Talking to teens about sex

[Rachel126]

I know the basics about what to say to them about why the church says to wait for marriage, etc. Don’t just say “don’t do it because you will go to hell if you do,” but give them real reasons, etc.
However, teens may be apt to ask, “well, exactly how far can I go?”
I was reading an article written by a Catholic abstinence educator, and her answer to that question was to tell them they could do absolutely nothing, including so-called “french” kissing. She acknowledged that nothing in scripture actually states that one’s first kiss must be on one’s wedding day, but her basic reasons were that “once you start, you can’t stop.”
Does this seem a touch extreme to anyone other than me? I am genuinely concerned that if I tell my kids, sorry, no kissing till you’re married, they are apt to reject not only that, but everything I am saying to them. For those of you who were virgins when you married, did you truly never kiss anyone (even your fiance) prior to your wedding day?

 

[1ke]

It is all about instilling virtue from the time they are young.

I did have a friend in college whose first kiss was on her wedding day.

I thought it was awesome and was sorry that I could not do the same. No one had ever introduced that idea to me as a youngster.

It is not unrealistic at all. It is virtue in action. You cannot start teaching about virtue when someone is 15. You have to start when they are babies and build virtue into all parenting.

 

[fpt]

I know the basics about what to say to them about why the church says to wait for marriage, etc. Don’t just say “don’t do it because you will go to hell if you do,” but give them real reasons, etc.
However, teens may be apt to ask, “well, exactly how far can I go?”
I was reading an article written by a Catholic abstinence educator, and her answer to that question was to tell them they could do absolutely nothing, including so-called “french” kissing. She acknowledged that nothing in scripture actually states that one’s first kiss must be on one’s wedding day, but her basic reasons were that “once you start, you can’t stop.”
Does this seem a touch extreme to anyone other than me? I am genuinely concerned that if I tell my kids, sorry, no kissing till you’re married, they are apt to reject not only that, but everything I am saying to them. For those of you who were virgins when you married, did you truly never kiss anyone (even your fiance) prior to your wedding day?

**The role of parents is very important. **Their first role is to educate their own children to become adults (body and soul) in respecting the natural moral order of the humanity (sexed and sexual humanity, alterity and complementarity of humanity, the respect of the sexuation, male and female, body and corollaries, psyche and corollaries, the morality of conjugal life, the morality of marital act within marriage).

What are the immoral acts, per se or only in function of circumstances. The rights, the obligations, the duties of the marital act? The definition of sexual sins?? The conditions of the guilt? The principles and the exceptions?

The mentalities on the corporeity, on the marriage, on the marital act, on the conjugal physical love with sex or without sex, on the contraception, on the abortion, on the N.F.P., on the equity and equality between women and men, on the sexed and sexual heresies, on the sexe and sexual ideologies…etc:* the management of fair acceptions, of the moderation, of the just balance.*

The parents are the keepers, the teachers, the educators of their children. They have to avoid the wrong intellectual approaches, the wrong practices, the wrong doctrines, it is still difficult. They can be helped by the catholic priests, the catholic nurses, the catholic midwifes, the catholic doctors, the catholic ethicists, the catholic psychologists, the other catholic parents.

The family is not a pre-seminary, a pre-monastery, a seminary, a monastery. The mother and girls are not nuns or sisters, the father and boys are not monks, priests or friars. The parents does not have to be scrupoulous, uptight, moralist, puritan, victorian, puritanist, victorianist, genderist, homosexualist, sexist, catharist…, libertary , liberal…etc.

 

[fpt]

**The role of parents is very important. **Their first role is to educate their own children to become adults (body and soul) in respecting the natural moral order of the humanity (sexed and sexual humanity, alterity and complementarity of humanity, the respect of the sexuation, male and female, body and corollaries, psyche and corollaries, the morality of conjugal life, the morality of marital act within marriage).

What are the immoral acts, per se or only in function of circumstances. The rights, the obligations, the duties of the marital act? The definition of sexual sins?? The conditions of the guilt? The principles and the exceptions?

The mentalities on the corporeity, on the marriage, on the marital act, on the conjugal physical love with sex or without sex, on the contraception, on the abortion, on the N.F.P., on the equity and equality between women and men, on the sexed and sexual heresies, on the sexe and sexual ideologies…etc:* the management of fair acceptions, of the moderation, of the just balance.*

The parents are the keepers, the teachers, the educators of their children. They have to avoid the wrong intellectual approaches, the wrong practices, the wrong doctrines, it is still difficult. They can be helped by the catholic priests, the catholic nurses, the catholic midwifes, the catholic doctors, the catholic ethicists, the catholic psychologists, the other catholic parents.

The family is not a pre-seminary, a pre-monastery, a seminary, a monastery. The mother and girls are not nuns or sisters, the father and boys are not monks, priests or friars. The parents does not have to be** scrupulous**, uptight, moralist, puritan, victorian, puritanist, victorianist, genderist, homosexualist, sexist, catharist…, libertary , liberal…etc.

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??? *

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. That is the question, how to define the red line??? *

=====>* 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 intellectual approach (too simple, black or white) is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
The speech of parents, the limits or the parenta bans will have to be in function of the age of the teenager, of its own maturity, of its intellect and its intelligence for understanding, of its cognition, of its past acts, of its honesty, of its own personnality…etc.*

 

[fpt]

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??? *

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. That is the question, how to define the red line??? *

=====>* 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 intellectual approach (too simple, black or white) is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
The speech of parents, the limits or the parental bans* will have to be in function of the age of the teenager, of its own maturity, of its intellect and its intelligence for understanding, of its cognition, of its past acts, of its honesty, of its own personnality…etc.

of course, the teenagers are not like the aged persons of 18 years and more.* The speech has to be adapted and the same for the parental bans.*

 

[1ke]

I don’t think anyone has taken the position it is sinful.

Again, this is about virtue– purity, prudence, modesty.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I know the basics about what to say to them about why the church says to wait for marriage, etc. Don’t just say “don’t do it because you will go to hell if you do,” but give them real reasons, etc.
However, teens may be apt to ask, "well, exactly how far can I go?"
I was reading an article written by a Catholic abstinence educator, and her answer to that question was to tell them they could do absolutely nothing, including so-called “french” kissing. She acknowledged that nothing in scripture actually states that one’s first kiss must be on one’s wedding day, but her basic reasons were that “once you start, you can’t stop.”
Does this seem a touch extreme to anyone other than me? I am genuinely concerned that if I tell my kids, sorry, no kissing till you’re married, they are apt to reject not only that, but everything I am saying to them. For those of you who were virgins when you married, did you truly never kiss anyone (even your fiance) prior to your wedding day?

Don’t we all do that to some extent or another?? “How far CAN I go until X activity that I enjoy becomes sin?”

It’s the wrong approach and the wrong question.

We should be asking, “Does doing X get me closer to Jesus, closer to Heaven, and if not, why am I doing it?”

You might say, “Kissing on the lips is not sinful nor extreme,” but I can ask, “What purpose does it serve?” Does making out with a girlfriend or boyfriend have a purpose other than satisfying lust? Is there more danger of sin, or less, if a couple starts kissing while dating? Kissing on the lips is a physically intimate act. Are teenagers ready to go forward with the commitments that surround physically intimate acts? No, they are not. They will not be ready for such commitments until they are much older and more settled, with a means to create and provide for a family.

Kissing on the lips can lead to physical arousal, which then becomes its own drive to complete other acts of intimacy. Yes, it is the definition of a “slippery slope,” because teens are so rarely fully aware of the power of their own body’s desires and needs.

I would get a copy of Theology of the Body for Teens and have many talks about this, long before the child is under the influence of hormones. But it’s never too late to start. You should talk to your children about this. The lack of (name removed by moderator)ut from parents means that teens have nothing with which to counter the arguments of their developing bodies.

 

[RPRPsych]

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:

(edited for brevity’s sake)

*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. That is the question, how to define the red line??? *

=====>* 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 intellectual approach (too simple, black or white) is very … odd and full of stuff not very logic. Faith and reason, reason and faith.
The speech of parents, the limits or the parenta bans will have to be in function of the age of the teenager, of its own maturity, of its intellect and its intelligence for understanding, of its cognition, of its past acts, of its honesty, of its own personnality…etc.*

That’s quite a thought-provoking list, especially since I’ve had reason to consider the issue myself. (When one writes about teenagers in love, well… )

I’d be interested in knowing on what basis you reached the above conclusions; I’ve read a lot of your other posts on moral theology and found them interesting.

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t think anyone has taken the position it is sinful.

Again, this is about virtue– purity, prudence, modesty.

Rachel, I think this is the best approach. It’s about emphasizing virtue rather than separating acts into columns of “okay” and “not okay.” As you indicated in the first post, it’s about emphasizing the reasons for Church’s teaching on sexuality rather than simply saying “Don’t do this.”

As for how this applies with regards to kissing, I would say there is a huge difference between everyday, I-could-kiss-this-way-in-front-of-my-parents and “french” kissing / “making out”. I wouldn’t conflate “no making out” and “no kissing at all” as though you can’t have one rule without the other.

The way I always describe it is that those types of passionate kissing are like revving up the engine of a car you’re not supposed to drive. You’ll either end up violating your better judgment in the heat of the moment and deciding to take the car for a spin anyway. Or else you’ll just mess with the engine. In either case, it’s not generally prudent.

As you said, it’s not just about telling them “Don’t do this.” The more important question for them to ask themselves is “To what end am I moving towards by engaging in this action?”

 

[fpt]

I don’t think anyone has taken the position it is sinful.

Again, this is about virtue– purity, prudence, modesty.

*In the code of canon law , the woman can get marriage at 14 year old and the boy at 16 year old what means that the affective education, the sexual education, the morality of marriage and of the sex have to be done firstly by the parents, and then by the educators wanted and chosen by the parents, not too late *(catholic priests, catholic nuns, catholic nurses, catholic doctors, catholic psychologists, catholic ethicists, catholic teachers, catholic lawyers, catholic moralists, catholic philosophers).

The purity, the prudence, the modesty, the decency, the chastety, the virginity are very important, of course.* They are at the spring of all the natural and supranatural morality. I am on the same line than you*. But today, as in the past, catholic parents can have misconceptions, in the two ways, about the constitutive elements of each one of those virtues. (See the history of christian mentalities, of the “catholic mentalities” - the wrong views - … etc about the corporeity, the body, the marriage, the marital act, the corolaries of the marital act, on the respect between males and females - the unfair laws of past against the women or not in favor of their dignity, the unfair laws of today -.) Faith and reason: the using of intelligence, of the moderation, of the just balance, of the catholic doctrine in the details with all subtelties, of the purification are the keys.

The stricto sensu morality, very moralist, very strict, very uptight, very fundamentalist without reason does not have to be used and has to be avoided by the parents. The parents have to avoid “the breaking cable” of the teenager in reason of a strong list of prohibitions. All is not immoral. The strict parents can be morally responsible of very wrong behaviors of their childrens.

The moderation and the balance are the keys and by nature the virtues are moderated and balanced.

 

[mountee]

Your concerns are valid as telling a teenage they can do nothing could easily backfire. But, given the sexual response cycle God created all of us with, a person must completely understand what a simple kiss could start. Please make sure that your kids understand the sexual response cycle and how each stage escalates. If things progress, and generally they will even with kissing, it becomes very difficult to stop and avoid sinning. During my years teaching freshman Health I came to realize how little was understood about the human body especially regarding sexuality. While it may be difficult to say, the truth is that kissing can easily be something that should be avoided when the couple find themselves being sexually aroused by it. I would urge you to do some technical reading regarding the sexual response cycle which is what everyone is talking about when they say things like “can’t stop” or causing arousal, etc.

 

[JackieMom]

I would not tell my kids not to kiss before marriage. That seems very Fundamentalist Protestant to me (I think this is what the Duggars teach their kids.)

Instead of listing specific the dos and dont’s of dating, I think the comversation needs to be about making good choices. I don’t want my kids to put themselves in risky situations. What is “risky” for one teen may not be for another. For example: Is it risky for a teen couple to watch a romantic movie while sitting close together on the couch in the living room while the parents and siblings are home, and coming and going from the room? Of course not. It would be risky for them to do the exact same activity in a bedroom with the door closed. Same with kissing. On the porch after a date, knowing Mom and Dad are waiting just on the other side? Meh. Alone in a car in a secluded spot? Probably.

I remember my dad telling me, “Someday you will be invited to your high school reuinion. Do you want to be so embarrassed by things you did when you were a teenager that you won’t want to go for fear of running into some guy you made a mistake with?” That always stuck with me - that someday I’d want to go to my high school reunion with no shame or slinking around to avoid certain people. So while I did kiss in high school, I pretty much kept things pg-13, so now all we can do is laugh about it instead of cringe.

 

[UbiCaritas]

The Church teaches that deliberate arousal of the sexual urge outside of marriage is sinful. She doesn’t get into specifics, but common sense should prevail.

My husband and I were each other’s first serious girlfriend/boyfriend. We didn’t kiss until we’d been dating for about three months and were getting serious. Until we got married, we kept physical affection to holding hands, hugging, and a quick kiss. Basically, if we would have blushed or been embarrassed to see our parish priests, our mothers, and our grandmothers see an action, we didn’t do it.

Teens should be taught not on the philosophy of “how far can we go,” but instead more like “what would I regret on my wedding day if I didn’t marry this person?” If my then-boyfriend and I had broken up after our first kiss (we’d never even gotten that far with someone else), I would have been very sad indeed, but I would not feel any shame about anything I’d done. I’d have known that I had saved that whole mutual-sexual-arousal until my wedding night, where neither of us had any reason to be ashamed.

Someone above mentioned that French kissing isn’t a sin. In and of itself, possibly not. Possibly. But it’s different from regular kissing, in that a quick peck on the lips, while affectionate, is not especially arousing, while what, er, goes on during French kissing is, especially to men, who tend to get aroused faster than women do. At a bare minimum, it’s a really bad idea.

We lived pretty far from our families, and mine, in any case, wasn’t in a position to provide any help with this. We made our own rules. While it would have been impossible not to spend time alone in one another’s apartments (we lived four hours away from each other while dating and engaged) we kept a deliberate physical distance while in an apartment alone. We didn’t sit next to each other on the couch–much less cuddle!–while watch TV. Affection was limited to a hello/goodbye hug and kiss at the open door. We didn’t spend the night at each other’s apartments, even though those hotel bills were both pricey and annoying. We didn’t spend time just sitting in the car if we weren’t driving somewhere. Etc.

Long before we got involved, we also made the conscious decision not to date anyone until we were ready (or would be ready shortly, ie, nearly at the end of college) to get married. We weren’t interested in recreational dating; we wanted to find a spouse, which is the goal of dating for Catholics. Teens should be taught that this is the goal of dating, and a lot of other stuff will fall into place from there.

That having been said, if a couple can’t give each other a quick hug and kiss (with common sense in place–ie, at the afore-mentioned open door) without descending immediately into passion, then they probably shouldn’t be dating in the first place. Anyone with that little self-control is not mature enough to get married. Affection outside of sex is important, and learning how to give it is equally so. What happens when you reach a time in your marriage when you must, for good reason, abstain for a time? Never hugging, kissing, or touching in non-sexual ways will make such a time far more brutal on a marriage than necessary. This is, incidentally, why I’m opposed to some of the stuff I see in courtship-over-dating suggestions: if a couple can’t go out alone for dinner or a cup of coffee without sleeping together, then they are not mature enough to get married.

 

[fpt]

That’s quite a thought-provoking list, especially since I’ve had reason to consider the issue myself. (When one writes about teenagers in love, well… )

I’d be interested in knowing on what basis you reached the above conclusions; I’ve read a lot of your other posts on moral theology and found them interesting.

Ask to your catholic priest.

Firstly, according to the experience, there are* many engaged catholic persons who kisses the face and all corollaries, holds hands, dances together, are on the beach, her in bikini and him a swimsuit, kisses all parts that i have listed without falling into a sin.*

Secondly, those acts are not per wrong, per se because they can be seen and are seen like the natural sign of affection between engaged persons;

Thirdly, no catholic papal document says that they are sinful acts, per se and by nature out of the marriage: the natural signs of affection between male and female who are engaged are not deeply wrong.

…

ETC.

 

[Suslar]

When the teens at Church asked me that question of “well, how far can we go?”
my answer was: "Imagine your father is sitting on one end of the couch next to you and his father is on the other end and the two of you are in the middle. Exactly how far would you go in front of your parents?

The answers were “not far” and “probably wouldn’t do anything”

So I took the opportunity to remind them that God, their Heavenly Father IS there next to them every time there are with their boyfriend.

I heard that made an impression

 

[Kamaduck]

I would not tell my kids not to kiss before marriage. That seems very Fundamentalist Protestant to me (I think this is what the Duggars teach their kids.)

My Fundamentalist Protestant teachers basically told me that it was a sin to be interested in the opposite sex before one is ready to be married (meaning, no crushes until college).

I am still very confused on how they expected this to work. :ehh:

OP, from my own experiences, I think it is wrong to treat sex as a dirty thing to be avoided. Yes, its place is in marriage, but I think it’s much better and healthier to treat it as something wonderful that is meant for a husband an wife to do together. Before I became Catholic, I probably heard 100 statements that sex (and any kind of romantic action or feeling, come to think of it) was evil and wrong for every 1 statement that said it was a gift.

So, my advice is to tell them that it is something very special and sacred, and that it should therefore be taken seriously enough that it is for marriage alone. Talk to them about respecting others. Instead of arguing over which actions are fair game, we should be asking which actions will help people, what our motivations are, and where the action may lead.

I definitely support placing having reasonable limits on what teenagers are allowed to do, but I think it is much easier for everyone when we frame them as positive statements. Instead of “don’t kiss anyone before marriage, you don’t know where that will lead”, perhaps “treat your date with respect and be sure that you are acting out of love for them, pointing them to heaven” will stick better.

Basically, help them to think of it in terms of goals and reasons for taking a certain action, more than forbidding specific actions outright. I personally think that will work better, but it will also depend on the teen.

 

[Kamaduck]

When the teens at Church asked me that question of “well, how far can we go?”
my answer was: "Imagine your father is sitting on one end of the couch next to you and his father is on the other end and the two of you are in the middle. Exactly how far would you go in front of your parents?

The answers were “not far” and “probably wouldn’t do anything”

So I took the opportunity to remind them that God, their Heavenly Father IS there next to them every time there are with their boyfriend.

I heard that made an impression

I would probably tell you that this rules out sitting on a couch at all. It may or may not rule out conversation.

 

[JackieMom]

When the teens at Church asked me that question of “well, how far can we go?”
my answer was: "Imagine your father is sitting on one end of the couch next to you and his father is on the other end and the two of you are in the middle. Exactly how far would you go in front of your parents?

The answers were “not far” and “probably wouldn’t do anything”

So I took the opportunity to remind them that God, their Heavenly Father IS there next to them every time there are with their boyfriend.

I heard that made an impression

Well, I’ve been married for almost 15 years and I still wouldn’t perform any PDA in front of my dad or father-in-law… Blech!

 

[fpt]

Ask to your catholic priest.

Firstly, according to the experience, there are* many engaged catholic persons who kisses the face and all corollaries, holds hands, dances together, are on the beach, her in bikini and him *in ** swimsuit, kisses all parts that i have listed without falling into a sin.

Secondly, those acts are not per wrong, per se because they can be seen and are seen like the natural sign of affection between engaged persons;

Thirdly, no catholic papal document says that they are sinful acts, per se and by nature out of the marriage: the natural signs of affection between male and female who are engaged are not deeply wrong.

Sorry, i have questions for understanding:

Is it morally wrong, or indecent, or immodest, or imprudent for the wife and the husband of practicing the kiss on the lips ot the french kiss in front of:???

Their own children?
Their own parents?
Their friends?
The catholc priest during dinner?

… ETC

Where the french kiss is morally wrong, immodest, imprudent, immodest???

In the street?
On the beach?
On public?
*
Do you refuse of practicing the french kiss or the kiss on the lips in certain situations or contexts? Which are those situations? *

Catholicism is not a list of prohibitions and of bans, per se. It is not the Old testament and the Koran.

I am catholic, not a christian of the other christian confessions.

 

[fpt]

Well, I’ve been married for almost 15 years and I still wouldn’t perform any PDA in front of my dad or father-in-law… Blech!

PDA??? French kiss, kiss on the lips, hold the hands, hold the shoulders, hold waist, hold thigh??? What is it, i am French???