Making out

[Bookcat]

Granted – one could choose other terms etc to relate what is there and it could thus be refined.

Basically --there are certainly actions that should never be done by an unmarried couple. These are directly ordered to sexual pleasure. That is part of their nature. Sexual pleasure (and sexual arousal) is not something to be intended in any way by an unmarried person.

An unmarried person is not to seek or consented to sexual pleasure --such is reserved for marriage.

Then there are those reasonable actions (signs of affection etc which one could potentially engage in --which yes may indirectly have a side effect of sexual arousal at times-- which one must deal with chastely and modestly and prudently when such occurs (and of course not consent to it or seek it etc). Ones confessor can assist one in judging in ones case.

The distinction regarding" intent" is to bring across that a bad intent can make the otherwise potentially acceptable form of affection --into lust from the get go.

And that one must always have a good intent – one that is chaste and modest.

The distinction of the near occasion of sin brings in the reality that some otherwise acceptable signs of affection – or circumstances --can become a problem --and need to be avoided by that couple where as they are not for another.

 

[Evania]

If someone wants resources they will look for resources. They will go to vatican.va or to newadvent, or to the ccc. People go to forums to have a discussion, or atleast read one. Continually pointing us to outside sources, rather than making a well thought out response is frustrating to say the least, and at worst it means you haven’t given any of this a thought yourself.

It’s great to have a discussion, which we have had. Usually this is just opposing viewpoints, which is okay. Ultimately though most people want to move on to solid truth, and the fact is that there are readers including the OP who may want an answer grounded in what the Church actually teaches. By informing and posting links from CCC or from the Vatican, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t thought out thouroughly by the one posting. It’s simply bringing a discussion into the outside realms of human opinion and into actual Church Teaching. Ultimately, that is a good thing.

 

[TimothyH]

1. And from the Examination of Conscience in the Handbook of Prayers 2011 pg 285. Midwest Theological Forum Edited by Fr. Jim Socias

“Did I engage in acts such as…“necking,” passionate kisses, or prolonged embraces?”

This is what I immediately thought of when I read the title of the thread. That is part of the examiniation of concience which I use.

One has to always respect the purity of the girlfrend/boyfriend, even in one’s own imagination. Am I violating this persons purity? Am I defiling this person, even in my own mind? Am I using this person for my own enjoyment, or is true love my goal? That’s what it comes down to for me.

-Tim-

 

[jimmy]

It’s great to have a discussion, which we have had. Usually this is just opposing viewpoints, which is okay. Ultimately though most people want to move on to solid truth, and the fact is that there are readers including the OP who may want an answer grounded in what the Church actually teaches. By informing and posting links from CCC or from the Vatican, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t thought out thouroughly by the one posting. It’s simply bringing a discussion into the outside realms of human opinion and into actual Church Teaching. Ultimately, that is a good thing.

It one thing to use sources within your response, it is another if that is all you do. Give your own explanation and use supporting texts as support. Bookcat just plagiarizes the CCC.

 

[Bookcat]

This is what I immediately thought of when I read the title of the thread. That is part of the examiniation of concience which I use.

-Tim-

Thanks

 

[Bookcat]

It’s great to have a discussion, which we have had. Usually this is just opposing viewpoints, which is okay. Ultimately though most people want to move on to solid truth, and the fact is that there are readers including the OP who may want an answer grounded in what the Church actually teaches. By informing and posting links from CCC or from the Vatican, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t thought out thouroughly by the one posting. It’s simply bringing a discussion into the outside realms of human opinion and into actual Church Teaching. Ultimately, that is a good thing.

Thanks

Yes I often make us of Church documents or other theological texts (Homilies of Pope Benedict XVI etc). It is a preference of mine. For while in many threads I will answer directly or put it in my own words —I also find using these texts to be good and I may not find a need to add much. I do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time and others can put it better then me --especially Pope Benedict XVI and the Catechism and Compendium (such rich texts!).

 

[Evania]

I truly see your point Jimmy. In Bookcat’s defense though, I have seen him present his thoughts on the subject in addition to the links. Like he said, when dealing with Truth, you can’t really reinvent the wheel.

 

[Debora123]

I truly see your point Jimmy. In Bookcat’s defense though, I have seen him present his thoughts on the subject in addition to the links. Like he said, when dealing with Truth, you can’t really reinvent the wheel.

The problem is though, that the Church does not have a black/white intrinsic “truth” when it comes to premarital deep kissing.

I’m sure some theologians would side with bookcat’s thinking and say that in their own opinion, deep kissing before marriage is an intrinsic evil…

As I’m sure there would be others who would have the same views that Wanderer, Jimmy, and I have… that it really just depends on the people involved, the intent, etc etc…

Truth is the Church is silent on this specific issue.

 

[Evania]

While I see your point, it doesn’t negate the fact that there is Truth, and that’s merely what Bookcat is providing.

 

[Debora123]

While I see your point, it doesn’t negate the fact that there is Truth, and that’s merely what Bookcat is providing.

Indeed.

 

[jimmy]

What if I were to come here and present the Greek text of the NT and nothing else. No commentary, no translation, nothing. Then when I was criticized for meaningless posts, I would yell for all to hear, “I’m presenting the truth. You hear my truth?” Maybe I think biblical Greek is the only valid language to have a conversation in, should I discuss sexuality in biblical Greek?

 

[Evania]

The best advice I can give you since it bothers you is to skip over the posts then. They aren’t breaking forum rules, and are at a liberty to post them. Other than that…There’s really not much else you can do.

 

[Bookcat]

What if I were to come here and present the Greek text of the NT and nothing else. No commentary, no translation, nothing. Then when I was criticized for meaningless posts, I would yell for all to hear, “I’m presenting the truth. You hear my truth?” Maybe I think biblical Greek is the only valid language to have a conversation in, should I discuss sexuality in biblical Greek?

I am not posting Greek --the analogy here is a non-analogy.

Nor am I posting meaningless posts.

If one does not wish to read something at the moment one may read something else.

 

[Bookcat]

As I noted above.

Yes I often make use of Church documents or other theological texts (Homilies of Pope Benedict XVI etc). It is a preference of mine. For while in many threads I will answer directly or put it in my own words —I also find using these texts to be good and I may not find a need to add much. I do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time and others can put it better then me --especially Pope Benedict XVI and the Catechism and Compendium (such rich texts!).

 

[jimmy]

I am not posting Greek --the analogy here is a non-analogy.

Nor am I posting meaningless posts.

If one does not wish to read something at the moment one may read something else.

The analogy is that you are posting something that you call truth, but means nothing until it is interpreted and translated. You post CCC paragraphs without even giving commentary. They don’t even address the subject of kissing.

Yes, your posts are meaningless to any real person, because they address no ones problems. There are real people trying to discuss this, but you refuse to have an actual discussion, and direct a response to a real person. Instead you want to direct your post to the crown, but since the crowd doesn’t ask any questions or make any objections, your posts are meaningless.

I have made the decision to skip your posts from now on.

 

[Bookcat]

The analogy is that you are posting something that you call truth, but means nothing until it is interpreted and translated. You post CCC paragraphs without even giving commentary. They don’t even address the subject of kissing.

Yes, your posts are meaningless to any real person, because they address no ones problems. There are real people trying to discuss this, but you refuse to have an actual discussion, and direct a response to a real person. Instead you want to direct your post to the crown, but since the crowd doesn’t ask any questions or make any objections, your posts are meaningless.

I have made the decision to skip your posts from now on.

CCC paragraphs are regarding chastity and modesty.

As to kissing – you missed the posts that indeed addressed kissing.

I posted both generally and to specific persons in this thread.

And I did not mean for you to be frustrated (any apologies needful --are offered) but I have answered even as to why I posted the way I posted several times.

 

[Bookcat]

I .

One last one for you to read…

*Have a very pleasant and restful night *

I know I need sleep this has been a long night and day (problems with the baby)

 

[Evania]

Thanks for your posts. I have found them insightful! Hope you have a restful night

 

[thewanderer]

Granted – one could choose other terms etc to relate what is there and it could thus be refined.

Basically --there are certainly actions that should never be done by an unmarried couple. These are directly ordered to sexual pleasure. That is part of their nature. Sexual pleasure (and sexual arousal) is not something to be intended in any way by an unmarried person.

An unmarried person is not to seek or consented to sexual pleasure --such is reserved for marriage.

Then there are those reasonable actions (signs of affection etc which one could potentially engage in --which yes may indirectly have a side effect of sexual arousal at times-- which one must deal with chastely and modestly and prudently when such occurs (and of course not consent to it or seek it etc). Ones confessor can assist one in judging in ones case.

The distinction regarding" intent" is to bring across that a bad intent can make the otherwise potentially acceptable form of affection --into lust from the get go.

And that one must always have a good intent – one that is chaste and modest.

The distinction of the near occasion of sin brings in the reality that some otherwise acceptable signs of affection – or circumstances --can become a problem --and need to be avoided by that couple where as they are not for another.

Thank you for this response. I know you didn’t want to get pulled into a conversation, but I am going to give my thoughts on this anyway, I understand if you choose not to respond, I’m just one of those people who likes to discuss things.

In your post you made a distinction between sexual pleasure and sexual arousal which I agree with. I think this is why any genital contact or stimulation would be clearly wrong before marriage as that clearly involves sexual pleasure rather than just arousal. I guess the question that is left is how do we define sexual pleasure as opposed to sexual arousal? We end up coming full circle to another unclear distinction that is left for us to determine. Personally, I don’t really think that kissing of any kind involves sexual pleasure, but rather often involves sexual arousal. This is why I think that even passionate, open mouthed, french kissing etc is not inherently sinful. It can become sinful because of circumstances, such as being a near occasion of sin or being done for the sake of arousal, but is not always and everywhere sinful. I think thats why making out has such debate about it, some people see that it is not connected to sexual pleasure so see that it is not inherently wrong, whereas others see that this kind of kissing, because it leads more often and to a greater extent to arousal, is much more likely to be a sin, than, say, holding hands, and so tell people to leave it until marriage.

Whatever the reason is, the teachings of the Church are not clear enough on this particular issue for us to be able to point to a specific Church teaching which will answer this question for us, so, honestly, I think the best way to deal with this question is to, first, try to understand the Church’s teachings on purity, chastity, and sexuality. Read TOB, Love and Responsibility, and what the catechism has to say about it. Then, pray about it and follow your conscience. The better you understand and appreciate the Church’s understanding of sexuality and purity the more you can trust your own conscience and judgement on the issue and you should not feel any guilt for doing so.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you for this response. I know you didn’t want to get pulled into a conversation, but I am going to give my thoughts on this anyway, I understand if you choose not to respond, I’m just one of those people who likes to discuss things.

In your post you made a distinction between sexual pleasure and sexual arousal which I agree with. I think this is why any genital contact or stimulation would be clearly wrong before marriage as that clearly involves sexual pleasure rather than just arousal. I guess the question that is left is how do we define sexual pleasure as opposed to sexual arousal?

Personally, I don’t really think that kissing of any kind involves sexual pleasure, but rather often involves sexual arousal…

I was not seeking to make any strong distinction between sexual pleasure and sexual arousal. The later being I think one can say the beginnings or part of the former. Outside of marriage one cannot seek either or want either.

But rather between that which is direct and that which is indirect.