Romantic involvement with multiple people - how can it be anything else than wrong?

[MarilynIN]

Chevalier:

Wait until you have sons and daughters. We can give them good values, good example of Christian behavior, set limits, etc. Some children, no matter how ideal their upbringing, cave-in to peer pressure. Some parents could ground their kids until retirement age, and they would find a way to “get around” any limits or clipping their wings the parents may do. There are simply some kids who are rebellious, despite all a parent conscientiously does.

There comes a point when you cannot control some kids’ behavior 100% of the time. Tell them they are grounded, and unless you and your spouse post a 24 hour shadowing or watch over them, if they are determined, they are going to skip school or sneak out after everyone is asleep to be with whom they want to be with, they will hike their skirts up, slap a ton of makeup on, etc., once they get out of the house.

I also know that you have to cut some slack at times with kids and allow them to fall on their rumps in order to learn their lessons. The trick is to know when to ease up the pressure and allow them some freedom and when not to. In this day and age, kissing and sending/receiving Valentine’s Day Cards isn’t what I would be concerned about. Romance without lust is something I know alot of parents wouldn’t mind for their children, they would be downright relieved as opposed to the other pressures to do drugs, have sex, and join gangs (they aren’t just in ghetto schools).

 

[chevalier]

BLB_Oregon:

Ok, so you don’t think people should behave romantically toward more than one person at a time. Fine. No one has said that is a good idea, and most think it is at least a venial sin.

To rate it for individuals, we would need to know the state of mind and the degree of consent. If I know got up from my computer chair, went out and came back in the morning with two kissing relationships going on, it would feel mortal to me. An average teenager without a traditional upbringing, without much interest in moral theology or anything and with a hot temper catalysed by a biochemical storm of hormones, will have it venial if it all. Someone doing it against his own conscience but feeling pressured will probably have it venial. Someone non-confrontational and afraid to hurt people or say no, will likely have it sinless if initiated by the other side. And so on. Relationships which just happen are different from ones people work on and put work in, or from match-maked multiple romantic dating.

A woman I know said, “A kiss just means ‘I dig you a lot.’” With that or similar state of mind, it’s probably impossible for it to be mortal, especially if not acting on a sexual impulse. It’s still wrong, but I suppose the state of mind combined with the wide acceptance having blurred people’s perception in this matter, the individual might even commit no sin.

What is more serious is treating such a situation as a normal one, let alone a desirable one. I see more of a problem in recommending it than in actually doing it.

You have said it is a mortal sin. It’s not. Period.

Where? Mortal requires grave matter, full consent, full knowledge. I can’t know consent or knowledge unless it’s really clearly expressed. The matter stems from the VIth as all things related to erotic love, sex, marriage etc. Aquinas believed there was no non-grave matter in this area and he expressly included kissing. Any kissing, not just mouth or whatever. Reading Summa Theologica, one could get the impression that absolutely any improper kiss would have to be a grave matter.

The Church has not taken your side specifically.

Talked to another priest today for about half an hour. He said that one should start the discussion from the Church’s teaching and the Church’s teaching was that erotic love was distinct from friendship and aimed at marriage, thus indivisible. Toying with other people’s feelings was evil. From that, it followed that, as the love which is self-giving and indivisible preceded marriage in time, therefore was indivisible already before marriage. Expressions of it were only justified by it. Anything else was toying with feelings. The biggest problem was toying with feelings, followed by temptations towards promiscuity and preparing the ground for polygamy. Multiple romantic attractions should not be acted on, of all just one should be pursued anyhow and preferably none since the multitude of it most likely meant that none would result in marriage. I specifically askid him what if all people involved were consenting freely, he said that it wasn’t up to humans to define what was right and wrong. People could define some borders, even non-standard ones for their friendships, but the general ideas should be followed. The fact that there was general wide-spread tendency towards blending romantic themes into marriage didn’t make any justification on the grounds of popular custom (I was playing the advocatus diaboli role and coming up with all excuses and justifications I could think of). Romantic intent was a totally different thing from defining acceptable borders of friendship. He said that maybe there could be nothing sexual in kissing dates, but it shouldn’t be taken out of context and intepreted out of touch with life. Following from the fact that romantically involving oneself with multiple people was naturally leading to polygamy and that was not achievable in the Catholic Church, such kissing was giving wrong ideas even if could possibly not be sexual. As love with more than one was not possible, the theme and ultimate purpose would have to be some kind of pleasure and that kind of pleasure was not free for the taking. Messages in dubious situations could and should be conveyed verbally. Low or early stage of advancement wouldn’t make it proper as it wasn’t proper at any stage.

 

[chevalier]

You think name-calling has a productive place in raising daughters and preaching the Gospel. I think you’re out to lunch AND that such name-calling is an offense to charity that is a venial sin itself. (“Love the sinner and hate the sin. Well, call the sinner nasty names, but you know, for their own good.” Save that.) I hope to high heavens that you change your mind and the habits of your speech before you actually have any daughters.

I do less name-calling than the Apostles in the epistles and I’ve never said it’s my method of handling people in my charge. It’s general and attributed to behaviour, not anything inherent to the person. Something like “there shall be no whores and whoremongers in Israel”. Teaching sometimes requires strong words. I doubt I could call my children names and it isn’t really my style. Nonetheless, behaving like a slut would be called behaving like a slut. If I can handle teenagers who are sexually active and gently point them towards chastity, I can handle this as well.

Prometheum_x:

First, what does it mean to have a romantic relationship with someone? It doesn’t mean a relationship where one gives the other flowers and Valentine’s Day cards and kisses, for it is entirely possible to imagine a romantic relationship where those things have never been given (at least not yet).

Agreed. Those were examples only as the term “romantic relationship” on its own could have been too vague.

Those things can be an expression of a romantic relationship, but they are not necessary expressions of a romantic relationship. Thus, they do not define “romantic”.

They don’t exhaust the definition. However, they are supposed to be romantic. I’m not talking about loving a friend with the brother-sister kind of love, or acting as if one did. I’m speaking of behaviour distinct from friendly behaviour.

Second, what is the significance of a romantic kiss? I exclude from my question kisses intended to sexually arouse. Arousing kisses can also be romantic, but I do not believe that romantic kisses are necessarily arousing.

That is correct, but it doesn’t mean that romantic kisses are something happy, non-exclusive and free to give away. It isn’t supposed to arouse sexually (which is debatable, and which is totally different in practice), but it still signifies interest other than friendly. It’s done because the couple wants to feel like a man and a woman, first of all. Next, the thrill is enjoyable and is part of the fun. Ultimately, romantic love is exclusive and non-divisible. A romantic kiss sends a message of romantic love. Pursuing romantic love with multiple people is wrong. Expressing love which doesn’t exist also is. As one can’t love two, three or four people, it takes a different theme. More precisely, the thrill of romance. But the thrill of romance is not autonomous from conjugal love and therefore needs to be sought only in connection with an exclusive self-giving mutual commitment aiming at marriage (I’m avoiding names like “exclusive dating” or “courting” on purpose).

If not, what is it about the nature of such a romantic relationship that puts it in contradiction with being married? Or, what is it about the marriage relationship that puts it in contradiction to all other romantic relationships?

I can’t think of a priest who would say romantic love were allowed for a married person. Romantic love is a part of conjugal love and commitment. There may be a marriage concluded in the absence of romantic feelings, but exclusivity in romantic love is a part of the vows.

 

[chevalier]

JimG:

Marilyn, you have aptly described the dating game as it was in my high school days better than I could. There was nothing at all licentious about it.

As you mentioned, the rules have now changed, trending toward to earlier, more exclusive, pairings. In my view, this development is for the worse.

You are forgetting that the non-exclusive romantic dating relationships are not a centuries old tradition. They are only a couple of decades old. Christianity defines the love between man and woman as exclusive. Whatever else is licentious. There is no allowance for multiple romances. Romance is only allowed for the love which brings people to marry each other and that love is exclusive. See above in my post. The exclusivity of romance is as old as Christianity itself and has always been a part of the Western culture from ancient times. Non-exclusive romance as something widely permissible in a monogamous society is a modern development started less than hundred years ago on the American continent and I’m talking North here. The South was too traditional for that. Dating was a bad invention and the idea that it’s oh so light pressed people to allow it for something else than building a proper relationship looking at marital union. Making it non-exclusive created another bad tendency, one to divorce romantic love from conjugal love and thus romance from hope of marriage. Romance became a pastime and that was wrong. This way, marriage becomes a contract for exclusive sex because whatever else there is between a man and a woman, can be obtained outside of it. Non-exclusive romance in the modern era is a product of the same sexual revolution which has resulted in common concubinages. Nowadays, people at least tend back towards commitment and faithfulness and one night stands have been losing ground in favour of concubinages. This is a good sign. Perhaps they will start marrying properly at some point.

And that’s the difference too. Boys and girls–but especially the girls-- knew exactly when and where to draw the line!

They had some line they had drawn but it doesn’t mean the line was good. It’s not up to humans suddenly to decide that romance is not connected with marriage, is made for mutual enjoyment and can be polygamous if sex is removed from it. That’s something alien to the Western culture and Christianity. They kept their line but crossed the line of what’s right and proper. It’s never proper to have romance for fun, nor is it proper to divorce romance from conjugal love in its nascent form.

Motives such as saving time or seeking pleasure are especially reproachable. Confusion may be a mitigating circumstance. Nonetheless, the act of pursuing multiple romantic attractions is wrong.

Keep it friends or keep it married, this is what the Church teaches. Marriage won’t be obtained immediately and the person needs to be discerned but there is no try before buy allowance in the sense that we could try it with whomever we like without restriction and then pick one. If we have something we think may be nascent conjugal love, we pursue it and it either leads to marriage or it shows the person isn’t the one God has in for us. However, conjugal love is exclusive. We can’t have low stage non-exclusive relationships. No stage is all right for it. No reduction to minimum. It must be completely absent. It must be purely friends if there’s no relation with marriage.

 

[chevalier]

MarilynIN:

Wait until you have sons and daughters. We can give them good values, good example of Christian behavior, set limits, etc. Some children, no matter how ideal their upbringing, cave-in to peer pressure. Some parents could ground their kids until retirement age, and they would find a way to “get around” any limits or clipping their wings the parents may do. There are simply some kids who are rebellious, despite all a parent conscientiously does.

This doesn’t give the parent any right to call proper what isn’t proper or specifically to allow something wrong to be done. The mitigating circumstance of ignorance works only for the ignorant. The ones who are not, need to pull the ignorant ones out of the ignorance. We have a duty to teach our children what’s right and wrong. Multiple romances are wrong, so we can’t allow them, let alone propagate them as something “better” (presumably less potentially dangerous) than something which is of itself good (the exclusive version) but carries a bigger risk.

That would be venting. Should we allow people to beat other people up at will if this were supposed to reduce the number of murders? Should we allow spouses to go on dates and kiss people so that they would have something and maybe settle for it instead of committing a more tangible adultery?

We can’t allow children non-exclusive romantic meetings. We can allow them non-exclusive non-romantic meetings. If we stamp out exclusivity without stamping out romantic themes, we are sending the message that romantic love isn’t exclusive. So what? Is the exclusivity of marriage something accidental and a merely legal rule? Or a rule of divine positive law that God set for no purpose? That’s the sort of thinking to which such messages lead. As a result, we have people asking why it’s wrong for spouses to have extramarital romance if it doesn’t end in sex.

There comes a point when you cannot control some kids’ behavior 100% of the time. Tell them they are grounded, and unless you and your spouse post a 24 hour shadowing or watch over them, if they are determined, they are going to skip school or sneak out after everyone is asleep to be with whom they want to be with, they will hike their skirts up, slap a ton of makeup on, etc., once they get out of the house.

So you say that’s the reason why you can’t stamp out romantic themes. But you still seem to be able to stamp out exclusivity. It’s not exclusivity what is wrong. What is wrong is fornication. Stamping out exclusivity leads to polyamory. There is a reason why it’s growingly popular. After such non-exclusive romances, what is the child supposed to be doing in his adult life? Wife swapping? Swingers club?

I also know that you have to cut some slack at times with kids and allow them to fall on their rumps in order to learn their lessons.

So it’s better to allow polyfidelity than to allow a boyfriend or girlfriend? I have no problem with banning boyfriends and girlfriends till a certain age. My mother banned it for me all the same. But she also banned romantic themes. She allowed “being in love” but it was to be platonic. I wouldn’t probably be reprimanded for a simple kiss, but if I made it non-exclusive, it would mean I shouldn’t have kissed at all. Friendship or courting was the model for my younger brother who is 16 now. Both families are supportive and have been involved in the process. I suppose they aren’t probably even allowed to date in the full sense of the word.

The trick is to know when to ease up the pressure and allow them some freedom and when not to. In this day and age, kissing and sending/receiving Valentine’s Day Cards isn’t what I would be concerned about.

I would, for reasons explained above. Polyamory is at least materially wrong at all stages.

 

[chevalier]

Romance without lust is something I know alot of parents wouldn’t mind for their children, they would be downright relieved

My mother probably prays for one for me. She would never mean it non-exclusive, though. A chaste romance looking at marriage, of course. Getting to know people and receiving training is no reason to start a romance. Saving time or getting to know even more people is no reason to start a multiple parallel romance.

as opposed to the other pressures to do drugs, have sex, and join gangs (they aren’t just in ghetto schools).

Polyamory at all stages can be more damaging than drugs. Having ideas of chaste romance being so fun and all and so totally non-exclusive that making it exclusive is bad, children are bound to have problems in marriage. They will keep their bodies faithful but not necessarily hearts. This can be even more damaging than fornication. It’s easier to fall, get up and confess and try to keep chaste again than it is to get one’s mind rid of polyamorous ideas and start restricting romantic love to the spouse as something opposed to what was taught at home. Extramarital chaste romances are already wrong, most likely mortal, and lead to unchaste extramarital romances. This is what one gets from declaring romance non-exclusive.

 

[MarilynIN]

I can tell by your responses that you haven’t raised teenagers. I am not endorsing “polygamy” nor am I “ignorant” or “slack” in the way that I raised my daughters, and frankly, I take offense at the way you twist what I say for your own agenda.

I am saying you cannot be so rigid as to rule every iota of a child’s life. You have to cut the chord in some areas where it clearly doesn’t present a moral or physical danger to that child; If they fail, it is part of the learning experience; if they succeed, then kuodos to them! I am also firm in the stance that good parents do their level best, but it isn’t unheard of for them to have a truly rebellious son or daughter to deal with, despite all their best efforts. I will quote an old Native American saying:

“Walk a mile in my shoes” before you presume to know all there is to know about parenting.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

chevalier:

Polyamory at all stages can be more damaging than drugs. Having ideas of chaste romance being so fun and all and so totally non-exclusive that making it exclusive is bad, children are bound to have problems in marriage. They will keep their bodies faithful but not necessarily hearts. This can be even more damaging than fornication. It’s easier to fall, get up and confess and try to keep chaste again than it is to get one’s mind rid of polyamorous ideas and start restricting romantic love to the spouse as something opposed to what was taught at home. Extramarital chaste romances are already wrong, most likely mortal, and lead to unchaste extramarital romances. This is what one gets from declaring romance non-exclusive.

Something that might lead to mortal sin is not in and of itself a mortal sin. Gluttony can be more damaging that drugs, too, and more easily self-forgiven. It is theoretically a one-way ticket to hell … that doesn’t make Hagan Daas worse than meth.

We differ by degrees, and you will not be moved, nor will I, so I leave you with this: Your desire to follow and defend chastity is a great gift, and I want it made clear that I do not wish to discount it. I am not saying that your strictness is of itself a fault. Those who pursue virtue with great diligence shouldn’t be dismissed as self-righteous, even when they feel compelled to call out warning to the foolish. Nevertheless, I caution you not to let your care in this regard blind you to other possible faults, nor cut you off from gentleness of spirit, compassion, and long-suffering. If you do that, I think God will make of you a fine husband and father.

We will pray for each other, yes? I hope so.

 

[JimG]

Chevalier:

Christianity defines the love between man and woman as exclusive. Whatever else is licentious.

Read again Marilyn’s post #51. There is nothing sinful in what she describes. Not mortal. Not venial. Not even an occasion of sin. Nothing.

The dating pattern she describes is far less hazardous to the morals of our youth than the current pattern of exclusive pairing off.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

JimG:

Read again Marilyn’s post #51. There is nothing sinful in what she describes. Not mortal. Not venial. Not even an occasion of sin. Nothing.

The dating pattern she describes is far less hazardous to the morals of our youth than the current pattern of exclusive pairing off.

Although he may be acting scrupulous, he may not be, or at least not entirely. What is not an occasion of sin for Marilyn or her children may well be an occasion of sin for Chevalier. As nearly as I can tell, his attitude toward kissing, for instance, is quite different than what others posting here have experienced. He may be doing well by his soul to avoid dating anyone for the time being. The priests he has been talking to know him better than we do.

Playing poker and pool aren’t sins, but you could find your way to hell in a pool hall. Those afflicted with a weakness in that direction are better off avoiding pool halls and being thought a prude than to join in and imperil their souls.

As long as he does not extrapolate his experience to be universally applicable to all others (which is the bone I have had to pick with him), or judge others based on his own known weakness, he can make his trial into a witness. That isn’t a bad thing.

 

[st_felicity]

This…

BLB_Oregon:

What is not an occasion of sin for Marilyn or her children may well be an occasion of sin for Chevalier.

and this…

BLB_Oregon:

As long as he does not extrapolate his experience to be universally applicable to all others (which is the bone I have had to pick with him), or judge others based on his own known weakness, he can make his trial into a witness. That isn’t a bad thing.

…are very fair and wise statements!

 

[MarilynIN]

What is not an occasion of sin for Marilyn or her children may well be an occasion of sin for Chevalier.

I think you may have misread what I wrote.

To clarify what I said: My argument was that my girls who went to high school in the 80’s thought they had to “go steady” and that casual dating was wrong. My objection to that is I think that being exclusively involved in relationships is dead-wrong and dangerous for high schoolers in particular.

Casual dating allows kids of high school and college age to develop social skills and self-confidence with the opposite sex, it allows them the experience of meeting other people. If it develops later on into a serious relationship, then there are pitfalls to be avoided and more stringent rules to be adhered to. The rules of casual dating are implied that the date is just that: a date and nothing more, no sexuality involved, etc., There is no harm in dating more than one person and committing to no one as long as no sexuality is implied.

NOTE: Casual dating is NOT the same as being promiscuous. Casual dating has no entanglements, no promises of sexual behavior or committment. It is merely a socializing between a girl and a boy. To the movies, get a milk shake, get to know each other, go home, Innocent (Read that: INNOCENT) goodnight kiss maybe/maybe not. Period.

If Chevalier has a problem with what I say, I have no problem with that. But, if he twists what I say, I will defend myself. He has his own issues to deal with, and I will pray that he can come to terms in God’s Grace with them and perhaps someday have a wife and family of his own.

 

[pnewton]

chevalier:

Talked to another priest today for about half an hour. He said that one should start the discussion from the Church’s teaching and the Church’s teaching was that erotic love was distinct from friendship and aimed at marriage, thus indivisible.

“Erotica love?” That phrase definitely needs context. I thought we were talking about romance? If you equate erotica with romance, that may be why priest are giving you the advice they are. It may well pertain that to you this multiple romance problem is indeed an issue. This is why I kept asking for Church teaching. If you intend so universal application a session with any given priest is not what is needed to support such application. What is needed is instruction in the catechism or church encyclical. That has not been produced.

 

[JimG]

On *60 Minutes * tonight there was a story about an abstinence program given in the schools. Students are asked to wear a ring signifying that they will refrain from sex until marriage.

In its typical fashion, *60 Minutes * first told about the abstinence program, then tried to destroy its credibility by stating that over 80% of those who take the pledge will in fact delay having sex by only 18 months. (And it’s true enough that just waiting 18 months is hardly the same thing as abstinence until marriage.)

What caught my attention, though, were the two young teenagers interviewed. They loved the program and were quite sincere and determined in taking the pledge. They have ‘been together’ in what was obviously an exclusive romantic relationship for 6 months.

But watching them together, their closeness, their romance—their obvious being “in love”—this is the thought that came to me: If they continue as an exclusive couple, I wouldn’t lay odds on that pledge lasting a year, let alone 18 months.

If they want to maintain abstinence until marriage, they need to either quit seeing each other exclusively, or get married. By pairing off as a couple, they put themselves in more danger than if they wer only casually dating.

 

[JimG]

On *60 Minutes * tonight there was a story about an abstinence program given in the schools. Students are asked to wear a ring signifying that they will refrain from sex until marriage.

In its typical fashion, *60 Minutes * first told about the abstinence program, then tried to destroy its credibility by stating that over 80% of those who take the pledge will in fact delay having sex by only 18 months. (And it’s true enough that just waiting 18 months is hardly the same thing as abstinence until marriage.)

What caught my attention, though, were the two young teenagers interviewed. They loved the program and were quite sincere and determined in taking the pledge. They have ‘been together’ in what was obviously an exclusive romantic relationship for 6 months.

But watching them together, their closeness, their romance—their obvious being “in love”—this is the thought that came to me: If they continue as an exclusive couple, I wouldn’t lay odds on that pledge lasting a year, let alone 18 months.

If they want to maintain abstinence until marriage, they need to either quit seeing each other exclusively, or get married. By pairing off as a couple, they put themselves in more danger than if they were only casually dating.

 

[Prometheum_x]

“Erotica love?” That phrase definitely needs context. I thought we were talking about romance? If you equate erotica with romance, that may be why priest are giving you the advice they are. It may well pertain that to you this multiple romance problem is indeed an issue. This is why I kept asking for Church teaching. If you intend so universal application a session with any given priest is not what is needed to support such application. What is needed is instruction in the catechism or church encyclical. That has not been produced.

He wrote “erotic”, not “erotica”. As it is, erotic love is romantic love, as that is what the word eros points to.

 

[pnewton]

Prometheum_x:

He wrote “erotic”, not “erotica”. As it is, erotic love is romantic love, as that is what the word eros points to.

I apologize for the typo. I totally disagree that the words mean the same. If they do, I find it to be a sad reflect on society. If we were speaking Greek that would be a different matter. In English, though, there are two words with different connotation. Talking to a priest and using the word “erotic” could influence the answer as opposed to “romantic”

Moonlit walks on the beach, opening the car door and Tony Bennett; these are romantic.

Bikinis, making out and Playboy; these are erotic.

 

[MarilynIN]

Here is an article from the EWTN archives that sums up much more clearly what I have been trying to say about the old practices of dating versus current dating practices:

ewtn.com/library/YOUTH/DATEEXCL.TXT

I know I am taking just an excerpt, so please read the article as a whole:

**

The '50s may not have been perfect, but I believe that we should return to a dating system which in some ways resembles their system. Dating should be about getting to know members of the opposite sex. There should be nothing wrong with going on dates with several different people. Every time you accept a date with someone, it shouldn’t mean that you can’t date anyone else in the foreseeable future. “Going steady” should be a big deal. It should imply that a couple is seriously considering marriage. It shouldn’t just be some kind of “artificial marriage,” taking you out of circulation, tying you down to someone you probably won’t marry and guaranteeing a painful breakup down the line.

Of course, if we were going to return to a system like that, we would need to make some other changes. There could not be sexual activity in dating. You can’t date multiple people and still engage in sexual activity on those dates. That wouldn’t be
dating, it would be promiscuity. Dating would have to be about talking and getting to know each other, not about having sex or making out or getting “hot and bothered” in the back seat of a car.** Affection in this kind of dating would have to be limited to hugs and light kisses. ** **

 

[chevalier]

Moonlit walks on the beach, opening the car door and Tony Bennett; these are romantic.

And should be exclusive. Except chivalry - that’s what all women deserve and there’s nothing bad about being kind and courteous towards everyone.

The article at EWTN has it wrong. Marriage is not a sacrament of exclusivity. Marriage is a sacrament of permanence. Whatever is romantic is promiscuous if it isn’t exclusive and that’s what all priests I know continue to say. I’ve asked another one today, a dominican. He said that sort of thing was not what the message of the Theology of the Body conveyed. People believe that the fact they are forbidden sex entitles them to vent and to engage in some sweet nookie nookie with whomever they want. That is simply not proper. It might be OK for mormons but not for Catholics. My query with yet another priest, a franciscan this time, is pending, and I wonder what he’s going to say.

Getting to know doesn’t entitle to consumption. The fact that kissing is supposed to be light on dates doesn’t mean that multiple kissing is encouraged or multiple romance. It says that whenever a kiss happens, it needs to be light and not passionate. It also says that the fact you’ve kissed someone doesn’t mean he’s your partner already.

However, it doesn’t say that it’s right to kiss John on Monday, Fred on Tuesday, John on Wednesday and then Fred on Thursday. That’s plain promiscuous. When I told a priest that if my child got an idea from me that such behaviour were correct, I would be afraid to receive. He agreed with me. Teaching such things is much bigger a problem than actually doing it out of emotional immaturity. I still urge anyone to show me a single Catholic saint romancing multiple people. A single one.

Friendship is the most which is allowed to people who are not looking at marriage with each other. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church as I understand it and as it has been told me by priests of the Church who have also affirmed me that to teach otherwise is sinful. Multiple romance, according to them, including a light dating romance, is a sin against love and human dignity, violating the VIIth and opposing the Catholic teaching on marriage. Toying with feelings is forbidden and consent of the involved does not make wrong right. The activity is polygamous in nature, leads to polygamy and promiscuity. This is what priests have told me. From friendship to courting and each romance should be courting looking at marriage. This is what it should look like. No promiscuous “chaste” affairs in which messages of love are sent to multiple people, in which everyone’s dignity is harmed and feelings as well.

How about looking on your favourite non-exclusive kisser kissing someone else? Should you enjoy the show? I don’t know… watch learn the technique or be happy because he/she is having fun? That’s plain wrong and the only right love is exclusive love. Romantic love which is not exclusive is not self-giving, therefore not appropriate. The stage is irrelevant because the nature of it is already wrong and at least materially sinful, if most likely simply means the person has a problem and is not ready for anything romantic at this stage in his or her life.

 

[chevalier]

The chastity speaker in question doesn’t unequivocally approve of multiple romance, with several people at one time. She doesn’t assume that kisses are a custom and required and expected part of a date (that would be regular institutionalised exploitation). I know of Catholic chastity speakers who approve of that, though. Their commitment to sexual chastity is admirable, but the way they trample love itself is reproachable. Love is not something that compells you to stop doing it with everyone and start sticking to one person. Love is the only thing which justifies it happening at all. It’s saddening to see how chastity speakers twist the meaning of love and marriage. That’s not Catholic and I’m going to write to the Vatican congregations if needed.

The “old dating customs” is a fallacy. There is no such thing. Dating is a new invention. Before, there was courting. The idea that a lady would kiss more than one man in a more than friendly way had always been reproachable until dating was invented. There is nothing in this world to give any right to such kisses and such romancing without a strong tie to future marriage and the bona fide hope thereof, which excludes non-exclusivity and other such completely unserious arrangements. The fact the romantic acts aren’t immediately sexual doesn’t change anything. It’s improper for married people, so it’s improper before marriage without a tie to it. Getting to know people is not an entitlement to that – it’s playing with feelings if it moves this far and also objectifies romantic love, objectifies all the people involved. Saving time is not a justification and is a wrong motive of itself, incompatible with human dignity. So much as exclusive romance may lead to concubinage with one person, this sort of thing may lead to one night stands, which are much more repulsive than concubinage.

I stick by the teaching of the Church as explained above by priests who have talked to me, and by the traditional monogamous at all stages model of conjugal love – from the nascent form to fulfilment in marriage. In Christianity and in the Western culture, this has always been the norm and the right thing. Whatever else is a sin. Maybe not mortal, so what? Maybe not even venial but simply material for those who are ignorant of its wrongness, so what? Are we free to tell them it’s OK to do? No, we need to pull them out of ignorance.