing passionately, unlike dating, is not all that necessary in order to get married. Some people have their first kiss on their wedding day, so clearly it isn’t essential. Since it’s not really essential and a near occasion of sin, it’s not permissible.

Whether or not it would be a mortal sin, I dunno. But it’s certainly disordered. Sexual excitation belongs to the married, not the discerning.

Aren’t you the one that said sex was naturally profane in another thread?

Moreover, if 2 people don’t find each other desirable, I really don’t they should be getting married. At the very least, *the male *must be aroused for procreative sex to occur.

 

[Bookcat]

Can kissing be sinful? Yes. Can it be (ought it be) chaste? Yes.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Can kissing be sinful? Yes. Can it be (ought it be) chaste? Yes.

I believe the OP was talking about sensual kissing.
Which by its very nature *is not *chaste.

 

[Bookcat]

I believe the OP was talking about sensual kissing.
Which by its very nature *is not *chaste.

(I assume you mean there deliberately arousing etc)

In marriage --sure it can be by its nature be-- chaste.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

(I assume you mean there deliberately arousing etc)

In marriage --sure it can be by its nature be-- chaste.

Arousal can be chaste

 

[Bookcat]

Arousal can be chaste

Yes certainly. Its place is in marriage.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

You would think so…
Since kissing is (or at least can be) a sensual act that is not in of itself procreative.

Personally, I think sex and romance is complicated enough without making endless rules about how to do it properly:shrug:

I agree. I love Aquinas but I wouldn’t never think to consult the Summa before kissing someone. Legalism seems to rule with most on these boards.

I agree with J_Peterson.

I can appreciate the need for moral law (sadly lacking these days), which should proceed from the Divine and Absolute Truth found in the teachings of the Catholic Church, however, some of these dating posts seem to border on being unrealistic in a real life environment (whether it is that of today or even 50 years ago). Some of the replies, while well intended, could certainly encourage and foster neurotic obsessive compulsive behavior.

Thomas Merton wrote something to the effect that one is not truly exercising one’s own conscience if one is only doing so to appease another or simply to follow strict directions. It would seem, and it makes sense, that one should act and do well of one’s own accord proceeding from one’s own faith (note: There is but one Faith and Catholics should know it well enough to be able to discern right from wrong all by themselves). These type of threads run on for pages with endless debate and comments from the peanut gallery.

Furthermore, I don’t know how one could possibly discern suitable marriage from “dating” if one was afraid to even look at the other person depending on the clothing they may be wearing at the time (one would have to run to CAF for an authoritative answer, of course). Arranged marriages might fit the bill for some folks around here. No more worrying about measuring the distance between yourself and your prospective spouse… Appropriate and moderate dress and proper actions should originate from within to be true. And at the end of the day, only the OP’s Spiritual Director or Confessor can advise whether their actions are/were sinful or not.

And no, I am not some promiscuous liberal Catholic. I believe in and follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church. I live a chaste single life and as a disclaimer, I have never been close to being in the OP’s situation. Please excuse my tone if I have been too harsh, I do not mean to be offensive or uncharitable. Also, I will be the first to admit that I don’t know it all, so take from this post what you wish (if anything at all)

God Bless…

 

[sw85]

You would think so…
Since kissing is (or at least can be) a sensual act that is not in of itself procreative.

It’s so unclear what you’re trying to say here that I’m not even sure if it’s wrong. Are you saying kissing is bad because it doesn’t result in procreation? But surely you realize the standard for moral behavior is not “it must get a woman pregnant.”

Lots of things aren’t procreative, like flying; it doesn’t follow they’re immoral. Some things are immoral when they are contrary to the use of the procreative faculty and are intentionally used/done for this purpose, like contraception or masturbation. Is kissing contrary to the use of the procreative faculty? Not at all; in fact it facilitates it. Which is why, in those cases in which sex is not OK, one should avoid very passionate kissing.

Personally, I think sex and romance is complicated enough without making endless rules about how to do it properly:shrug:

There’s no “endless rules.” There’s one rule: use your sexual faculty the way it’s meant to be used. Then there’s millions of people trying to exploit perceived loopholes in order to gratify their obscene lusts, and complaining all the while about the onerous burden of legalism.

This is especially interesting since the modern mating dance is ludicrously complex by comparison and virtually no men can play it well, which is why a narrow segment of alphas dominate the meat market. Has no one ever been to a frat party?

Shouldn’t kissing (even between married couples) be considered sinful since it can so easily lead to Lust?

No. Lust does not equal mere desire. It is instrumentalizing and unchaste desire.

I agree. I love Aquinas but I wouldn’t never think to consult the Summa before kissing someone. Legalism seems to rule with most on these boards.

The funny thing is, the only person here being legalistic is the OP, and he/she is clearly doing it to make a point about legalism and (presumably) the perceived bogosity of natural law.

Aren’t you the one that said sex was naturally profane in another thread?

Yep. If I recall right you were the person who persisted in his bad-faith misrepresentation of what I mean by “profane” (i.e., “not sacred”) despite my repeated efforts to correct your error.

Moreover, if 2 people don’t find each other desirable, I really don’t they should be getting married. At the very least, *the male *must be aroused for procreative sex to occur.

I dunno what this has to do with anything I said.

I believe the OP was talking about sensual kissing.
Which by its very nature *is not *chaste.

This is really quite embarrassing. “Chaste” means “characterized by chastity.” “Chastity” means reserving the use of the sexual faculty for its proper end, i.e., marital intercourse. So there are instances in which sensual kissing is in fact chaste, i.e., when it is conducive to natural intercourse between a married couple. So, yes, arousal itself can be chaste under the same circumstances. Because “chaste,” for a married couple, means “sexual.” You are perhaps conflating chastity with abstinence.

To believe sensual kissing is A-OK outside of marriage as a Catholic, you have to believe it is not a matter of chastity. Thus you have to believe there is no logical connection between kissing and sex, i.e., that the former is in no way related to the latter. That’s a tall order and one not even the most skilled sophist can fulfill.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The natural law forbids acts which are contrary to the natural end of our faculties. So, first, “lips” aren’t really a faculty, and second, kissing isn’t contrary to the end you imagine lips to have.

Can you please define “natural end of our faculties” and explain the methodology for determining one briefly?

The funny thing is, the only person here being legalistic is the OP, and he/she is clearly doing it to make a point about legalism and (presumably) the perceived bogosity of natural law.

The true motive of the question is to elucidate the concept of natural law. To do this, we require examples.

E.g., “Australia is an island and also a continent. Are all islands continents? If not, why not?”

I have a feeling if I posted that question here, people would get mad that I was disputing Australia’s status as a continent.

 

[cynic]

Lots of things aren’t procreative, like flying; it doesn’t follow they’re immoral. Some things are immoral when they are contrary to the use of the procreative faculty and are intentionally used/done for this purpose, like contraception or masturbation. Is kissing contrary to the use of the procreative faculty? Not at all; in fact it facilitates it. Which is why, in those cases in which sex is not OK, one should avoid very passionate kissing.

It would be hard to imagine a marriage where a couple only kissed immediately prior to intercourse, with small platonic pecks on the cheek being the only acceptable thing at other times (like that between relatives). I guess you might have to define what “very passionate” is as opposed to just passioniate.

 

[sw85]

Can you please define “natural end of our faculties” and explain the methodology for determining one briefly?

I just finished writing a 60-page essay on Catholic moral theology, which is on the sparse side and leaves out lots of nuances. Probably several billion of words in the last 2,500 years have been written on the topic of right behavior from a natural law perspective. Most of these words are wrapped up in books that go on for several hundred pages at the minimum. To even begin explaining it I would need to introduce a number of philosophical ideas including teleology, classical essentialism, and the ontology of ethics.

So no, I’m not going to define it for you, because I have a job, other posts to comment on, lunch to eat, duties to attend to, etc. And also because forum space constraints would necessitate probably 10-20 posts. And because I have a natural aversion to doing other people’s homework for them. And finally because I am not the best expositor of anything and I know the temptation people have is (for some reason I will never understand) to assume that the best possible arguments for anything related to Catholicism can be found by uneducated laymen on the Internet, meaning I cannot do it justice and my attempt to do so will probably convince you there’s less to it than there is.

What I will happily do is give you some references for recommended reading. An excellent place to start is Edward Feser’s “Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Private Property,” an essay that applies natural law principles to the specific question of private property, but which includes a useful (but superficial) review of natural law principles. It’s available online for free here. For a fuller treatment of those principles, you can consult two of Feser’s books: The Last Superstition (better for a lay audience) or *Aquinas *(for a more academic audience). David Oderberg’s “The Metaphysics of Natural Law” is basically an introduction to natural law on hard mode.

It would be hard to imagine a marriage where a couple only kissed immediately prior to intercourse, with small platonic pecks on the cheek being the only acceptable thing at other times (like that between relatives). I guess you might have to define what “very passionate” is as opposed to just passioniate.

No one’s saying it’s required that married couples kiss only before getting it on. Notice that I said “…in those cases in which sex is not OK, one should avoid very passionate kissing.” There are no such cases in marriage. Sex is always OK in marriage. The worst normative marital sex can be is imprudent, i.e., you shouldn’t be risking pregnancy because your wife’s health is fragile or because your finances might be unduly stressed by another child. Likewise, I’m saying passionate kissing, while it is at least potentially an offense against chastity outside of marriage, is conducive to chastity inside of marriage, and so can never itself be mortally sinful. The worst it can be is imprudent (i.e., why are you making out with your wife when you needed to leave for work 10 minutes ago?). So maybe venially sinful at worst, depending on the circumstances.

You all are making this ludicrously more complicated than it needs to be, all in an effort, I suppose, to make it apparent how cumbersome and counterintuitive natural law is (or whatever). It’s not hard. Sex belongs to marriage, so have sex when you’re married and don’t when you aren’t. Passionate kissing is linked to sex, so kiss passionately when you’re married and don’t when you aren’t. When should married couples kiss passionately/have sex? When it’s prudent. “Prudent” is a fancy word meaning “use your best judgment.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I just finished writing a 60-page essay on Catholic moral theology, which is on the sparse side and leaves out lots of nuances. Probably several billion of words in the last 2,500 years have been written on the topic of right behavior from a natural law perspective. Most of these words are wrapped up in books that go on for several hundred pages at the minimum. To even begin explaining it I would need to introduce a number of philosophical ideas including teleology, classical essentialism, and the ontology of ethics.

So no, I’m not going to define it for you, because I have a job, other posts to comment on, lunch to eat, duties to attend to, etc. And also because forum space constraints would necessitate probably 10-20 posts. And because I have a natural aversion to doing other people’s homework for them. And finally because I am not the best expositor of anything and I know the temptation people have is (for some reason I will never understand) to assume that the best possible arguments for anything related to Catholicism can be found by uneducated laymen on the Internet, meaning I cannot do it justice and my attempt to do so will probably convince you there’s less to it than there is.

What I will happily do is give you some references for recommended reading. An excellent place to start is Edward Feser’s “Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Private Property,” an essay that applies natural law principles to the specific question of private property, but which includes a useful (but superficial) review of natural law principles. It’s available online for free here. For a fuller treatment of those principles, you can consult two of Feser’s books: The Last Superstition (better for a lay audience) or *Aquinas *(for a more academic audience). David Oderberg’s “The Metaphysics of Natural Law” is basically an introduction to natural law on hard mode.

This is what is happening between us in another thread as well: you make assertion X, then when I engage you about the assertion, it’s a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Pro tip: if you’re too busy to explain assertion X, you’re probably too busy to make assertion X in the first place and the rest of us have every right to ignore it.

 

[sw85]

This is what is happening between us in another thread as well: you make assertion X, then when I engage you about the assertion, it’s a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

Pro tip: if you’re too busy to explain assertion X, you’re probably too busy to make assertion X in the first place and the rest of us have every right to ignore it.

Ah. So your aim is to “engage” “assertions” rather than to “learn.” That explains the disconnect. Your first post asked a question, so I assumed you were interested in learning. If I’d known the question was just a cover for griping (instead of just suspecting it was), I wouldn’t have responded to it at all.

I rarely have interest in engaging anyone. Nor am I making assertions for assertion’s sake. My aim is to answer questions, which is the business we’re supposed to be in. This is Catholic Answers, after all. Sometimes answering questions consists in pointing people to sources that can answer them better than I can, being, again, a layman formally uneducated in these matters, whose intellectual clumsiness would probably do more to misrepresent the truth than to defend it. That’s what I was trying to do; again, if I’d known you just wanted to gripe and argue, I wouldn’t have bothered posting here at all.

Not that there’s anything wrong with griping, mind you. But if you want to gripe, just gripe (i.e., “Natural law is so stupid – applied rigorously, it means you can’t even kiss!”). Don’t pass your gripes off as questions and then complain when people mistake them for actually being questions.

 

[IanGE]

You all are making this ludicrously more complicated than it needs to be, all in an effort, I suppose, to make it apparent how cumbersome and counterintuitive natural law is (or whatever). It’s not hard. Sex belongs to marriage, so have sex when you’re married and don’t when you aren’t. Passionate kissing is linked to sex, so kiss passionately when you’re married and don’t when you aren’t. When should married couples kiss passionately/have sex? When it’s prudent. “Prudent” is a fancy word meaning “use your best judgment.”

In other words: don’t frighten the horses!

 

[IanGE]

Perhaps the English language is too elastic: “kiss” covers the whole range from ultra passionate to chaste. In Dutch there are two words: Kuss and Zoen: I believe a “kuss” is on the lips and only granted to married or engaged couples; “zoen” is, in the words of the late Marilyn Monroe, “a kiss on the cheek is quite continental”. But there are rules: acquaintances get a zoen on one cheek; close friends on both cheeks. Family, mwa, mwa, mwa, right, left, right.
In Britain, kisses on the lips were the norm: “Hello Auntie Mary…yuk!” But when I returned from working in Holland in 1980 the “zoen” had crossed the channel - thank God. Charismatics are into hugs as well as “zoens” with absolutely no naughty thoughts: just “GREAT to see you!” But not in church: at the sign of peace, Charismatics may be discerned by the passing of zoens.
In India, we turned to our fellow Catholics at the Mass sign of peace and extended our hands to shake, but they backed off in horror. They offer each other a namaste, closed praying hands. No touching! This practice extends to Indian Catholic immigrants in Britain, too, which puzzles Brits.
When I was in the RAF flying round the world, Mass was still in Latin with sermons in the vernacular. No problem following the Mass but there was no sign of peace as I recall.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**It’s so unclear what you’re trying to say here that I’m not even sure if it’s wrong. Are you saying kissing is bad because it doesn’t result in procreation? But surely you realize the standard for moral behavior is not “it must get a woman pregnant.”

Lots of things aren’t procreative, like flying; it doesn’t follow they’re immoral. Some things are immoral when they are contrary to the use of the procreative faculty and are intentionally used/done for this purpose, like contraception or masturbation. Is kissing contrary to the use of the procreative faculty?** Not at all; in fact it facilitates it. Which is why, in those cases in which sex is not OK, one should avoid very passionate kissing.

There’s no “endless rules.” There’s one rule: use your sexual faculty the way it’s meant to be used. Then there’s millions of people trying to exploit perceived loopholes in order to gratify their obscene lusts, and complaining all the while about the onerous burden of legalism.

This is especially interesting since the modern mating dance is ludicrously complex by comparison and virtually no men can play it well, which is why a narrow segment of alphas dominate the meat market. Has no one ever been to a frat party?

No. Lust does not equal mere desire. It is instrumentalizing and unchaste desire.

The funny thing is, the only person here being legalistic is the OP, and he/she is clearly doing it to make a point about legalism and (presumably) the perceived bogosity of natural law.

Yep. If I recall right you were the person who persisted in his bad-faith misrepresentation of what I mean by “profane” (i.e., “not sacred”) despite my repeated efforts to correct your error.

I dunno what this has to do with anything I said.

This is really quite embarrassing. “Chaste” means “characterized by chastity.” “Chastity” means reserving the use of the sexual faculty for its proper end, i.e., marital intercourse. So there are instances in which sensual kissing is in fact chaste, i.e., when it is conducive to natural intercourse between a married couple. So, yes, arousal itself can be chaste under the same circumstances. Because “chaste,” for a married couple, means “sexual.” You are perhaps conflating chastity with abstinence.

To believe sensual kissing is A-OK outside of marriage as a Catholic, you have to believe it is not a matter of chastity. Thus you have to believe there is no logical connection between kissing and sex, i.e., that the former is in no way related to the latter. That’s a tall order and one not even the most skilled sophist can fulfill.

Lots of things aren’t procreative…

So what?

This isn’t about things such as flying.
Kissing in of itself can be sensual (i.e. sexual) but it doesn’t result in babies.
Therefore, based on the logic that all sexual activities must be procreative, sensual kissing is sinful (assuming that its not a direct part of the marital act).

Frankly, you can make a half decent argument using that kind of logic (as many puritanical Christians have) that foreplay is by nature sinful as well.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There’s no “endless rules.” There’s one rule: use your sexual faculty the way it’s meant to be used. Then there’s millions of people trying to exploit perceived loopholes in order to gratify their obscene lusts, and complaining all the while about the onerous burden of legalism.

This is especially interesting since the modern mating dance is ludicrously complex by comparison and virtually no men can play it well, which is why a narrow segment of alphas dominate the meat market. Has no one ever been to a frat party?

.

Oh I am familiar with the Catholic theological standard.
That there’s nothing wrong with sex.
As long as…
-the parties involved are a man and woman married to each other
-they are not thinking anything sinful.
-they are not feeling anything sinful.
-they are not engaging in sex at that time for any sinful reason (such as manipulating their spouse).
-they are not using birth control.
-they don’t intend to use birth control.
-sex doesn’t distract them from their worldly and Godly obligations too much.

As long as all those points are met (and I may be forgetting a few) modern Catholicism has few rules for sex