Is passionate kissing wrong for unmarried people?

[Person]

For more on this topic, please consider the source available at amazon.com/Christian-Dating-Courtship-Intimacy-Catholic/dp/B001F3H2GQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

What if you are married?

From what I can gather, Catholics believe that any kind of ‘passionate’ contact (clothes on) should only occur as the neccessary means of arousal before ‘relations’. Once that’s over with, all ‘passionate’ contact should cease immediately, as it no longer serves a purpose, and the couple should go back to thinking of each other as brother and sister, ie as platonic partners.

That’s certainly what seems to be widely believed around here – even to the belief posted by some that a good-by kiss in the morning is sinful if it leads to “pelvic congestion” and tempts the spouse thus to sin during the day, such as with “lustful thoughts.” I personally think that the idea that spouses must live as brother and sister except for brief, and hopefully infrequent and dispassionate as possible, encounters violates the Sacrament of Matrimony, but it seems to be a popular position of some here.

 

[Person]

How do you expect to grow your relationship to the point of marriage if you only hold hands and hug? I mean if your girlfriend/boyfriend feels the same way as you then hey thats great and your relationship can do fine without kissing.
However from experience about 95% of girls I have come across in their late teens and 20’s since I’m 20 myself (even catholic and pretty religious ones) feel the same way I do and value intimacy and kissing. So if your girlfriend/boyfriend wants to kiss you and you don’t feel the same then there can be trouble and you need to discuss your boundaries.

But I think if one partner feels it is sinful to kiss and won’t do it until marriage while the other doesn’t feel the same, your robbing your partner of a lot of emotional intimacy and feeling of love that he/she needs. Unless both parties feel the same, your relationship will not even get to marriage if your restricted to hand holding and hugging only. That’s like being friends almost and I would think that once married things would be awkward after years of just doing that and you can go further than friend type stuff.

By the way, My boundaries are actually quite tight compared to most guys my age.

You bring up a great point. Please allow me to address it…

First, there are many varying and subtle ways to physically show one’s love without increasing sexual desire and pleasure in oneself or another in excessive ways. I would think that if you would hold your cheek against the cheek of the person with whom you are in a courtship so that he/she could feel the warmth of your love for him/her, then that would be one way to express your emotion to her. There are many other ways that help him/her to feel your love and also feel a sense of security in a scary world such as the one in which we live. If the person you are courting can only receive messages of emotional intimacy specifically through prolonged kissing, then there is a psychological blockage that seems to make him/her unfit for marriage. For a normal person, even in this scary world, he/she will feel loved and safe through your warm, pure hugs and spontaneous and brief single kisses. There should not be a need for prolonged kissing for a normal, psychologically-healthy person, the type of person that a person with prudent standards chooses to court.

Second, passionate kissing in courtship is not an indicator of future marital success/failure. Those who passionately kiss before marriage divorce as frequently as those who have not passionately kissed before marriage. Therefore, it is not true to rhetorically ask “How do you expect to grow your relationship to the point of marriage if you only hold hands and hug?”

We are called to grow in purity according to our state in life. When unmarried, we do not grow in purity through prolonged kissing. What you have written may be true for married couples who wish to grow in purity, but not for unmarried couples.

You wrote: “That’s like being friends almost…” I agree and that is the point. Courtship is a special type of friendship and should not be confused with marriage which is the deepest form of communion that two people can enter while here on earth. On this note, the Catechism states in 2347: “Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor. …] It leads to spiritual communion.” So, it is not almost like being friends, it is being friends.

My fiancé and I will marry in 20 days. As you have described, it will probably seem a bit “unusual” for us, who are friends, to engage in the marital embrace since it so much “further” than we have ever “gone” before. Since God created her as a woman and me as a man, I believe that even though our wedding night will be radically different than any other day we have previously spent together, that what will occur on that night will also be completely natural. Since it is natural, I think it will feel natural, although different than anything else we have experienced before in our lives.

We have to remember that the natural law is built upon human nature. It is human nature to reserve acts that induce sexual desires and pleasures for marriage. On our wedding night, we plan to act in accordance with the human natural law, the moral teaching of the Church.

We consider passionate kissing to be a mortal sin and think that this will not actually inhibit our chances of having a lasting marriage, but will rather increase our chances. We intentionally chose not to enter into courtship with anyone who has differing beliefs. We chose one another because we wanted to have a holy marriage. By making a wise selection of spouse, we eliminate most of the scenarios you have listed, and which I consider to be exceptions rather than the rule.

I understand your reasoning and wanted to present a different way of thinking for you here. God bless!

For more info like this, please see amazon.com/Christian-Dating-Courtship-Intimacy-Catholic/dp/B001F3H2GQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i.

 

[Person]

I have a correction regarding my last post. I wrote “We consider passionate kissing to be a mortal sin.” I meant to write “We consider passionate kissing to be a mortal sin OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.”

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I have a correction regarding my last post. I wrote “We consider passionate kissing to be a mortal sin.” I meant to write “We consider passionate kissing to be a mortal sin OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.”

Person, email me if you are interested in writing online commentaries for a blog which is read. I’m interested in what potential you carry as an author (non-profit work of course!)

 

[bookgirl32]

What if you are married?

From what I can gather, Catholics believe that any kind of ‘passionate’ contact (clothes on) should only occur as the neccessary means of arousal before ‘relations’. Once that’s over with, all ‘passionate’ contact should cease immediately, as it no longer serves a purpose, and the couple should go back to thinking of each other as brother and sister, ie as platonic partners.

Read “The Truth About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West, that should answer most of your questions.

 

[bookgirl32]

My fiancé and I will marry in 20 days. As you have described, it will probably seem a bit “unusual” for us, who are friends, to engage in the marital embrace since it so much “further” than we have ever “gone” before. Since God created her as a woman and me as a man, I believe that even though our wedding night will be radically different than any other day we have previously spent together, that what will occur on that night will also be completely natural. Since it is natural, I think it will feel natural, although different than anything else we have experienced before in our lives.

.

We were even excited to sleep in the same bed together, even to get ready for bed in the same room, etc. It’s sad that people think intimacy between a couple is limited to physical contact.

 

[Holly3278]

If an unmarried man passionately kisses his girlfriend, is it a sin?

It might not be a sin but it would be a near occasion of sin and therefore should be avoided.

 

[chevalier]

A male subject, who sincerely desires to marry a woman, will often unknowingly attempt to manipulate her into wishing to marry him through such an enticement as passionate kissing provides.

Not so sure of that. Not so sure that only the man would be the one manipulating, even if so. It seems to me both genders might be prone to subconscious manipulation and both genders are equally capable of it. There is a traditional saying that women use sex to get love, men use love to get sex. In this light, inducing one to marry you would be a more female thing to do and inducing one to have sex with you would be a more male thing.

It is also likely that courting women who maintain that passionate kissing can be a selfless act in which one focuses on the pleasure of the other have fallen into error.

If the pleasure is sexual, then yes. But not all pleasure which comes from kissing is plainly and simply sexual. I remember reading a 19th century text saying that a higher breath rate and pulse, the thrill of kissing, was not, although that text wasn’t in favour of passionate kissing.

It seems to me that passionate kissing is not a sin on the mere account of the movements which physically make it, same as it would be with unlawful sexual intercourse. Therefore it seems to be wrong on the account of the effects of it, which means e.g. the arousal. Therefore it seems that if someone were not aroused by that kind of kissing, and his “partner” would neither, then it would not be sinful for them. Admittedly, I have a little problem here because I’m not sure if any degree of sexual tension or arousal is unacceptable (barring when it’s sought for itself, of course) or only a degree that puts one at risk of lustful thoughts.

He must always remember that because he is a man certain intentional actions arouse sexual desire and pleasures in him that they do not arouse in the woman.

I’m not sure it’s true that women are less easily stimulated by men, especially by passionate kissing. It seems to me that women more easily lose themselves in it, clouding the mind as you say.

Intentionally experiencing a certain level of sexual desire and pleasure outside of marriage is seriously sinful. It is not properly ordered because it is outside of the proper marital context. Engaging in passionate kissing is an intentional action and, for that reason, it is subject to moral analaysis. The male subject who is unmarried and engages in passionate kissing engages in personal sin. While this is a personal sin, his female counterpart is an accomplice in his immoral action, thus there is an interpersonal or “social” element to the sin.

That works if the goal is sexual, but I’m not sure there such a swift transition just because the kissing itself is intended, while the arousal is not intended, although I do believe that people she be mindful not to get their mind clouded. Admittedly, I have a little problem determining when is the precise moment that sin happens. I think if passionate kissing presents a challenge in overcoming temptation, then yes, one needs not to do it. On the other hand, I’m not sure people need to avoid feeling any response in their bodies, even if it doesn’t overcome their minds.

Therefore, while many maintain that engaging in passionate kissing is an act of self giving,

I don’t think a physical act of self-giving is appropriate before marriage. Those things which are less controversial, such as a goodbye peck or holding hands, are not described as self-giving. This might be a clue. The conclusion seems to be that self-giving physically before marriage is a misguided notion.

There is a wide variety of forms of affection that do not increase sexual desire or pleasure to excessive levels.

Yes. However, most physical displays of affection raise it at least just a little, even in a way that poses no challenge to one’s mind at all, but it’s technically arousal - just of a minimal degree. Arguments could be made that it makes any such display wrong and that one should thus avoid it. I suppose that might be true, but I’m not really looking forward to make such a conclusion. It seems to me those things aren’t wrong if they aren’t intended to arouse the other person.

However, using this same argument, one could say that passionate kissing could not always be wrong, but only if it indeed clouded the mind, took away judgement, exposed one to lustful thoughts and temptations that are likely to break one’s will. True that, but I also think that regardless of temptation or lack of it, maintaining a high level of arousal isn’t fine for people who are not married, although it could be fine for those who are - say, happening in the morning, while they make love in the evening later that day (but not even immediately).

What say ye?

 

[chevalier]

To supplement the previous post, I remember once a missionary priest told my highschool class, some 10 years ago, that kissing was fine when it was to show affection, not fine when it was to satiate one’s desires. That sounds very reasonable to me and I use it as a guiding rule, but I’m not sure that goals solve the whole equation.

Obviously, we need to consider that 1) putting oneself in occasion of sin is wrong, 2) seeking sexual pleasure for itself is wrong, 3) seeking any sexual pleasure before or outside marriage is wrong because it is selfish, 4) there is some problem when arousal happens while it wasn’t invited by the individual and is not welcome by that person, who also makes no attempts to release that tension by ways of masturbation or unlawful intercourse.

Where I have a problem, personally, is what obligations arise in #4, that is, whether one needs totally to avoid and eradicate any presence of arousal of any degree, or one is “merely” obligated to avoid temptation of engaging in unlawful sexual acts or fantasies. I think this is rather simple if one has a good reason to do what he’s doing - we wouldn’t blame a person who’s merely aiding the “target” without being interested in any form of interaction other than providing professional help, such as e.g. a doctor providing medical examination or someone providing advice or a moral philosopher considering a question he is answering. On the other hand, this gets difficult in dating situations when one doesn’t have a great legitimate need to be there doing what one’s doing. I even opened a thread asking advice this night because I no longer trust my judgement at this point after considering this for a longer while. Well, maybe you would have some ideas?

I think the answer shouldn’t really be to be liberal or relative, but some kind or rule should be able to be reconstructed. I’m getting some ideas, but rounding up a nice rule is beyond me at this point.

 

[rusty20]

First, I think that when you wrote “purely,” you meant “merely.” I often make the mistake of using the word “purely” in these contexts, which leads to confusion, thus I can understand the mistake.

Yea, I guess merely would be more appropriate for this context haha.

Second, I think you are close to describing the truth on this matter. What do you mean by “and resist”? Resist what, specifically?

I mean that if you resist the temptation to go further than one should go, For instance, if you resist the temptation to have oral sex.

The whole point I’m trying to mke is that sexual arousal in and of itself is NOT sinful outside of marriage. Your reaction to that arousal and the way you acheive that arousal determines whether it is problematic.

If you seek sexual arousal outside marriage through ‘making out’, thats a problem. If you do not seek it through making out, but end up acting on it, thats a problem. BUT, if you do NOT seek sexual arousal, but it arises (pun intended), then you resist the sinful temptations to go further sexually, then you have done nothing wrong…

Understand?!!?!

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

What if you are married?

From what I can gather, Catholics believe that any kind of ‘passionate’ contact (clothes on) should only occur as the neccessary means of arousal before ‘relations’. Once that’s over with, all ‘passionate’ contact should cease immediately, as it no longer serves a purpose, and the couple should go back to thinking of each other as brother and sister, ie as platonic partners.

This is what I’m seeing… either you’re dating, so very little goes, or you’re married and you act as if you were dating until you want to have sex.

 

[Person]

We were even excited to sleep in the same bed together, even to get ready for bed in the same room, etc. It’s sad that people think intimacy between a couple is limited to physical contact.

I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I’ve been married now for three weeks and I agree with you. It is nice to just be in the same bed as her. It is wonderful to wake up in the morning next to my best friend. She feels the same way. I hope I did not give the impression that I think intimacy is limited to sexual contact. I think I experience something similar to what you have described for yourself.

 

[Person]

I think the answer shouldn’t really be to be liberal or relative, but some kind or rule should be able to be reconstructed. I’m getting some ideas, but rounding up a nice rule is beyond me at this point.

I just wanted to check in and let you know that I respect what you wrote so far in response to my post. I have to think and pray about these things for awhile before responding and I don’t have an answer yet. I very much enjoy your honesty about not being sure if you can trust your own judgment anymore. I tend to make more objective analysis before I get into the actual situation. Pleasure has the power to confuse me. I think both you and I don’t want to fall into the “but it just feels so right” trap. I have many of the same questions as you and I like your style of thinking.

A moral theologian who graduated with honors from prestigious international Catholic universities wrote to me in an email that the objective moral norm would be more restrictive on this matter rather than less restrictive.

Since Aquinas said it is sinful, the discussion is over for me. He is one million or more times more brilliant and educated than I. Since he is the Angelic Doctor of the Church and encyclicals have said that Catholic universities need to base their theology on his writings, I submit to him on this difficult subject.

Regarding passionate kissing in the morning when married and then engaging in the full embrace at nightime, this does not seem right. Sexologists acknowledge that male arousal is quick and female arousal is slow. The male would then be getting to too extreme a level of an arousal without fulfilling it. I know these things are complicated. The principles are there. A person who is trying to discover the truth as to the application such as you will arrive at the right conclusion. God bless!

 

[LJN21]

Regarding passionate kissing in the morning when married and then engaging in the full embrace at nightime, this does not seem right. Sexologists acknowledge that male arousal is quick and female arousal is slow. The male would then be getting to too extreme a level of an arousal without fulfilling it. I know these things are complicated. The principles are there. A person who is trying to discover the truth as to the application such as you will arrive at the right conclusion. God bless!

Um… not sure what an “extreme level of arousal” has to do with anything in marriage. Assuming he is not tempted to go masturbate or commit adultery how is this a problem? That can be really helpful for a woman, anticipation can be a very powerful thing. I think you guys are getting way to legalistic. You have to remember there is no time frame on when foreplay starts and when the act occurs so long as it is all done with the right frame of mind.

The reason passionate kissing and arousal is wrong when your dating is because your have no right to the end act. Not because those things are something to always be avoided, but because it is a temptation to end with the natural climax or some other sinful event.

 

[chevalier]

Well, one isn’t supposed to be walking around aroused and unable to focus on work, or trying to concentrate on avoiding mental sins of lust. Fantasising, even about the spouse, is not okay. Accepting the sexual pleasure in disconnection from a unitive and procreative act is never fine, including when one’s married and the stimulation comes from the spouse. Therefore if it crosses certain lines, it’s not fine. But you are right that having the right to the end act changes things.

Also, one should be careful never to objectify the spouse and in some experiments that could come true. So care needs to be taken not to leave a person with more tension that he’s safely able to handle. Shouldn’t mess his day, shouldn’t expose him to occasion of sin, either.

Person, thank you.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Well, one isn’t supposed to be walking around aroused and unable to focus on work, or trying to concentrate on avoiding mental sins of lust. Fantasising, even about the spouse, is not okay. Accepting the sexual pleasure in disconnection from a unitive and procreative act is never fine, including when one’s married and the stimulation comes from the spouse. Therefore if it crosses certain lines, it’s not fine. But you are right that having the right to the end act changes things.

Also, one should be careful never to objectify the spouse and in some experiments that could come true. So care needs to be taken not to leave a person with more tension that he’s safely able to handle. Shouldn’t mess his day, shouldn’t expose him to occasion of sin, either.

Person, thank you.

So just to recap: Sounds dangerous for spouses to kiss each other good-by in the morning (save for a peck on the cheek). Dangerous, too, for spouses to think about each other during the day - clearly wrong to anticipate lovemaking. And after arriving home, lest passion lead to “objectifying” each other, probably best to avoid intimate contact also. Is that where we’ve ended up? Do we really think that’s what the Sacrament of Matrimony intends - little male and female Trappists, cohabiting in a passionless, asexual relationship?

I, for one, don’t think kissing my wife is an “occasion of sin” – no matter what time of day the kiss takes place.

 

[twf]

I agree with Mattapoisett64. Many people reading this thread, especially those questioning or weak in faith, will walk away with that exact conclusion and possibly reject Catholic morality altogether. The legalism expressed by some posters amazes me…if I take all the advice given on this thread literally, it may be dangerous to share a bed with one’s spouse except for a few minutes immediately before and after the marital act…this thread is terrifying…truly.

 

[chevalier]

So just to recap: Sounds dangerous for spouses to kiss each other good-by in the morning (save for a peck on the cheek). Dangerous, too, for spouses to think about each other during the day - clearly wrong to anticipate lovemaking. And after arriving home, lest passion lead to “objectifying” each other, probably best to avoid intimate contact also. Is that where we’ve ended up? Do we really think that’s what the Sacrament of Matrimony intends - little male and female Trappists, cohabiting in a passionless, asexual relationship?

I, for one, don’t think kissing my wife is an “occasion of sin” – no matter what time of day the kiss takes place.

I do not consider it a sin, either.

And neither is marriage a community of two asexual beings. But it is not good to allow too much tension to grow - to the point where one cannot function normally throughout the day or one is tempted to sexual sins - that’s a far point, few people would get there by some simple kissing.

 

[CaelumEtTerram]

Yes, this thread is definately terrifying sometimes … especially if you are unsure about your faith. Passionate kissing is fine between husband and wife.