P
purplesunshine
Guest
Wouldn’t marriage expression be a euphamisim for sex and foreplay? Not simply hugging, cuddling and kissing?
- Status
T
TimothyH
Guest
I don’t understand your question.
My point is not to argue about kissing, hugging and cuddling vs foreplay and sex, and where the line is drawn, and what is sinful and what is not. I’m not aguing that.
The point of my post is that I believe the OP may be in error about what Christopher West teaches. I believe, based on what I have read from West, that he would not teach that it is OK to hug, kiss and cuddle, and I would be very surprised to find that he did.
I would love to see a quote from the book, which I believe the OP may have misread. If not, I will seriously reconsider recommending West’s work to anyone.
-Tim-
R
Rascalking
Guest
Don’t worry Purple. If you were my girlfriend, I wouldn’t even think of kissing you!
B
Bookcat
Guest
(and one can find more in various works of Catholic moral theology…tis not a new problem)
B
bbentrup
Guest
The text is pretty easy to find. Go to amazon.com, search for “good news about sex and marriage west”. First hit I believe. The publishers allow you a limited search of the book. In the text of the book search for the word “prolonged” - it has one hit on p.78. That is not even West’s vocabulary as he is quoting Fr. Paul Quay in his book called “The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality” nevertheless, West gives positive, but limited endorsement of the action.
I agree. The context is within engaged couples, not people who are merely dating. The idea is the fundamental commitment to each other involved. The act is the language of authentic love. Where sin intrudes or the temptation to sin, the act must stop. For some couples, the act of prolonged kissing itself is a temptation to further action which is reserved for married couples. For other couples, it is not. For those in which the act is a temptation, West points out that marriage won’t save the act of kissing from being not-sinful, since you were using each other anyways for your own ends; you were denying their personhood.
West’s recommendation is not a grounds to try and push the envelope, but is grounded in the context of mature Christian commitment (God first, love of future spouse grounded in love of God). When you have this freedom from sexual sin and temptation, you can concentrate more on the positive aspects of the sign, which kissing is. West doesn’t quote Augustine, but I’m nonetheless reminded of the latter’s saying: “Love, and do what you will.” To be clear, it has to be authentic love, which always presupposes the good of the other (premarital sex would not qualify).
It’s only two pages long, and seems like a commendable reflection based on human freedom and authentic love. Wonderfully Catholic.
I agree. The context is within engaged couples, not people who are merely dating. The idea is the fundamental commitment to each other involved. The act is the language of authentic love. Where sin intrudes or the temptation to sin, the act must stop. For some couples, the act of prolonged kissing itself is a temptation to further action which is reserved for married couples. For other couples, it is not. For those in which the act is a temptation, West points out that marriage won’t save the act of kissing from being not-sinful, since you were using each other anyways for your own ends; you were denying their personhood.
West’s recommendation is not a grounds to try and push the envelope, but is grounded in the context of mature Christian commitment (God first, love of future spouse grounded in love of God). When you have this freedom from sexual sin and temptation, you can concentrate more on the positive aspects of the sign, which kissing is. West doesn’t quote Augustine, but I’m nonetheless reminded of the latter’s saying: “Love, and do what you will.” To be clear, it has to be authentic love, which always presupposes the good of the other (premarital sex would not qualify).
It’s only two pages long, and seems like a commendable reflection based on human freedom and authentic love. Wonderfully Catholic.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
When people (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) talk about Catholic hang ups with regard to sex, what do you think they are talking about? This. Right here.
Absence of differentiation: by treating an engaged couple that kisses as the moral equivalent of a Jerry Springer sideshow where one spouse cheats by having a threesome with the husband and wife next door, we are sorely missing the mark.
Further, the angle that these issues are viewed at is wildly misguided, harmful… destructive. Instead of being viewed as a healthy and fulfilling expression of love - kissing, cuddling, etc. are treated as unfortunate acts that we wish weren’t important for a married couple, but sadly, some are so “weak” as to desire them. So, a necessary evil.
Is it any wonder we have such hang ups about sex? Come on.
Absence of differentiation: by treating an engaged couple that kisses as the moral equivalent of a Jerry Springer sideshow where one spouse cheats by having a threesome with the husband and wife next door, we are sorely missing the mark.
Further, the angle that these issues are viewed at is wildly misguided, harmful… destructive. Instead of being viewed as a healthy and fulfilling expression of love - kissing, cuddling, etc. are treated as unfortunate acts that we wish weren’t important for a married couple, but sadly, some are so “weak” as to desire them. So, a necessary evil.
Is it any wonder we have such hang ups about sex? Come on.
R
Rascalking
Guest
Dude-(or Dudette, I don’t know which you are) you hit it out of the park with this post. Seriously, I’ve been saying the same thing you did for years now.
Clicking “like” or giving a thumbs up wouldn’t do it in this case.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Are there unchaste forms of kissing? yes. Are there dangers in this area? ya sure. Sins? yes.
The reality exists that there is concupscience… The reality is that there can be sins of lust etc. Yes certainly.
But our life in Christ is not about such. It is about following him…knowing true life…authentic love…virtue etc
Chastity, modesty, prudence…
Can there be chaste kisses? Yes of course.
Can there be other forms of chaste and modest signs of affection between those who are not yet married? Yes indeed!
The Church and orthodox Catholic Moral Theology teach the truth about man, about marriage about chastity.
Such is beautifully reasonable, virtuous and freeing.
The reality exists that there is concupscience… The reality is that there can be sins of lust etc. Yes certainly.
But our life in Christ is not about such. It is about following him…knowing true life…authentic love…virtue etc
Chastity, modesty, prudence…
Can there be chaste kisses? Yes of course.
Can there be other forms of chaste and modest signs of affection between those who are not yet married? Yes indeed!
The Church and orthodox Catholic Moral Theology teach the truth about man, about marriage about chastity.
Such is beautifully reasonable, virtuous and freeing.
C
Castello
Guest
Would you do it in front of her dad, your mom, both grandparents and your parish priest? If not, then don’t do it before you are married.
C
chipeto
Guest
Surely, purity is about more than simply abstaining from sex. It’s not just about specific physical acts, but about our hearts and minds. We have to take responsibility for putting ourselves in situations where we may become aroused. I’m sure you don’t mean to say that everything’s OK as long as the pants stay on, but that’s sort of what it reads like.
There’s a fair amount of hyperbole here. There is nothing about being hot for each other and facing serious temptation that constitutes a psychological problem. It’s normal, and it can also be an occasion of sin. Nor is there anything strange about a guy being turned on by physical affection with a girl. It’s normal. And also a possible occasion of sin. Furthermore, a couple can sin sexually without taking their clothes off.
Now, I’m not saying it’s wrong to kiss, or anything like that, but I maintain that it is perfectly normal for people (especially, perhaps, guys) to become aroused by protracted sessions of passionate kissing.
Come now, surely it’s very far from necessary for a couple to make out or perfect kissing before they exchange vows. And who says that they need to learn everything in one night? They have their entire lives. I tell you what, try replacing occurrences of the word ‘kiss’ with the word ‘sex’ in the above:
Sex is a skill you develop with each other. The sex we share is a unique thing. … It’s a way of getting to know about a person in the most subtle way. Still true, isn’t it? But not, perhaps, a convincing argument for premarital sex.
I think that when people talk about Catholic hang ups with regard to sex, they are more likely referring to Catholic beliefs about premarital sex and contraception. Regardless which of us has the correct perception, may I suggest that our concern should be truth, not human regard.
I don’t believe that anyone on this thread has suggested this, or anything even remotely like it.
I don’t really understand the last half of this, but I have found interesting JPII’s remarks on premature tenderness in Love and Responsibility.
C
chipeto
Guest
I am waiting for someone to say, “Do you really think that God will send you to Hell for kissing?”
P
purplesunshine
Guest
Last time I checked kissing (unlike sex) dosnt make babies.
There are levels to get to know someone. Kissing is one
There are levels to get to know someone. Kissing is one
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Observe:
Costello:
Case closed.
People can keep harping on even mild acts of affection as being disgusting and wrong. But for a newly married couple, you can’t simply switch that from off to on. People don’t enter the marriage bed on the first night and suddenly say, “whereas before, if I touched you, my hand would fall off… but now, it is no longer gross or evil to touch you! I am going to get such enjoyment out of our marital embrace.”
Hence, the hangups.
What makes you think that they haven’t? There are lots of these threads. Again, hang ups.
C
chipeto
Guest
That’s true…but risk of pregnancy doesn’t make premarital sex sinful, it only makes it risky. But really, I was only trying to show the problems with your counterargument, not presenting an argument of my own.
Certainly, I agree that kissing doesn’t possess the level of intimacy that sex does.
C
Castello
Guest
Passionate or “french” kissing is foreplay. The tongue and mouth are designed that the stimulation of them will cause the sex organs to become aroused and ready for intercourse.
It is unchaste for unmarried persons to intentionally arouse each other sexually.
C
Castello
Guest
Hyperbole much?
No one ever said that an engaged person finds the other gross, in fact, it is far better for marriage if the two people like each other and find the other attractive.
It is more like “you are so special and precious, I love you to much to treat you in an unchaste way. The gift that we give each other after marriage is sacred.”
C
chipeto
Guest
So your sample size is one? Very well, but Castello made this post after you said:
so this doesn’t bolster your position.
I don’t think that anyone on this thread has suggested that acts of affection are disgusting or wrong, but Catholics do believe (I’m sorry, I don’t know if you are Catholic, or what your beliefs are) that some acts are reserved for marriage. If I may be frank, I think you are exaggerating wildly.
If any Catholics do have such hangups, then they do not understand the Church’s teaching on this subject.
That is not what I meant at all, but never mind; I was only attempting to be humorous.
F
frank_maritano
Guest
It’s amazing, and frightening to see so many “experts” on Church Doctrine in here. No Church or religion is perfect, nor are it’s leaders, or members.
There are a lot of “over scrupulous” catholics that are literally driving themselves into mental illness.
Unlike the 10 commandments which were given to Moses DIRECTLY by GOD, the bible was created by man, translated by man, from a language that has become almost, if not already, extinct. So you have a lot of room for error in translation, and interpretation, i.e. the Ku Klux Klan found passages in the bible to justify the persecution of blacks, and yes, CATHOLICS too!.
The ONLY 2 PERFECT people who ever walked this earth (Jesus & Mary) left for the Kingdom of Heaven some 2000 years ago.
When the Blessed Virgin appeared to Bernadette of Lourdes, the Church mocked her for years.
When the Blessed Virgin appeared to Sister Lucia & her friends at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart> IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE!
Jesus did say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and not just in the bible.
There are a lot of “over scrupulous” catholics that are literally driving themselves into mental illness.
Unlike the 10 commandments which were given to Moses DIRECTLY by GOD, the bible was created by man, translated by man, from a language that has become almost, if not already, extinct. So you have a lot of room for error in translation, and interpretation, i.e. the Ku Klux Klan found passages in the bible to justify the persecution of blacks, and yes, CATHOLICS too!.
The ONLY 2 PERFECT people who ever walked this earth (Jesus & Mary) left for the Kingdom of Heaven some 2000 years ago.
When the Blessed Virgin appeared to Bernadette of Lourdes, the Church mocked her for years.
When the Blessed Virgin appeared to Sister Lucia & her friends at Fatima, Our Blessed Mother asked that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart> IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE!
Jesus did say “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” and not just in the bible.
B
bbentrup
Guest
Are you speaking of personal experience? Or are you speaking of general scientific consensus which you can cite to? I also feel this declaration isn’t sufficiently precise as to be most helpful to expand upon your premise. As one example, it is not clear if you are speaking on a general level or a comprehensive one. If your scientific rule (if it is scientific) does not encompass ever single couple, then can you explain the morality for a couple who don’t get this stimulation? Even though I think I catch your general drift, can you please be more exact (and cite)? If you can’t, it makes it seem like you’re making it up, which is unfair to you. If you can prove this (to the extent there is scientific consensus can “prove” something, your other rule that it would be unchaste to intentionally arouse the other sexually would certainly then apply. This would be an interesting situation where science informs the morality calculus which previous generations would not have had the benefit of this knowledge.
Unless and until you can prove this, I think we Catholics need to be open to the idea that some couples, who are not slaves to concupiscence, might be able to engage in this act without sinning. We also need to realize that marriage won’t prevent such an act from not being sinful if they were merely dogs in heat beforehand who are now unleashed by a wedding ceremony. The sin of utilitarianism ignores the wedding.
C
chipeto
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is. I don’t think it’s wrong to discuss these things, as we are. I don’t see any evidence that anyone on this thread is driving himself into mental illness. As Catholics, we believe in Sacred Tradition, that the Church will preserve God’s Word. We know that we are not perfect, but we still strive for sanctity, out of love for God. And we’re not casting stones, just having a discussion.
- Status