R
Redbandito
Guest
If spouses were passionately kissing but chose to stop short of sexual act, would it be sinful?
- Status
L
Louie1983
Guest
I believe it is, the act of passionately kissing is aimed at sexually arousing the other person. According to church teaching you should commit such acts when you are ready to have intercourse with your wife/husband in the sacrament of marriage ofcourse. I think acts like these should be avioded outside of marriage.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Yes, but in the context of marriage, is it a sin to become aroused with your spouse and not proceed to intercourse?
S
StCsDavid
Guest
This is not a sin. Passionate kissing for spouses, while may be arousing, does not automatically require that sexual intercourse occur. The couple might have a legitimate reason for not going all the way such as practicing NFP. Sexual arousal is not a sin…it’s a gift…a beautiful gift meant to be shared by couples in the covenant of marriage.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Thanks. This is what I thought, but I appreciate the confirmation.
P
Primox
Guest
I suspect not. Take a good read from Song of Solomon. There seems to be much passion that falls short of intercourse, but exceeds a courtsey and a hello. For a technical question, this answer isn’t technically Catholic, but I haven’t seen any good arguments against it, so I’m going to plug it.
God bless,
And may you enjoy the fruits of marriage to the utmost
S
Seatuck
Guest
No, not usually. It’s those steps in between kissing and the marital act that would be problematic. The spouses should have a reasonable expectation or intent to proceed to the marital act sometime soon in order to be participating in those activities.
N
newbetx
Guest
THis document someone provided in another thread is a great guide. Your question is answered in #1, I believe.
Other questions can answered by reading “The Good News About Sex and Marriage”, “Holy Sex,” or “Love and Responsibility.” Theology of the Body really helped me to understand the role of sex in our lives and the wonderous gift God gave us.
Peace!
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
To answer the original question “NO” it is not a sin. For parents with small children, this can be a common occurrence. Again - NO - it is not a sin.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Read them thanks. Also good are Three to get Married by Fulton Sheen and First Comes Love by Scott Hahn. That’s why I said it was a technical question. In other words, I know the general principles outlined in Theology of the Body, but was unsure if I was applying them correctly in this instance. Thanks to everyone for your responses to this point. Now I have another even more technical question. When you “make out,” the male can emit pre-ejaculation fluid even without having an orgasm. This, he has “spilled seed.” At this point, is the married couple obligated to complete the interaction with intercourse?
P
Primox
Guest
Pre-ejaculatory fluid (semen) typically doesn’t contain “seed” (sperm). It might, but typically it doesn’t.
I wanted to ask (and not to invalidate, but just because I’m curious): why are you concerned with these tiny stipulations? They seem to me, such a grand extrapolation from such simple verses.
R
Redbandito
Guest
A couple reasons. 1) Because the Bible is not the sole infallible rule of faith. The Church has authoritative teaching on these matters and 2) Because I want to be obedient and avoid sin.
P
Primox
Guest
Fair enough.
R
Redbandito
Guest
BTW, I really appreciated your referencing Song of Songs. That was an excellent example. I also appreciate your kind words and wishes. I’m glad you contributed on this thread.
M
manualman
Guest
If I may be explicit and extrapolate from my own understanding of catholic principles, it is not so much that we must beware of allowing passion to occur without completing intercourse, but we should not directly stimulate genitals without intention to complete.
I believe it has to do with the hormonal interplay that occurs within sex. When a couple intentionally sterilizes the action that leads to that hormonal release (i.e. the direct pleasure), the intentional sterilization subtly changes the experience for both spouses. Instead of totally giving, it becomes at least partly a taking (as opposed to receiving which is GOOD).
So kiss away, no matter that you become aroused. Just don’t proceed with the direct physical stimulation unless you plan to finish the job!
I believe it has to do with the hormonal interplay that occurs within sex. When a couple intentionally sterilizes the action that leads to that hormonal release (i.e. the direct pleasure), the intentional sterilization subtly changes the experience for both spouses. Instead of totally giving, it becomes at least partly a taking (as opposed to receiving which is GOOD).
So kiss away, no matter that you become aroused. Just don’t proceed with the direct physical stimulation unless you plan to finish the job!
R
Redbandito
Guest
Well said.If I may be explicit and extrapolate from my own understanding of catholic principles, it is not so much that we must beware of allowing passion to occur without completing intercourse, but we should not directly stimulate genitals without intention to complete.
I believe it has to do with the hormonal interplay that occurs within sex. When a couple intentionally sterilizes the action that leads to that hormonal release (i.e. the direct pleasure), the intentional sterilization subtly changes the experience for both spouses. Instead of totally giving, it becomes at least partly a taking (as opposed to receiving which is GOOD).
So kiss away, no matter that you become aroused. Just don’t proceed with the direct physical stimulation unless you plan to finish the job!
P
Primox
Guest
Not a problem. It may be something I need to learn about too. I’m not a married man, but one day not too far off.
Surely that, as an explanation, is incomplete though, isn’t it? I mean, if it becomes merely an issue of taking, than reciprocal oral-sex solves the conundrum.If I may be explicit and extrapolate from my own understanding of catholic principles, it is not so much that we must beware of allowing passion to occur without completing intercourse, but we should not directly stimulate genitals without intention to complete.
I believe it has to do with the hormonal interplay that occurs within sex. When a couple intentionally sterilizes the action that leads to that hormonal release (i.e. the direct pleasure), the intentional sterilization subtly changes the experience for both spouses. Instead of totally giving, it becomes at least partly a taking (as opposed to receiving which is GOOD).
So kiss away, no matter that you become aroused. Just don’t proceed with the direct physical stimulation unless you plan to finish the job!
M
manualman
Guest
No it doesn’t. Two people simultaneously taking from one another is NOT the same thing as two people simultaneously giving to one another. Think about it some.
N
newbetx
Guest
Great point, manualman.No it doesn’t. Two people simultaneously taking from one another is NOT the same thing as two people simultaneously giving to one another. Think about it some.
Primox, as I understand it, you are engaged?
P
Primox
Guest
Haha I know that it doesn’t. That’s my point.
That was a lovely literary gambit about giving and taking… However, you are saying that by inhibiting hormonal, release you are taking. Reversing the premises, it reads as though, with mutual excitation, leading to hormonal release, mutual giving has occured - Which is why I say the explanation is incomplete. I’m just wordsmithing you know, I do think we’re basically on the same page. Think about it some
- Status