JPII’s book, Love and Responsibility, details the moral obligation we have to never, ever use anyone for own gain or selfish pleasure. He believes the opposite of love is not hate, but use. He says the only proper response to anyone is love–not use.
This can be a battle for many in physical relationships–we want to be affectionate and love the other for his or her own sake, never seeking to use them as a mean’s for gratification. We should strive to have our outward signs of affection reflect inner truth–we cross the line when we seek the emotional and/or physical satisfaction as an end to itself–“because it feels good”–and not out of showing love to the other. Any affectionate gesture–from holding hands to married couples loving one another through intercourse–should have the message of affirming the other’s inherent goodness.
The above is all paraphrased from Christopher West, but this is a direct quote from his book, *Good News About Sex & Marriage, *“Physical behaviors that aim to prepare the body for sexual intercourse (fondling each other’s genitals or breasts, and even some kinds of extended kissing and embracing) are not appropriate expressions of affection for the unmarried. When there is simply no moral possibility of consummated love, it is, in fact UNLOVING to arouse someone to the point of physical craving for intercourse.”
However, there is a difference between dating and engaged couples. Fr. Paul Quay, in his book, *The Christian Meaning of Human Sexuality, *“Those who are engaged, since they are committed to each other, even though not yet fully, have sufficient reason to manifest their love, even by prolonged kissing and embracing…provided, of course that this leads neither of them into sin [using the other for selfish gratificatin, for example], provided they do not get themselves violently overwrought [to the point of climax or temptation to masturbate, for example], and provided the engagement does not go on forever.” (Interjections by Chris West.)
Hope these thoughts help!
Abby
