kissing

[chevalier]

Let’s refresh my Latin and see what St Thomas really said… Tomorrow. As far as I remember the passage about kissing, it was about kissing or touching being wrong unless it was in marriage or a custom warranted it. I don’t think he meant to say that dating customs counted, more like kisses of peace in secular contexts or kisses between family members. Still, while I don’t think prolonged or deliberate kissing is good, and I regard kissing done as a sex replacement as wrong, but I can’t see a mortal sin in people simply kissing someone they love.

 

[aball1035]

Let’s refresh my Latin and see what St Thomas really said… Tomorrow. As far as I remember the passage about kissing, it was about kissing or touching being wrong unless it was in marriage or a custom warranted it. I don’t think he meant to say that dating customs counted, more like kisses of peace in secular contexts or kisses between family members. Still, while I don’t think prolonged or deliberate kissing is good, and I regard kissing done as a sex replacement as wrong, but I can’t see a mortal sin in people simply kissing someone they love.

what do you mean by deliberate? isn’t all kissing deliberate?

 

[tvdxer]

This is probably the best article on this topic I’ve read, and from a reputable source:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm

According to her, kissing, hugging, holding hands, etc. are acceptable outside of marriage, if they aren’t done for the purpose of sexual arousal and not in a fashion that is purely sexual (she mentions “impure embracing or petting” and “prolonged and passionate kissing” as examples). Also, while one may experience arousal without sinning, it would be a grave sin to deliberately enjoy or consent to that arousal. The occasion of sin factor must also be factored in.

 

[lenni]

Kiss your boyfriend/girlfriend in a way that you would do if parents, grandparents and your priest were watching.

ah…i hate that analogy. different people have different degrees at which they get embarrassed!..i would feel really awkward just holding my dates hand if my parents were around.

 

[Shin]

If it’s the same type of kiss you’d give your mother, it’s safe. I.e. a peck on the cheek with those feelings.

Any other type of kiss – mortal.

Let me take a different path towards the why – would you be jealous if you saw your wife or girlfriend do it with someone else?

Would your wife be bothered if she saw you do it?

Would you be suspicious at all if you saw this kiss and A. Your wife was chronically unfaithful, and B. the other person was a sensual hedonist too?

Have you considered the intervention of the demons to make occasions of sin… sin? And how needlessly courting the occasion of sin is a sin?

Sensual gratification and Catholicism – Two different roads.

But one shouldn’t have to take a different path to explain it. The saints teach it. This world does not. Easy answer – saints win.

 

[chevalier]

what do you mean by deliberate? isn’t all kissing deliberate?

Things may be deliberate in two ways (sorry, I’ve just been reading Aquinas ): either by the nature of the consent to them or by the manner in which they happen. Hah hah, seriously, few people kiss mechanically, so I obviously don’t mean this kind of deliberate. I mean deliberate as thought, calculated, in a way, institutionalised. I would worry about premeditated and calculated kissing, which may easily become “something to do”, which verges on foreplay and has the potential to cross the line. If kissing is institutionalised, as in making out, say people make out daily at a specific hour because that is their custom, it hints of a certain sexual role of that act. When kissing starts to satiate our appetites and we grow dependent on it, that’s very close to lust, perhaps sometimes already there.

As for Aquinas, let’s grab a translation:

I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. /sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (FS, Q[74], A[8]), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins.

(Emphasis added)

The sensitive part in Latin goes:

Dictum est autem supra quod consensus in delectationem peccati mortalis est peccatum mortale, et non solum consensus in actum. Et ideo, cum fornicatio sit peccatum mortale, et multo magis aliae luxuriae species, consequens est quod consensus in delectationem talis peccati sit peccatum mortale, et non solum consensus in actum. Et ideo, cum oscula et amplexus et huiusmodi propter delectationem huiusmodi fiant, consequens est quod sint peccata mortalia. Et sic solum dicuntur libidinosa. Unde huiusmodi, secundum quod libidinosa sunt, sunt peccata mortalia.

A crude literal translation is this:

*It is said above that the consent to the delectation of a mortal sin is a mortal sin, and not solely the consent to an act. And so, as fornication is a mortal sin, and much more other species of luxury **, it consequent that consent to the delectation of such a sin is a mortal sin, and not solely the consent to an act. And so, when kisses and caresses and such are done for such delectation, it is consequent that they are mortal sins. And only in this way they are lustful. Hence, this way, because they are lustful, they are mortal sins.

From this follows that kissing for the delectation of mortal sin is a mortal sin. Aquinas points out in the beginning that kissing is *not *a mortal sin of itself, that the “mortality” is determined by the cause. If the cause is lust, then kissing is a mortal sin. This can be done in two ways: either by express intent or by delectation of that lust when it cames.

This doesn’t mean that if you enjoy kissing, it’s mortal for you. It means if you, say, get an erection and accept the carnal feeling of it, then it’s sinful and it has the capacity to be mortal.

Further, a bit more on the philosophical angle, if kissing itself is not a mortal sin but only by a mortal cause, it means kissing is morally neutral of itself (this follows clearly from Aquinas). Delectation in a morally neutral thing cannot be mortal of itself, either. Therefore, delectation in kissing, in so far as no lust is not involved, is not mortally sinful. Not even sinful at all, to be precise. The way we do it, the reasons and causes, inappropriate emphasis, addictions, that’s what makes it sinful.

In practice, one ought to be careful because it’s rather hard to kiss a person you’re specifically attracted to, without provoking a sexual response - sexual at least in a broad sense. I can’t clearly say if any slightest degree of sexual stimulation must be absent from that kissing, or if you are fine if you don’t accept it, i.e. don’t start delighting in it. Using modern biology, we could probably prove that many of the bodily reactions which used to be believed to be non-sexual, are in fact a result of male to female interaction. Heightened pulse would be a prime example and I remember reading a conservative 19th century piece on the morality of kissing and such for teenagers and it specifically said that the thrill, the heightened pulse and such were fine.

In the end, we don’t get a perfectly precise answer from Aquinas, but if we did, we would start lawyering around it and find it imprecise in a number of ways as well in the end. So, it occurs to me we shouldn’t look for the letter but rather for the spirit, which obviously doesn’t mean we can ignore such “letter” as we are aware of (e.g. that kissing to get that feeling down there, pardon my French, is not okay).*

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

What does the Catechism say? What do other official Church documents say?

Personal opinions and those of theologians and doctors are exactly that - opinions.

 

[chevalier]

ah…i hate that analogy. different people have different degrees at which they get embarrassed!..i would feel really awkward just holding my dates hand if my parents were around.

I generally think, that while this is not perhaps required, those romantic relationships in which physical contact is more scarce, without prejudice to such contacts are normal in friendship, are somewhat nobler. I don’t think I’d kiss anyone else than on the cheek around my parents or that person’s parents, unless it were my wife. I don’t think this is a hint in the absolute terms, but in a way, it might be a hint.

If it’s the same type of kiss you’d give your mother, it’s safe. I.e. a peck on the cheek with those feelings.

Any other type of kiss – mortal.

Let me take a different path towards the why – would you be jealous if you saw your wife or girlfriend do it with someone else?

Would your wife be bothered if she saw you do it?

Would you be suspicious at all if you saw this kiss and A. Your wife was chronically unfaithful, and B. the other person was a sensual hedonist too?

Have you considered the intervention of the demons to make occasions of sin… sin? And how needlessly courting the occasion of sin is a sin?

Shin, it holds together, but there are some weak spots.

Firstly, your spouse would be jealous if you called anyone girlfriend or boyfriend. Your answer would be that your girlfriend or boyfriend relationships do not happen at the same time as when you are married. Likewise, the special companionship unique to only one member of the opposite gender, or even a couple of those, but in a way that’s natural with one person only (I believe multiple partnerships, even chaste, are unnatural), would make a spouse jealous if one were married. We are going to use reason as a clue and there’s no avoiding this. Consequently, I see no reason why to include special, unique emotional partnership, but exclude kissing on the lips or some such.

Secondly, everyone would be jealous if he saw his romantic interest kissing someone else on the lips, barring family or, if one kisses friends in such a way, the friends. From this, it doesn’t follow to me that kissing on the lips should be banned and cheek should be the limit, although my preference is to kiss on the cheek if I have a choice - but this is preference and it’s very subjective. I’m one of the “detached” fellows.

Thirdly, I suppose if it weren’t for cultural factors, generally anyone could kiss anyone, those kisses being on the cheek or even on the lips, without trouble. Different cultures react differently to this and obviously local customs have much to do with subjective feelings of acceptability and with the degree in which people are sensitive to particular kisses.

For example, where I live, men generally don’t kiss except family and this almost exclusively happens between a father and a son, uncle and nephew, but not really cousins or even brothers. Men kiss on the cheek. By contrast, women kiss more, they generally kiss any relative and many friends. On occasion, they will even give a peck on the cheek when introduced to a friend of a friend. Women sometimes kiss on the lips, but very rarely. Women and men kissing on the lips when they are just friends is practically nonexistent, although not entirely nonexistent. The only instance I’m aware of had romantic overtones. Boyfriends and girlfriends will generally kiss on the lips and the more hot-blooded folks will make out. One doesn’t kiss his mother on the lips when he’s a guy of an age where it might be taken the wrong way. However, one does kiss the girlfriend. I don’t think that in this case, kissing the girlfriend on the lips is wrong just because a mother wouldn’t be kissed that way.

Further, if you’d generally be shot rather than kissing a guy that way, it means that gender matters here quite a bit, so while not immediately sexual, this is a male-female thing and obviously we’re talking about a female in your eligible range, not just any female the way people are either John or Joan, Julius or Julia etc. I will call it romantic, not sexual. And I think it’s not wrong, although I’m inclined to start wondering about just causes and maybe even customs of the country.

One more thought, St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians would be a huge learning aid. It deals with charity/agape (“agape” to me has more connotations of community, whereas “charity” is somewhat connected to almsgiving, although the latter is a modern association), not with “eros” (i.e. the love of a man and a woman), but we are obliged to charity in any case. There we read love does not envy, does not deal perversely (v. 4), doesn’t rejoice in iniquity but rejoices with the truth (v. 6). It seems to me that if a relationship can withstand examination from the point of view of justice, then people are safe. An example in modern literature that I can think about is Aragorn and Arwen from the Lord of the Rings. I can’t find anything unjust or improper in there. And it was clearly a romance, not an arranged marriage or one of convenience.

 

[chevalier]

What does the Catechism say? What do other official Church documents say?

Personal opinions and those of theologians and doctors are exactly that - opinions.

The Catechism? I oblige:

**2333 **Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual *difference *and *complementarity *are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

**2337 **Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

**2338 **The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.125 “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”

**2350 **Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

**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.

**2360 **Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

**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.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

**2390 **In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.
The expression “free union” is fallacious: what can “union” mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future? The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.182 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.

You can’t really look up “kissing” in there, therefore you need to enter into the realm of personal opinions of theologians. Aquinas has a lot of authority, but his teaching was as authoritative as any priest’s (i.e. not a bishop’s or a pope’s), he did not make the Magisterium, he was not infallible. He can be wrong and in my opinion, in some places he is, if simply because the state of human science and knowledge was different in his day, and perhaps there was a mark of the times, and his approach was marked by tight scholarly rigour. For this reason, I wouldn’t give Aquinas to teenagers. Not like this makes him bad.

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

The Catechism? I oblige:

Thanks, but this begs the question at hand. The Catechism is vague in this regard. That’s why I asked for parts that pertain to this. Kissing isn’t listed in there because it’s left up to the person to interpret what is appropriate based on their conscience. Care to explain the parts that you believe pertain to this issue? Cause I don’t see it.

You can’t really look up “kissing” in there

Imagine that.

therefore you need to enter into the realm of personal opinions of theologians. Aquinas has a lot of authority, but his teaching was as authoritative as any priest’s (i.e. not a bishop’s or a pope’s), he did not make the Magisterium, he was not infallible.

Origen was a great theologian too. Does that mean you believe in apokostasis? I didn’t think so. Their opinions are just that - opinions as you seem to agree. Aquinas is great, but as you say, he was not infallible.

He can be wrong and in my opinion, in some places he is, if simply because the state of human science and knowledge was different in his day, and perhaps there was a mark of the times, and his approach was marked by tight scholarly rigour. For this reason, I wouldn’t give Aquinas to teenagers. Not like this makes him bad.

No, I didn’t say he was bad. But, taking his teaching as the answer to the faith in every respect is, quite honestly, naive. My thought is this - why burden people with more than is required to live a chaste life?

I just find it “over the top” to exclude kissing from a dating person’s life. If one believes kissing their fiance’ or dating partner would lead them to lust and sexual contact, then they should refrain. They obviously are having a hard time controlling themselves. But, to make a blanket condemnation of kissing is unwarranted.

 

[aball1035]

Any other type of kiss – mortal.
QUOTE]
So wouldn’t that make it a question of where the kiss is?
Why would any other type than a peck on the cheek be mortal? People kiss on the lips purly for love (provided that the kiss is a short one).

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

So wouldn’t that make it a question of where the kiss is?
Why would any other type than a peck on the cheek be mortal? People kiss on the lips purly for love (provided that the kiss is a short one).

This is why I really question the aspect of kissing and its sinful qualities. I would put it to a practical level. The Church warns against lust and acts that lead us to sin. If you find that you want to have sex with someone just because you give them a peck on the lips, then simply don’t do that. Don’t kiss.

This is the same if you change the act of kissing to any other act that would lead to sin. What I am saying is that not every time you kiss someone does it lead to sex with the person. And if that is the problem someone is having then they should abstain from kissing.

My problem is the idea that kissing, in and of itself, is a mortal sin or even a venial sin. It’s just rubbish. There’s no Church teaching that says kissing is a sin. The Church and Scripture teach that *anything which leads one into sin *should be avoided.

If drinking a beer takes you to alcoholism, then don’t drink beer. If kissing leads you to pre-marital sex, then don’t do it. But, don’t make it a sin for every Catholic or Christian just because you can’t deal with that issue.

 

[forever_always]

I didn’t know that kissing was a sin?
I don’t think that it is… yes, there is a definate line of how was is too far… but really… kissing??
St. Thomas wasn’t from this day and age… times change? and while I’m more of a traditional Catholic, i see nothing wrong with kissing.

 

[chevalier]

Thanks, but this begs the question at hand. The Catechism is vague in this regard. That’s why I asked for parts that pertain to this. Kissing isn’t listed in there because it’s left up to the person to interpret what is appropriate based on their conscience. Care to explain the parts that you believe pertain to this issue?

In short, I believe the Catechism instructs us on the spirit of love and it doesn’t get into the physical specifics for a reason: they aren’t what love is about. Love needs its certain mystery and love between a man and a woman is not a series of movements that you describe in schoolish Latin and mostly talk about when you wonder if it’s mortal or venial. Obviously, the Catechism doesn’t say this, does it? But it can’t be denied it focuses on the spirit of it. It tells us what love is about. If our spirituality lived up to what the Catechism says about love, we wouldn’t need to ask about kissing.

Origen was a great theologian too. Does that mean you believe in apokostasis? I didn’t think so. Their opinions are just that - opinions as you seem to agree. Aquinas is great, but as you say, he was not infallible.

I could even show you where his arguments weren’t that great, even though I actually agreed with the outcome.

What I showed here, however, is not Aquinas being wrong, but rather Aquinas not having said what is attributed to him. He specifically said kissing and such weren’t mortal of themselves. From what he said, it seems they are morally neutral and their moral value is defined by their cause, which is very reasonable.

He seems strict when he lists reasonable causes and customs of the country, but those don’t seem to me to be a closed list. More like some form of exemplification.

Where I am leading is that when the relationship meets the criteria of justice, the expression of affection meets the criteria of reasonable cause.

This is not to say we should give up all spontaneity and conduct complicated inference before we kiss someone.

No, I didn’t say he was bad. But, taking his teaching as the answer to the faith in every respect is, quite honestly, naive.

Of course. To be honest, I’m not really a thomist, myself. I often pray for his intercession when I have a problem with him, however. He was a scholar in life and now he has all the answers. No longer does he have to worry about faulty logic or insufficient data. Try yourself?

My thought is this - why burden people with more than is required to live a chaste life?

I’m not a fan of lists of prescripts and catalogues of sins. But it’s not like we all have such a strong spiritual formation that we can focus on love and forget about sins and moral laws.

I just find it “over the top” to exclude kissing from a dating person’s life.

So do I, but not as strongly as before. I see the point and I can at least respect the reasons and the logic behind it. As for me, in my own life, I don’t see a place for it in dating. The only place for it in my life is if I love a girl, regardless whether I’m in a relationship with her or not (though not regardless of any possible current relationships with other people, which prevent it). Ultimately, we are all single until we are married and those premarital relationships do not give us special rights.

From a man’s point of view, it’s important to see that if a woman says she’s his whatever-you-call-it (I hate the world “girlfriend” for all the immaturity it implies), it does not mean that he can show her any less respect now. Contrary, all the more. It’s difficult to keep up the respect while striking down the barriers. But honestly, how many kisses or touches would survive the test of, “Would I do that if I really respected her?” Believe me I don’t feel particularly holy writing this as I look back on my life.

If one believes kissing their fiance’ or dating partner would lead them to lust and sexual contact, then they should refrain. They obviously are having a hard time controlling themselves. But, to make a blanket condemnation of kissing is unwarranted.

It’s not only that. Kissing sometimes moves to consumption. Maybe it’s not a sexual thing, but it turns into a social activity instead of a display of affection. And I believe kissing is a display of affection, not a social activity.

Blanket condemnation is, however, unwarranted, and absolute rules may be less than reasonable.

At any rate, we owe the other person respect, supreme respect especially from the man to the woman, and we cannot use the other person to fulfil our lust, or even our longings which are not lustful or not sexually lustful. The other person is always a good, a goal, not a means. This point is so obvious that both John Paul II and Immanuel Kant, on whose writings the wretched relativist philosophy is based (he was a Christian himself, but most adversaries of Catholics in debates draw from him or his intellectual descendants), said the same about it. Consent doesn’t cut it and neither does mutuality. If two people use each other with mutual consent, that’s still wrong. I’m not saying this always happens with kissing, but the risk is there and is not negligible. And the issue is important.

 

[prolifegirl_10]

I truly believe that kissing before marriage is not a sin. Yes it can lead to temptation but that is why we as Catholics practice self control. It’s like saying if you eat one m&m you MUST eat 500 more. We have that choice to either keep going with kissing and let it lead up to sex, or we can say no to our sexual desires. If you are with a boyfriend/girlfriend and you are both committed to saving sex until marriage, then **no one ** can force you to go father than making out. We all have the choice.

 

[Dtmccameron]

I didn’t know that kissing was a sin?
I don’t think that it is… yes, there is a definate line of how was is too far… but really… kissing??
St. Thomas wasn’t from this day and age… times change?QUOTE]

Oh ho ho, now! Don’t bring that up!

Why, who’s to say that the laws against murder have suddenly chaged? They haven’t, of course, but if you look out into the world, the very concept of adultry seems practically foreing to our immoral society. So, what? Have times “changed” and what was once sinful is no more?

:dts:

Nope. My question: Who kisses just for pleaures sake? I agree then that doing anything simply for the sake of the sensation aroused by it is wrong, but who would be such a hedonist as to do such a thing?

I suppose I wrongly assumed that the world (the wicked, lost world) shared my view, in that kissing has nothing to do with obtaining a feeling, but sharing an idea, “I love you, It’s good to see you, You mean alot to me, I’m going to miss you, be safe”

To me kissing wasn’t simply some mechanical action, it is a symbolic action!​

Now, I listened to the homily the priest said, and, I quite agree with it. That buzz you get from holding the person you’re infatuated with would prevent you from seeing them objectively, and therefore keep you from judging them to be a possible candidate for marriage.

 

[nmoerbeek]

Let me first introduce this

“Complete abstinence is easier than perfect moderation.” St Augustine.

The real devil is excess.

Excess food is gluttony.
Excess sleep is sloth.
Excess romance is lust.
Excess money greed.
Excess desire(for material things) envy
Excess self esteem is pride.

The gravity of the sin would depend upon the persons station in life. The only safe harbor we can have in fear from sin is that we must not have the desire to sin.

Moderation for a monk is different than moderation for a king. However both are holy if they practice devotion.

The real answer to this question is that flagrant intentional lust is a mortal sin. To draw another person into lust intentional is a mortal sin. Whether that is used with a kiss, a squeeze, immodesty, dancing, words or body language it is a sin.

Innocence is rewarded so let us all try to be innocent and faithful as children of God.

Oh and when in doubt talk to your spiritual director. He is the only one that really can tell the danger or YOUR soul based upon what he knows through a persons confessions.

 

[nmoerbeek]

I do believe based upon a lot of the responses here that many may be called to a holy life of celibacy?

No, that is not sarcasm. However the strong desire to not do anything wrong to jeopardize your purity of many here is touching to say the least.

 

[chevalier]

Oh ho ho, now! Don’t bring that up!

Saint Thomas is less scary when properly understood.

Nope. My question: Who kisses just for pleaures sake? I agree then that doing anything simply for the sake of the sensation aroused by it is wrong, but who would be such a hedonist as to do such a thing?

I fear it’s not rare. Come to think of it, I may have done that that way myself.

I suppose I wrongly assumed that the world (the wicked, lost world) shared my view, in that kissing has nothing to do with obtaining a feeling, but sharing an idea, “I love you, It’s good to see you, You mean alot to me, I’m going to miss you, be safe”

Yes, that is how it should be. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be pleasurable, but I don’t mean this the sexual way. If kissing a relative may be pleasurable in that it is kissing a person you care for, I see no reason why kissing a friend the same way should not be. The sole fact the pleasure is physical is not enough for me because a handshake is also physically pleasurable and it’s not a sexual act. Stroking a cat is also and neither is it sexual. However, I don’t like the idea of kissing being “a thing to do” or a social activity.

To me kissing wasn’t simply some mechanical action, it is a symbolic action!

It should have meaning.

Now, I listened to the homily the priest said, and, I quite agree with it. That buzz you get from holding the person you’re infatuated with would prevent you from seeing them objectively, and therefore keep you from judging them to be a possible candidate for marriage.

Can’t see holding a person you’re infatuated with as a mortal sin if sin at all, barring lust or scandal or occasion of sin. At the very least people should be entitled to what friends are, as long as lust or scandal or occasion to sin isn’t involved.

 

[chevalier]

I do believe based upon a lot of the responses here that many may be called to a holy life of celibacy?

No, that is not sarcasm. However the strong desire to not do anything wrong to jeopardize your purity of many here is touching to say the least.

Willingness to jeopardise purity is not a necessary part of a vocation to marriage.