Is kissing a sin?

[The_Bucket]

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.

And we have a winner. AA you can quit the trolling now. We get that you’re turned off by the Church’s position on sexuality and no one here is trying to push Her beliefs onto you.

As other posters have hinted at, in marriage there is but one rule related to sex: Make it selfless. Your litany of rules on a previous page underscore how there is but one rule and it relates to the two commandments Jesus left for us. Love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. All of our actions should be selfless and sex especially should be selfless.

If it’s not selfless it’s not real love. Even atheists know that, right? The Church merely states that there is no exception to that rule when it comes to the bedroom. You can’t divide fertility from sex and still consider it selfless. You can’t use your spouse for your own pleasure or make it manipulative. These actions all violate the chief rule that extends to basically every aspect of our lives: Love. And by love I mean go all the way. Love is totally selfless. Love has no regard for the lover but for the beloved. Love as God loves. With no regard for Himself but only for His creation.

The Church merely acts as a guide as to how to follow that one rule in practical ways.

 

[mytruepower2]

According to Christian Natural Law, is kissing a sin?

The lips do not appear to have been designed with this purpose in mind. Rather, lips were designed to facilitate food intake.

The lips have quite a number of purposes. They facilitate not only intake of food, but of drink and medicine, and they’re used to speak as well.

Kissing is no kind of sin whatsoever, unless, of course, you’re kissing someone your wife wouldn’t approve of.

 

[underacloud]

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.

Once again, you do not make an actual argument, just throw out assertions.

Show me where the Church teaches what you say: “treating sex and desire like they were necessary evils”. I show you where the Church teaches that “spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment”, while you insist instead that the Church teaches something different…without any support. “Nothing evil” is a direct quote from Catholic teaching…“necessary evil” is somehow what you read?

Also, you again mis-state what the Church teaches in suggesting that she teaches: “sex should just be for procreation”. The Church teaches that unity is also the purpose of sex…you repeatedly miss this important point. Desire, arousal, and enjoyment of sex are perfectly acceptable…not evil or sinful, but rather “what the Creator has intended for them”.

You’d rather just read sections in isolation, such as “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself”…you read this isolated section and wrongly conclude that the Church is against people enjoying sex, but in proper context there is no such conclusion: “sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”.

Do you understand the unitive purpose of sex in Catholic teaching? That God intends sex to be enjoyable for spouses, to bring them mutual pleasure and to unite them in their marriage bond. That desire and arousal are perfectly fine…between married people. I’m struggling to understand why you can’t see this…unless you merely don’t want to.

 

[Angelo85]

If kissing is a sin, then shaking hands would also be a sin (the purpose of hands are not to shake with someone else’s hands)

 

[jimmy]

And we have a winner. AA you can quit the trolling now. We get that you’re turned off by the Church’s position on sexuality and no one here is trying to push Her beliefs onto you.

As other posters have hinted at, in marriage there is but one rule related to sex: Make it selfless.

What does that even mean? How is it even possible to make it selfless? Your not allowed to enjoy it? Is the desire itself sinful?

Frankly, if this forum is a representation of Catholic teaching then I have to say that AngryAtheist is right about the gnostics winning: Christianity only defeated gnosticism by assuming it into itself.

Maybe Catholic women should walk around with pillow cases over their heads to avoid arousing men. And we can have arranged marriages. Maybe have some honor killings. It would just be awesome. I hope the sarcasm is pretty aparrent.

 

[jimmy]

If it’s not selfless it’s not real love. Even atheists know that, right? The Church merely states that there is no exception to that rule when it comes to the bedroom. You can’t divide fertility from sex and still consider it selfless. You can’t use your spouse for your own pleasure or make it manipulative. These actions all violate the chief rule that extends to basically every aspect of our lives: Love. And by love I mean go all the way. Love is totally selfless. Love has no regard for the lover but for the beloved. Love as God loves. With no regard for Himself but only for His creation.

So you only love your wife if you have sex despite the fact that you think she is ugly, despite the fact that she has a dead personality, and etc. You can only claim to really love her when you consider everything about her to be revolting. If you find her physically attractive then you fall short. The love you encourage is nothing but self hatred, which is essentially gnosticism.

I actually think the exact opposite: if you find no joy in it then it isn’t love. It is a personal relationship that should bring joy to both sides. Sex is no different. Both people should enjoy it and have fun and be glad that they have fun (you would probably say they should be fretting over the fact that they enjoy it themselves, since it should be selfless. only the other person is allowed to enjoy him or herself).

 

[sw85]

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.

What Catholicism describes as lust is inordinate desire for intercourse, i.e., a desire that is not ordered toward its proper object, which is procreation, which is reserved for marriage. By definition a husband cannot really lust for his wife nor a wife for her husband. They can desire one another. They can also desire to use one another illicitly, but the desire for intercourse with them ceases to be per se illicit.

You are perhaps mistaking “lust” for mere “sexual desire of any sort ever,” which is simply not what the Church teaches.

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.

Again, my goal is not to “convince” anyone of anything. The OP asked I question. I pointed her in the direction of answers. I’m not here to do people’s homework for them. And last I checked, the work of apologetics here is not confined to Fr. Serpa et al.

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

Have you read Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics? The Gnostics did, indeed win. We now call them “leftists.”

 

[cynic]

Far be it from me to summarise Catholic teaching, but I’m not sure that personal “selfish” desires for intimacy are necessarily viewed as evil as long as they don’t overide the dignity or good of your spouse.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

Yes, exactly.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

And we have a winner. AA you can quit the trolling now. We get that you’re turned off by the Church’s position on sexuality and no one here is trying to push Her beliefs onto you.

As other posters have hinted at, in marriage there is but one rule related to sex: Make it selfless. Your litany of rules on a previous page underscore how there is but one rule and it relates to the two commandments Jesus left for us. Love God with all your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. All of our actions should be selfless and sex especially should be selfless.

If it’s not selfless it’s not real love. Even atheists know that, right? The Church merely states that there is no exception to that rule when it comes to the bedroom. You can’t divide fertility from sex and still consider it selfless. You can’t use your spouse for your own pleasure or make it manipulative. These actions all violate the chief rule that extends to basically every aspect of our lives: Love. And by love I mean go all the way. Love is totally selfless. Love has no regard for the lover but for the beloved. Love as God loves. With no regard for Himself but only for His creation.

The Church merely acts as a guide as to how to follow that one rule in practical ways.

But the mating urge/sexual desire is by nature NOT selfless.
Its an instinctive urge that rewards you with pleasure for satisfying it.

The marital act cannot occur unless the man (at least) is lost in arousal to a certain extent. Selfless love and sex are not (and cannot be) the same thing.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**What does that even mean? How is it even possible to make it selfless? Your not allowed to enjoy it? Is the desire itself sinful? **

Frankly, if this forum is a representation of Catholic teaching then I have to say that AngryAtheist is right about the gnostics winning: Christianity only defeated gnosticism by assuming it into itself.

Maybe Catholic women should walk around with pillow cases over their heads to avoid arousing men. And we can have arranged marriages. Maybe have some honor killings. It would just be awesome. I hope the sarcasm is pretty aparrent.

As I have pointed out before:
The kind of sexual desire Catholic theology approves of, does not (and most likely cannot) exist in the real world.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What Catholicism describes as lust is inordinate desire for intercourse, i.e., a desire that is not ordered toward its proper object, which is procreation, which is reserved for marriage. By definition a husband cannot really lust for his wife nor a wife for her husband. They can desire one another. They can also desire to use one another illicitly, but the desire for intercourse with them ceases to be per se illicit.

You are perhaps mistaking “lust” for mere “sexual desire of any sort ever,” which is simply not what the Church teaches.

Again, my goal is not to “convince” anyone of anything. The OP asked I question. I pointed her in the direction of answers. I’m not here to do people’s homework for them. And last I checked, the work of apologetics here is not confined to Fr. Serpa et al.

Have you read Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics? The Gnostics did, indeed win. We now call them “leftists.”

THANK YOU:thumbsup:

I needed a good laugh.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I have heard all week.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What Catholicism describes as lust is inordinate desire for intercourse, i.e., a desire that is not ordered toward its proper object, which is procreation, which is reserved for marriage. By definition a husband cannot really lust for his wife nor a wife for her husband. They can desire one another. They can also desire to use one another illicitly, but the desire for intercourse with them ceases to be per se illicit.

You are perhaps mistaking “lust” for mere “sexual desire of any sort ever,” which is simply not what the Church teaches.

Again, my goal is not to “convince” anyone of anything. The OP asked I question. I pointed her in the direction of answers. I’m not here to do people’s homework for them. And last I checked, the work of apologetics here is not confined to Fr. Serpa et al.

Have you read Eric Voegelin’s The New Science of Politics? The Gnostics did, indeed win. We now call them “leftists.”

It effectively does teach that actually.
Since the Church teaches that sexual desire must be selfless (in other words, not sexual desire at all) to be licit.

 

[sw85]

THANK YOU:thumbsup:

I needed a good laugh.
That’s the most ridiculous thing I have heard all week.

So you didn’t read it. OK.

It effectively does teach that actually.
Since the Church teaches that sexual desire must be selfless (in other words, not sexual desire at all) to be licit.

Where in the world has the Church ever authoritatively taught this? In none of my readings of any Church documents have I encountered this sentiment, and my efforts to google rough restatements of it lead me, uniformly, right back to this very thread.

 

[underacloud]

It effectively does teach that actually.
Since **the Church teaches that sexual desire must be selfless **(in other words, not sexual desire at all) to be licit.

Actually, the Church does not teach this. Show me where it does.

When the posters above talk about selfless sex…and I’m sorry if I misrepresent what they mean, but I’m trying to work it out myself…they don’t mean it in the sense of “devoid of any self interest”, but just that sex should be focused on expressing love to the other person; not merely about what you can get from the other person. As I’ve shown above, the pleasure of sex is intended by God, and there’s nothing wrong with having sex for the sake of pleasure…we merely cannot separate this pleasure from the other ends of sex, such as unity. But this unity is essentially the mutual enjoyment of the sex act by the spouses. So sex is meant to be enjoyable, for both spouses. The Church doesn’t teach that desire and arousal are wrong (again, I challenge you to show where it does, or please stop asserting this), but that desire and arousal have their proper place within marriage. Is it marriage, rather than Catholic sexual ethics, that you have a problem with?

I am married. I love my wife. I find her very attractive. I desire her and am aroused by her. I very much enjoy sex with her. I try my best to ensure it is enjoyable for her too (and she tells me that it is). Now, the challenge I have for you is to show me that there’s anything wrong, according to Catholic teaching, with my approach to sex with my wife.

 

[underacloud]

Where in the world has the Church ever authoritatively taught this? In none of my readings of any Church documents have I encountered this sentiment, and my efforts to google rough restatements of it lead me, uniformly, right back to this very thread.

AngryAtheist8 keeps saying this with no support whatsoever. I’ve repeatedly challenged them on it…in this and other threads. I can only presume now that they have a preconception and have no interest in changing it. It’s a pity. I enjoy helping people understand the Catholic position on issues given there are so many misconceptions out there. But when they just want to repeatedly argue against the Church based on an entirely false permise, despite being corrected, there’s only so much one can do.

I think I’m only responding now so that others reading this thread will get the correct picture of Catholic sexual ethics, not the strawman AngryAtheist8 puts forward.

 

[superamazingman]

Well, to be honest, should we be suprised? He is an athiest after all…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It effectively does teach that actually.
Since the Church teaches that sexual desire must be selfless (in other words, not sexual desire at all) to be licit.

Where in the world has the Church ever authoritatively taught this? In none of my readings of any Church documents have I encountered this sentiment, and my efforts to google rough restatements of it lead me, uniformly, right back to this very thread.

I don’t know actually.
But the concept of **selfless sexual desire **is something that a lot of conservative Catholics seem eager to promote:shrug:

Plenty of them have claimed that it is an official Church teaching.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Actually, the Church does not teach this. Show me where it does.
When the posters above talk about selfless sex…and I’m sorry if I misrepresent what they mean, but I’m trying to work it out myself…they don’t mean it in the sense of “devoid of any self interest”, but just that sex should be focused on expressing love to the other person; not merely about what you can get from the other person. As I’ve shown above, the pleasure of sex is intended by God, and there’s nothing wrong with having sex for the sake of pleasure…we merely cannot separate this pleasure from the other ends of sex, such as unity. But this unity is essentially the mutual enjoyment of the sex act by the spouses. So sex is meant to be enjoyable, for both spouses. The Church doesn’t teach that desire and arousal are wrong (again, I challenge you to show where it does, or please stop asserting this), but that desire and arousal have their proper place within marriage. Is it marriage, rather than Catholic sexual ethics, that you have a problem with?

I am married. I love my wife. I find her very attractive. I desire her and am aroused by her. I very much enjoy sex with her. I try my best to ensure it is enjoyable for her too (and she tells me that it is). Now, the challenge I have for you is to show me that there’s anything wrong, according to Catholic teaching, with my approach to sex with my wife.

Here is the Catholic definition of Lust:

The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

Link to source:
newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.html

So in other words…
You’re not supposed to want sex that much, or indulge your desire for it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**AngryAtheist8 keeps saying this with no support whatsoever. ** I’ve repeatedly challenged them on it…in this and other threads. I can only presume now that they have a preconception and have no interest in changing it. It’s a pity. I enjoy helping people understand the Catholic position on issues given there are so many misconceptions out there. But when they just want to repeatedly argue against the Church based on an entirely false permise, despite being corrected, there’s only so much one can do.

I think I’m only responding now so that others reading this thread will get the correct picture of Catholic sexual ethics, not the strawman AngryAtheist8 puts forward.

The anti-sex (and in many cases anti-women) attitude of the Church Fathers and many of the saints is well established. So what I am saying is hardly without foundation.

Moreover, no one has ever put forth a convincing argument regarding how the Catholic Church can separate what it calls Lust from sexual desire in general.