Making out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tradcat89
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChristHealsAll said:
to each his own, but I don’t think most monogamous Catholics are comfortable holding hands for an extended period with a member of the opposite sex whom they aren’t married to. And if you’re an American born and raised, a kiss on the lips with someone other than your spouse is not common. My parents have been married happily 25 years and I’ve never seen either one kiss another man or woman (besides their parents) anywhere, face, hand, anywhere.
Click to expand...
Come to the south, we are a kissing and huggin and affection showing bunch!
 
kage_ar said:
Come to the south, we are a kissing and huggin and affection showing bunch!
Click to expand...
I knew you were from either Europe or the south. Makes sense now 🙂 I would be furious if my spouse was kissing another guy or holding his hand here in the north!
 
PeterMuz said:
The answer to your question is… it’s different for everyone. When it comes to sins of the sexual nature, I think its best to think of it like alcohol. Some people can drink more than others and not be drunk. Being drunk is a serious sin. … Be sure to stay as far away from lust as possible.
Click to expand...
This is the answer that makes the most sense to me. It is different for everyone. The point is to stay as far away from lust as possible. With the girlfriends I’ve had, passionate kissing didn’t cause me to come anywhere near lust. It wasn’t foreplay for me. But I’m different, I had the benefit of parents and Catholic schools that did a good job of raising me to “get” that lust is inappropriate. Many of my friends didn’t have this benefit, which is why many of them would point out that I was “sheltered” and the girls I was interested in would point out that one of my strengths, one of the things they loved most about me, was my “conservative views on sex,” how I am rarely tempted by lust in comparison to most guys they’ve seen. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gotten lustful thoughts just looking at a girl (even when she is being completely lady-like and very appropriate). This happened a few times in the last few weeks alone. The rule that has always “worked” for me is that I didn’t engage in passionate kissing with a girl that aroused lustful thoughts in me. Instead, I always stayed away from getting romantically involved with girls that aroused lustful thoughts in me. Personally, what has always “done it for me” is a pretty girl with a pure heart, a good girl, a girl that likes me for who I am without any lustful thoughts involved, a pretty girl that I liked for who she was without any lustful thoughts involved. What has always worked for me is getting to know that girl, getting to be friends with her before we became girlfriend/boyfriend. The way I’ve alway been, passionate kissing just meant that we had decided to take our friendship to the next level, to be serious. It had nothing to do with having sex. But that’s because I’ve always been pretty good at staying away from lustful thoughts, at staying away from girls that are more prone than I am to lustful thoughts, and I’ve only been interested in pursuing things further with “good girls,” the girls that were like me, girls that innocently believed making out had nothing to do with sex or foreplay, that it just meant we were boyfriend/girlfriend, the girls that “got” that sex isn’t even close to what we should be thinking about until we were married, the girls that were raised similar to the way I was raised, girls that “got” it in the way I “got” it.
 
Tradcat89 said:
Got a quick question -
Is passionate kissing before marriage a sin? French kissing and necking? I have heard a lot of different opinions about this and it seems like the Church leaves it to the people involved. Is there a black and white line?
Click to expand...
There is a line between showing affection that is appropriate to a relationship leading to marriage, and doing something together because it is physically gratifying and feels good. Our hearts can trick us a lot, even the book of Jeremiah says, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Jesus taught that the place we fall into sin is going to be in our hearts and minds. ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb37.htm

I asked this question here about a month ago, and since ordered two FANTASTIC Catholic resources that cover it. You can read excerpts online at googlebooks.com
  1. Good News for Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching by Christopher West
    shop.catholic.com/product.php?productid=70
  2. Christian Courtship in an Oversexed World. By Fr. T. G. Morrow
    amazon.com/Christian-Courtship-Oversexed-World-Catholics/dp/1931709564
 
Tradcat89 said:
Got a quick question -
Is passionate kissing before marriage a sin? French kissing and necking? I have heard a lot of different opinions about this and it seems like the Church leaves it to the people involved. Is there a black and white line?
Click to expand...
Occasion of sin? Yes.

Inherently immoral? No.

It really just depends on what you and your significant other are able to do before getting too tempted to go to the next level.
 
puzzleannie said:
one test for questions like this:
If you were married and witnessed your spouse kissing, embracing or doing whatever with another person, would you feel hurt, insulted, violated, upset etc? If the activity is something a married person should not be doing with a third party, then it is something not permitted to anyone outside marriage, before, after or during.
Click to expand...
I would be hurt, insulted, violated, upset, etc if I saw my spouse holding hands, talking on the phone, and going to the movies with another women.

Does that mean a couple who are dating can’t do those things?

Not a good philosophy, IMHO.
 
ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN theology dept…it will be of great help!

(One note though on this reading…I would note that when they say “as soon as he begins to enjoy…” under “pure intent”… it would mean before knowing consent…)
 
ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN theology dept…it will be of great help!

(One note though on this reading…I would note that when they say “as soon as he begins to enjoy…” under “pure intent”… it would mean before knowing consent…)
 
I think if these activities need to be questioned that it means deep down one knows that it is wrong. Ask yourself if your most revered saints would do what you are doing outside of marriage even if they had no vows of chastity.
 
My catholic position/

Before the wedding, between the boyfriend and the girlfriend, or between the fiancé and the fiancée, by nature, by essence and by principle:

the fact of kissing the cheeks of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the forehead of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the ears of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the arms of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the eyes of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the neck of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the shoulders of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the back of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the chin of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the lips of mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of practicing the french kiss is not sinful;
the fact of holding the waist of the other is not sinful;
the fact of holding hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the legs of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the knees of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the other in swimsuit is not sinful;
the fact of touching the thigh of the other with the hands is not sinful;
the fact of dancing together is not sinful: the Rock and Roll, the Valse, the Slow…etc.

The fact of saying the contrary is very odd, my humble opinion. Here, only the wrong intention can be sinful and /or only the wrong effects (the breaking of the red line). That is the question, how to define the red line???

Am i wrong? Do you disagree with me?
 
Evania said:
So what would you consider the “red line” to be?
Click to expand...
Materially speaking, the fact of going further, as in a married couple. In the facts, the fact of trying the first steps of marital act (sexed and sexual touchings, per se, for keep going, for arousing and for exciting), i mean the sexual intimate parts and the breasts.

Intentionally speaking, for arousing and for exciting the body of the other; the difference between a simple expression of love and of tenderness, even before marriage, and the will the go further for preparing the union of bodies.

By nature, the behaviors of my list are neutral, are not morally wrong, only the intentions or and the circunstances can be morally wrong.
 
Evania said:
So what would you consider the “red line” to be?
Click to expand...
The near occasion of sin??? Which is the good acception, in catholic sense, without the christian heresies and without the ideologies of the human nature. As catholic, we need to avoid them, it is a catholic duty, it is a natural moral obligation.

In the USA and in the English speaking countries, the catholics are touched by the " ism" doctrines and practices, the heresies and the ideologies, in link with the fundamentalist protestant movements: puritanism, victorianism, moralism, rigorism, jansenism (in France too), the integrism, the quiverfull movement, the externalism, the pessimism, the negativism, the fact of seeing everywhere the sins.

In those countries, the moral view about the corporeity, the sexed, the sexual is very odd and is full of wrong acception. In Europe, the link between the faith and the reason about these topics is more balanced and moderated (just moderation).
 
I would say that an open mouth kiss before marriage is a near occasion of sin, oh and touching someone’s thigh. I was just curious because you had that on your list.
 
Evania said:
I would say that an open mouth kiss before marriage is a near occasion of sin, oh and touching someone’s thigh. I was just curious because you had that on your list.
Click to expand...
Between engaged persons:

The kiss on the lips is not sinful;
The kiss on the mouth is not sinful;
The French kiss (an open mouth kiss, the normal French kiss, the standard French kiss) is not sinful;
The passionated French kiss (an open mouth kiss, very passionated) can be sinful under some special conditions;
The fact of putting the hand on the thigh (between the knee and the hip, in the middle of the hip and the knee) of the other as a sign of tenderness, when we sit down, is not sinful.

The near occasion of sin is very relative because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances.

The issue is the good acception of the notion of the near occasion of sin, in the good sense. The large acception does not has to be considered as the norm. We are catholic, not like the other fundamentalist christians.
 
Trust me, I’m no prude. While passionately kissing and stroking a thigh may not be tempting to you, don’t you have the responsibility to not lead the person you are with into temptation? How do you know the effect that you’re having on them? One can only talk to a sampling of people to hear of unintended sexual activity because they didn’t draw that red line a little farther back. :ouch:
 
Evania said:
Trust me, I’m no prude. While passionately kissing and stroking a thigh may not be tempting to you, don’t you have the responsibility to not lead the person you are with into temptation? How do you know the effect that you’re having on them? One can only talk to a sampling of people to hear of unintended sexual activity because they didn’t draw that red line a little farther back. :ouch:
Click to expand...
By nature, the acts of my list are not sinful. Only the intentions of each person and the circumstances can render them sinful.

The near occasion of sin is very relative because it is function of each person and in function of types of acts, of intentions and of circumstances.

The moral speech has to be honest otherwise it is wrong. This doctrinal speech and the praxis have to be in link with the nature of act (morally neutral and only morally wrong under special conditions – intentions and circumstances), or by nature very immoral, by itself, of itself, from itself, in itself.

Catholicism is not in favor of simplistic speech even for avoiding the temptation of the others. A such intellectual approach is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
 
fpt said:
Am i wrong? Do you disagree with me?
Click to expand...
Yes (that is some things can be said to be correct others not… but I have no wish to get into some long casuistic discussion --as can easily happen in a thread like this ----see the following post for a good overview of the principles to apply)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top