S
Shameless
Guest
Are there a such thing as sexually venile sins? If so what would be examples of such? Thanks.
- Status
T
Toni
Guest
I believe most sexual sins fall under mortal sin. But french kissing alone I believe is considered venial. Look in the CC at the Vatican.
vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=venial+sin&x=34&y=12
vatican.mondosearch.com/search_en.aspx?query=venial+sin&x=34&y=12
M
m134e5
Guest
If you have a lustful thought, and don’t dismiss it immediately, but you do turn away from it pretty quick, that is a venial sin.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
French kissing is mortally sinful if done knowing that it is - it stirs up the passions and is never appropriate between two unmarried people.
Anything that is done with the intent to stir up the flames and arouse the other person (or oneself) is mortally sinful. French kissing, fondling, impure talk, etc.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm
check out the above link
Anything that is done with the intent to stir up the flames and arouse the other person (or oneself) is mortally sinful. French kissing, fondling, impure talk, etc.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm
check out the above link
A
amor
Guest
I think to be precise what is sinful and mortally sinful would be anything done with the intent to arouse the other person (or yourself) to desire or will a sexually illicit act (like intercourse before marriage or outside of marriage). I think that’s the meaning of “arouse” being used by people when they talk about this. “Arousal” here doesn’t mean a human emotion like “love” or “puppy love” but an actual desire to do something that is forbidden.
More generally, intending to make one’s self or another person desire or will any illicit act – be it sexual or non-sexual – is wrong. So for instance – though I have no idea why one would want to do this – if someone had a problem with shoplifting, it would be wrong for that person to read books on how to shoplift with the intention of trying to make himself want to shoplift … that’s why touching someone with the intention of making them want them to do something wrong is wrong – same principle at work.
Sometimes though it cannot be avoided and in these cases it wouldn’t be wrong (like if you needed to perform CPR on someone or something like that – in such a case it wouldn’t be an intention, but an unintended effect)
I think consenting to a “lustful thought” would be a mortal sin even if it were to happen only for a second and then you rejected a second later. But if it was not a true assent to it but rather some kind of hesitancy, then it would not be a mortal sin and may be just a venial sin. If you reject it a second later, then it’s likely to be more of a hesitancy than a true consent followed by some change of heart.
For someone in the state of grace, mortal sin requires a change of heart, mind.
You can’t commit a mortal sin without knowing as you commit the sin that it is gravely wrong.
In short you can’t commit a mortal sin on accident. It’s something where if you do it you would know what you are getting yourself into.
T
Toni
Guest
The intent must be there. French kissing by itself in my examination of conscience book is venial but as you state if there is an intent to stir up flames and arouse it would then become mortal.
There are some who could handle this without it becoming mortal I know they are few. But I have heard of it.
S
Shameless
Guest
What about some more examples, I have a support group I’d like to share them with.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
S
sanctareparata
Guest
Any kissing which is deep, prolonged or arousing is by its very nature mortally sinful to the unmarried. French kissing has all three of those elements: deep, prolonged and arousing. Its very intent is to stir up passions.
RE: French kissing from some sources…
“This soul-kissing is seriously sinful since it is meant by nature to arouse one sexually.” - Fr.Bob Levis, EWTN
“The proper term is “deep kiss”. And since it mimics sexual intercourse or asks for it, it is always sinful for single persons… With prayers, Fr. Auman” - Ask Father Question Box
S
Shameless
Guest
Without being too graphic what about examples other than kissing?
T
Toni
Guest
Sorry the rest are mortal unless you are married. As I have been corrected on the french kiss. I think that you can talk together, eat together, watch a movie together. But don’t touch…Maybe a hug.
(but not a holding hug)
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Let us please all remember that a sin is never mortal simply because of what it is. A sin may only be grave in and of itself. Much more is required for a sin to be mortal. So often do people (including clergy unfortunately) fall into this error of referring to grave sins as mortal. When we do this, we are teaching exactly the false doctrine that Protestants mistakenly think the true doctrine of mortal sin is.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Such kissing is not meant by nature to arouse one sexually. It is possible, and many people choose to do this, to kiss in such a way with the purpose of arousing one sexually. However, it is also very possible not to. I, like anyone when it comes to this, can only comment from my own personal experience because it is impossible for me to know anyone else’s inward feelings or experiences in terms of such things as this. However, I can say that in times long ago before I even began thinking about God in my daily life, I kissed in this manner on many occasions without any intention or desire to cause sexual feelings of any sort. There is a non-sexual good that can come of such a thing. It is hard to explain exactly, but I am sure that some persons may know what I am speaking about.
This is not to say that this is not something one ought to be cautious about. Clearly, each person is different in his or her intentions, and in his or her ability to control oneself. Say that one person has a general mastery of his sexual desires. He is able to kiss in this manner for the non-sexual good that I referred to above. However, there may be another person who does is very weak in controlling his sexual desires. This person may wish to kiss with the intention of achieving the non-sexual good, but he may be unable to do so without becoming aroused. Even though this arousal is not his intention, because it is likely or bound to happen should he kiss in such a way, to do so would place him in a very near occasion to sin, and would clearly be sinful to this individual.
“The proper term is “deep kiss”. And since it mimics sexual intercourse or asks for it, it is always sinful for single persons… With prayers, Fr. Auman” - Ask Father Question Box
I would repeat the same comments as above, with a few additions. For one, I would say that I (unfortunately) have asked for intercourse through kissing in my life, so I understand it completely. I have also, however, kissed with no intention of asking whatsoever. My point is that I understand both sides ofthe coin, I have been there and done that, and I can say that it is not an intrinsic quality of such a kiss that it asks for intercourse! I have also (again, unfortunately) been on both sides of the issue of mimicking intercourse. Again, I know from experience that it is possible to mimic intercourse with a kiss, but that it is by no means intrinisic either. Each of these acts require one very important quality: intent. That being said, it is possible that once a person has kissed in this manner for a moment the desire and intent may flare up within them. This would of course be a near occasion to sin, in which case a person whom has this trouble must avoid the act altogether.
This is my take on it, based on personal experience, as well as a lot of research and knowledge of the faith. While another person may disagree, I would say that this is, to a certain extent, a matter of conscience. In other words, there is no official Church teaching on this. If there were, then this would certainly be something to be bound to. As it stands however, the only thing we can do is try to figure it out based on what we know is official Church teaching, and on the advice of moral theologians. While I do respect the opinions of the priests who were quoted, I also have to make the reminder that it is common occurence for priests to teach things which we know are untrue, as well as to give advice which may not be the best. Anyone who has ever listened to Catholic Answers live has heard listeners driven to scrupulosity by priests (or others) who have told them that they were sinning when they were clearly not (as well as folks driven to laxity by priests making excuses for their sins).
Please note that I am not trying to defend sin or anything of the sort. I am simply trying to give my take on this matter, and in a certain sense to give the other point of view, because it is not official Church teaching, it is a sensative issue, and one I think that it is very important to be careful when it comes to matters like this. It is clearly a very important issue and people should very prayerfully consider this prior to making any decisions. As always, let Christ show you the truth.
A
Alterum
Guest
Is this really so? I should think that the very fact that this is a serious occasion of grave sin makes it a mortal sin. How can a couple engage in such intimate, sexual, licentious behavior and not place themselves in grave spiritual peril? Even if they do think that they can “handle it,” they are deliberately leaning over the edge of the cliff.
I think deliberately coming this close to mortal sin is itself mortal sin. French kissing is never appropriate, pure, chaste, or God-centered outside of the context of a married relationship. Frankly, I don’t think kissing in general is either.
L
LatinCat
Guest
Yes there are. When a person is in the HABIT of thinking impure thoughts, it may take time for them to break that habit. They may often dwell on impure thoughts without the question of morality entering his or her head. Because of the habitual nature of this act, it can be reduced to a venial sin. In fact, there is probably a great deal of impure thiniking that falls under the category of venial sin.
S
Shameless
Guest
So how then does one who has developed this “habit” know when they have overcome it? What I mean is once a person is addicted to masturbation and lets say since we are addicted to it, at what point do we know it is no longer an addiction - when do we become not responsible for this to being responsible for it?
C
cynic
Guest
Wouldn’t that seem to suggest that a married couple should only fench kiss immediately prior to intercourse, if it is a sexual act.
A
amor
Guest
No. The reason why it would be sinful for unmarried couples is because it arouses or intends to arouse a desire for something illicit – sexual intercourse outside of marriage.
Sexual intercourse is never illicit within marriage, so for married couples it would never be a sin as it never arouses nor intends to arouse a desire for something illicit.
I suppose it may be a sin if one person has a serious STD and intercourse would be sinful due to the harm it may cause the spouse.
L
LatinCat
Guest
We are always responsible for such actions. It is just that culpubility can be reduced. A person’s culpubility in such a matter should be determined by a solid Catholic spiritual director, especially a priest.
C
cynic
Guest
if it’s defined as a sexual act, and all such acts must be based around intercourse… based on that you could make a convincing argument that a couple indulging in these things outside of the time of intercourse is pleasure seeking.
- Status