Is kissing a sin?

[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.

I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

 

[underacloud]

I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

AngryAtheist8, you have heard them…many times on this forum…you merely choose to misunderstand them.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Good point.
I lose respect for debaters who, whenever challenged to back up an assertion with evidence, respond ‘look it up yourself.’

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

But your not an official authority or teacher at CAF.
You have no right to simply tell people (at CAF) things and expect them to meekly accept it.
If you want to convince anyone here of something, you need to make an effort to BE convincing.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

AngryAtheist8, you have heard them…many times on this forum…you merely choose to misunderstand them.

I heard arguments to that effect, they simply were not very convincing, nor (in my opinion) very good.

 

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

But you are the one who constantly makes this assertion. Why don’t you put forward an argument, citing official Catholic teaching, to support your case?

 

[Equites_Christi]

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

There’s nothing wrong with eating.
Provided:
-the food is not poisonous
-the food is not rotten
-the food is not undercooked
-the eater does not have an allergy to the food
-the eater’s digestive system is functioning properly
-the food would not cause other health complications to the eater (clogged arteries, etc.)
-the food could not immediately be put to better use (given to starving man)

Man, life is so hard!!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There’s nothing wrong with eating.
Provided:
-the food is not poisonous
-the food is not rotten
-the food is not undercooked
-the eater does not have an allergy to the food
-the eater’s digestive system is functioning properly
-the food would not cause other health complications to the eater (clogged arteries, etc.)
-the food could not immediately be put to better use (given to starving man)

Man, life is so hard!!

Those are all reasonable health concerns, and are not dependent on the state of mind of the person preparing or cooking the food.

The Catholic attitude towards food is completely different from its attitude towards sex.
Now admittedly food and sex are very different things, but acting as though people treat food like they treat sex is simply disingenuous.

 

[White_Peony]

Passionate kissing is a sin. Kissing someone who is not your spouse is a sin.

It is not against the natural law. St. Paul said, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Passionate kissing is a sin. Kissing someone who is not your spouse is a sin.

It is not against the natural law. St. Paul said, “Greet one another with a holy kiss.”

Really?

So if a child kisses its mother that’s a sin

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

But you are the one who constantly makes this assertion. Why don’t you put forward an argument, citing official Catholic teaching, to support your case?

You are asking me to prove a negative.
That’s both unreasonable and virtually impossible.

If you want to prove me wrong, simply put forth a decent argument.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m just going to say this:

If kissing is a sin then I’m converting to Protestantism.

This coming from a teenage male who told his agnostic girlfriend that if we’re going to stay together there is to be absolutely no sex before marriage and no contraception or condoms within marriage if that should ever occur.

Just give me kissing, please? I promise not to cause scandal either.

 

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I have never heard a decent argument explaining how sexual desire and arousal (in the real world) can be separated from and devoid of what Catholicism describes as Lust.

You are asking me to prove a negative.
That’s both unreasonable and virtually impossible.

If you want to prove me wrong, simply put forth a decent argument.

I’m not asking you to prove a negative at all. I’m asking you to show, quoting Church documents such as the catechism, what you accuse the Church of teaching.

For example, with regard to pleasure:

*2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.*

And another example, regarding the Church’s definition of lust:

*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. *

So we see that the Church teaches that spouses may have sex for pleasure and enjoyment, as long as it’s not isolated from the purposes of sex (procreation and unity). Do you have a problem with that?

When the Church talks about lust, they are not using the term to describe “sexual desire and arousal”; they are using it to indicate disordered desire, such as objectifying people, or inordinate focus on sex, such as being so preocupied with sex that one fails to fulfil other important duties they have.

OK, your turn…

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Well it can lead to sin.

If you guys start to french kiss I guarantee you that you will both get excited and want more and that is when it becomes a problem.

Unless you’re married of course, feel free to go nuts.

 

[JackVk]

It all depends. In Hispanic cultures, a kiss on the cheek is a standard greeting. As for kissing your boyfriend/girlfriend, I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily sinful in and of itself, but it’s probably not smart. My first kiss with a girl, was with my now ex-girlfriend, and we had only been dating for about 2 weeks. We had made the commitment to be chaste, but that kiss made things too “romantic” too fast. This clouded our objectivity and our ability to communicate, leading to misunderstandings. And the breakup was quite nasty (aren’t they all?)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Reading several posts in this thread, it strikes me how some of you have an odd self-control paradox.

Many of you seem to have an incredible ability to avoid something like kissing on the grounds that it can lead to more inappropriate things outside of marriage.

And yet, off the top of my head three of my friends are in completely chaste relationships, and they certainly kiss their significant others fairly often! The relationships all lasted for several years,and only one of them has ended so far, and it was a pleasant break-up.

Self-control is more common in teens than people think.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m not asking you to prove a negative at all. I’m asking you to show, quoting Church documents such as the catechism, what you accuse the Church of teaching.

For example, with regard to pleasure:

*2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.*
And another example, regarding the Church’s definition of lust:

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.

So we see that the Church teaches that spouses may have sex for pleasure and enjoyment, as long as it’s not isolated from the purposes of sex (procreation and unity). Do you have a problem with that?

When the Church talks about lust, they are not using the term to describe “sexual desire and arousal”; they are using it to indicate disordered desire, such as objectifying people, or inordinate focus on sex, such as being so preocupied with sex that one fails to fulfil other important duties they have.

OK, your turn…

Frankly you’re helping me to prove my point.
The Catholic Church treats sex and desire like they were necessary evils that must be carefully limited.

I know that within the context of Catholic theology and dogma what you are saying makes perfect sense.

So what?

Sexual desire is by its nature basically selfish and base/instinctive.
Those emotions can be accompanied by other things, but if you strip all the selfish/instinctive parts of (sexual) desire, it isn’t arousal or sexual desire anymore.

Biologically sexual desire is ultimately just the mating urge.
So from that perspective saying that sex should just be for procreation makes sense (as long as you ignore the wants and needs of actual human beings).

And it is certainly more intellectually honest and logical than saying that sexual desire is okay as long as its in a form human beings virtually never (and probably cannot) experience.

 

[JackVk]

Frankly you’re helping me to prove my point.
The Catholic Church treats sex and desire like they were necessary evils that must be carefully limited.

I know that within the context of Catholic theology and dogma what you are saying makes perfect sense.

So what?

Sexual desire is by its nature basically selfish and base/instinctive.
Those emotions can be accompanied by other things, but if you strip all the selfish/instinctive parts of (sexual) desire, it isn’t arousal or sexual desire anymore.

Biologically sexual desire is ultimately just the mating urge.
So from that perspective saying that sex should just be for procreation makes sense (as long as you ignore the wants and needs of actual human beings).

And it is certainly more intellectually honest and logical than saying that sexual desire is okay as long as its in a form human beings virtually never (and probably cannot) experience.

Nobody ever died from a lack of sex. And it’s not just for procreation, it’s for unifying a husband and wife as well.

As for saying the Church views sex as a “necessary evil”, you are sorely mistaken. we are not the Gnostics, who thought the material Catholicism was too pro-sex. Why is the Church so picky about it, you ask? Because the world and the devil have cooked up countless different forgeries of sex, which breed nothing but selfishness. The point of sex in marriage is not “getting some”, but giving all.

Read about JP2’s Theology of the Body, or read the beginner’s version by Christopher West. They can explain it better than I can.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Nobody ever died from a lack of sex. And it’s not just for procreation, it’s for unifying a husband and wife as well.

As for saying the Church views sex as a “necessary evil”, you are sorely mistaken. we are not the Gnostics, who thought the material Catholicism was too pro-sex. Why is the Church so picky about it, you ask? Because the world and the devil have cooked up countless different forgeries of sex, which breed nothing but selfishness. The point of sex in marriage is not “getting some”, but giving all.

Read about JP2’s Theology of the Body, or read the beginner’s version by Christopher West. They can explain it better than I can.

To be honest, I have wondered many times whether the ancient Gnostics actually won, and no one noticed.

 

[JackVk]

To be honest, I have wondered many times whether the ancient Gnostics actually won, and no one noticed.

Pardon my typo on what you bolded. I meant the Gnostics said the material world was evil, and Catholicism being too pro-sex. But you get my point.

You’ll have to define what you mean by “won”. As in Christians embraced asceticism as an end in itself?