B
Bookcat
Guest
I think it is quite clear without seeking any “definition”.
There are friendships…and then there is dating, couples …
- Status
There are friendships…and then there is dating, couples …
K
Kamaduck
Guest
That’s what everyone says. I don’t get it. If so many people have experienced romance, it’s weird that nobody seems able to describe or define it. :ehh:
I don’t think it’s clear to everyone, nor is it clear that whatever it is is necessarily wrong when separated from marriage. I think we have to be more specific about what “it” is, or we risk talking past each other.
M
mommamaree
Guest
I don’t know how others would describe romance, but I can attempt to define how I experience it. I have felt it often towards and with my husband, but never with anyone else. It is an experience which is at times overwhelming. One feels a prompting within to possess the other and be possessed by them (not talking about lust here). It is an almost magnetic attraction that prompts one to focus all my attention and energy on the other. It is a desire to be exclusive in this giving and receiving, and a jealous guarding (the proper kind of jealousy) of that intimacy between oneself and the other. It is a longing after the other when they are absent, and it is such a joy at reunion. It is a desire to please your beloved and to deepen intimacy with them, so that the distinction between oneself and one’s beloved begins to blur.
So, I think romance is something that is proper only to relationships where a man and woman are discerning marriage, or are already married to each other. No other relationship, except the spousal relationship, can claim those sorts of rights upon another human being. Not the exclusivity, not the total giving and receiving, not the implied permanency. Those experiences are meant to draw a couple into the bonds of holy matrimony. The Bible says, in Song of Songs, “do not arouse love before its time”. The way I have always understood this is that there is a love that is proper to marriage which is not proper to any other relationship, and that even a dating or betrothed couple must guard against deepening intimacy before vows are made. Furthermore, such a love, which is itself meant to draw the couple into the one-flesh union, and God-willing, procreation, is not meant to be stirred up outside of holy matrimony. Romantic love is therefore reserved for marriage.
However, that does not mean in any way, that love and affection is off-limits or out-of-bounds to unmarried people. But the form that love should take is different.
To the OP, I do want to mention that in the various examinations of consciences I have had the opportunity to read and to use, passionate kissing with anyone other than one’s wedded spouse is considered grave matter. You mentioned several times “making out”, which I infer to mean passionate kissing. This is objectively grave matter.
So, I think romance is something that is proper only to relationships where a man and woman are discerning marriage, or are already married to each other. No other relationship, except the spousal relationship, can claim those sorts of rights upon another human being. Not the exclusivity, not the total giving and receiving, not the implied permanency. Those experiences are meant to draw a couple into the bonds of holy matrimony. The Bible says, in Song of Songs, “do not arouse love before its time”. The way I have always understood this is that there is a love that is proper to marriage which is not proper to any other relationship, and that even a dating or betrothed couple must guard against deepening intimacy before vows are made. Furthermore, such a love, which is itself meant to draw the couple into the one-flesh union, and God-willing, procreation, is not meant to be stirred up outside of holy matrimony. Romantic love is therefore reserved for marriage.
However, that does not mean in any way, that love and affection is off-limits or out-of-bounds to unmarried people. But the form that love should take is different.
To the OP, I do want to mention that in the various examinations of consciences I have had the opportunity to read and to use, passionate kissing with anyone other than one’s wedded spouse is considered grave matter. You mentioned several times “making out”, which I infer to mean passionate kissing. This is objectively grave matter.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Okay, so I will address some individual posters as well, but I would like to start off with a general post addressing many points brought up in this thread that frustrated me immensely:
a) “It’s a near occasion of sin!”
b) “It’s scandal!”
c) “It’s not appropriate as a cultural norm!”
d) “I’m married, and my spouse would never let me do these things with another man/woman!”
To address each point:
a) No, it is not a near occasion of sin. In no way, shape, or form, is making out going to inhibit my ability to withhold myself from sex or lusting. And considering I would only enter into such a relationship with someone whom I could trust to also avoid sex, it is not anywhere near a near occasion of sin. If you cannot imagine two people making out without imagining them frantically undressing each other, that is not a problem with this situation, but rather a reflection of how you see making out to be.
b) I’m aware scandal is an issue. And I addressed it in the first post, asking for people to ignore it since I am seeking to find whether the actions themselves are inherently immoral. For example. A couple living together is heavily disadvised against and is advised against for the same reasons (near occasion of sin and scandal), but if they need to for whatever reason, a priest can approve for them to live together. This happened with my friends, who moved in together with the approval of a priest because their financial situations were so terrible that it was necessary. They went to great pains to address scandal and they abstained while living together. So, scandal can never be the end-all-be-all of a discussion on the morality of an issue.
c) See above. “Cultural norms” is just a fancy way of saying “scandal.” You are only saying “other people think X, Y, or Z, so it doesn’t matter that you’re actually only doing L.” Again, while scandal is a very important issue, it is only relevant if the issue has no inherent [im]morality. So if you want to use scandal as an issue, you would have to concede that there is no immorality inherent in the action, aka my example of living together above.
d) This one really irritates me, mainly because I’ve already had to explain in this thread why marital anecdotes are not applicable, and I’ve been ignored. So I will do so again. If I spent 2 hours a day with a member of the same sex, no one would care. If a married man spent 2 hours a day with a woman that wasn’t his wife, he would (in my opinion) be committing grave matter. If I sought a tight, emotional bond over the Internet with another woman, no one would care. If a married man sought a tight, emotional bond over the Internet with a woman that wasn’t his wife, he would (in my opinion) be committing grave matter. By entering into a Sacrament of Vocation, you are voluntarily restricting your behavior far further than what is expected of someone not in such a Sacrament. So it is irrelevant that a married person could not enter into such an arrangement as I am discussing, nor would I have even brought this up if I had a husband I had pledged to take care of.
Now I shall address individual posters in the next set of posts, hopefully just one post total if I can fit it:
a) “It’s a near occasion of sin!”
b) “It’s scandal!”
c) “It’s not appropriate as a cultural norm!”
d) “I’m married, and my spouse would never let me do these things with another man/woman!”
To address each point:
a) No, it is not a near occasion of sin. In no way, shape, or form, is making out going to inhibit my ability to withhold myself from sex or lusting. And considering I would only enter into such a relationship with someone whom I could trust to also avoid sex, it is not anywhere near a near occasion of sin. If you cannot imagine two people making out without imagining them frantically undressing each other, that is not a problem with this situation, but rather a reflection of how you see making out to be.
b) I’m aware scandal is an issue. And I addressed it in the first post, asking for people to ignore it since I am seeking to find whether the actions themselves are inherently immoral. For example. A couple living together is heavily disadvised against and is advised against for the same reasons (near occasion of sin and scandal), but if they need to for whatever reason, a priest can approve for them to live together. This happened with my friends, who moved in together with the approval of a priest because their financial situations were so terrible that it was necessary. They went to great pains to address scandal and they abstained while living together. So, scandal can never be the end-all-be-all of a discussion on the morality of an issue.
c) See above. “Cultural norms” is just a fancy way of saying “scandal.” You are only saying “other people think X, Y, or Z, so it doesn’t matter that you’re actually only doing L.” Again, while scandal is a very important issue, it is only relevant if the issue has no inherent [im]morality. So if you want to use scandal as an issue, you would have to concede that there is no immorality inherent in the action, aka my example of living together above.
d) This one really irritates me, mainly because I’ve already had to explain in this thread why marital anecdotes are not applicable, and I’ve been ignored. So I will do so again. If I spent 2 hours a day with a member of the same sex, no one would care. If a married man spent 2 hours a day with a woman that wasn’t his wife, he would (in my opinion) be committing grave matter. If I sought a tight, emotional bond over the Internet with another woman, no one would care. If a married man sought a tight, emotional bond over the Internet with a woman that wasn’t his wife, he would (in my opinion) be committing grave matter. By entering into a Sacrament of Vocation, you are voluntarily restricting your behavior far further than what is expected of someone not in such a Sacrament. So it is irrelevant that a married person could not enter into such an arrangement as I am discussing, nor would I have even brought this up if I had a husband I had pledged to take care of.
Now I shall address individual posters in the next set of posts, hopefully just one post total if I can fit it:
M
mommamaree
Guest
SMGS127,
with regards to a) the near occasion of sin, it is not merely a near occasion of sin. Making out, if by that you mean repeated, prolonged kissing, is an activity reserved for married couples. It is objectively grave matter to engage in making out with anyone who is not your spouse.
with regards to a) the near occasion of sin, it is not merely a near occasion of sin. Making out, if by that you mean repeated, prolonged kissing, is an activity reserved for married couples. It is objectively grave matter to engage in making out with anyone who is not your spouse.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Making out is already doing so. Already lust by definition. Persons of the same gender are not to “make out” …(or even date).
S
SMGS127
Guest
Because sexual orientation goes past sexual desire; it also goes to your very core as a being, and your ability to connect to that person. Pheromones do not limit themselves to your libido; they also bond you in ways that you can’t reach without them. Unlike the vast majority of women (>98% of the Williams Institute surveys), I can never experience that emotional connection to a man. Ever. But being in an emotional relationship with another woman would allow me to experience that without a need to engage in any form of sexual activity.
I think that’s a little bit harsh. I feel uncomfortable even holding the hand of someone I’m interested in front of my grandparents. And that uncomfortability is due to the cultural norms of their generation, not immorality of actions.
Why do you consider the desire for emotional intimacy with another woman to be inappropriate? We are not discussing an engagement of one’s physical libido but rather an establishment of a very strong, emotional bond that I can only find in the arms of another woman with SSA.
Not at all. The potential relationships I describe would not in any way reference a pseudo-marriage. For one, there is no sex or even potentiality of sex, so how could I possibly reach the physical bond that a spouse shares? There might be some issues that people tend to lump with marriage–for example, inheritance, medical authority, legal authority, etc.–but none of those are inherent to the Catholic idea of marriage, and it has been theorized that, in a less politically charged world, the idea of civil unions as a way to achieve those between any two people who were extremely close but did not wish to (or could not) enter into a marriage together could be licit.
I disagree. There is no talk of children, no talk of sex. While two people in this relationship may call each other their girlfriends to those whom it would not cause scandal to, it is meant in a deeply emotional manner, and the trajectory is vastly different than the trajectory for a heterosexual couple looking forward towards marriage. I see no inherent problem with physical contact improving one’s emotional bond, as long as said physical contact isn’t inherently immoral. Which brings me to…
Can you link me to Church documentation on this? I see no reason why making out/passionate kissing would be grave matter if it was done without intention of sex or thought of sex/lust. But if it is objectively evil regardless of intentions, that would solve the issue ASAP.
S
SMGS127
Guest
But why don’t you think it’s safe? Indeed, I think it’s the safest option, provided both partners trust each other, as the significantly deeper emotional bond created also more likely leads both partners to do what’s right for each other more than what their carnal desires would normally want.
Well I am not trying to hide the fact that I am most definitely a lesbian. I am not asexual; I am not incapable nor unwilling to have sex from a biological point of view. I merely abstain from a religious point of view. I just don’t think my physical attraction to women bears any meaning to this conversation, considering my level of self control.
Yes, exactly. The romantic effects of physical touch are most certainly borne from pheromonal interaction, but they would not be aimed at ultimately achieving sex, unlike heterosexual relationships aimed for marriage. Again, the trajectories are different, and they can’t be looked at in the same light.
But why is exclusivity immoral? Why would 2 women calling each other their girlfriends and acting only in chaste manners be immoral (besides the potential for scandal)? I see it as an emotional commitment–a knowledge that this other woman is pledging herself to always be there for you and with you and to take care of you, and you to her. And none of this necessitates sexual involvement, nor do I see how it is immoral. On the contrary, it is taking a disordered attraction and channeling it into something (in my opinion) moral, rather than the constant repression others would have us do.
Thank you Kama. I am looking for reasons WHY exclusivity is immoral, WHY romantic bonds are immoral. I find it amazing that people can prepare a thesis defense online defending the Church’s teachings on sex, abortion, and contraception, but when an issue like this is brought up, the response is “you should know why.” Well if it’s so obvious, explain it then! Because I see literally no reason why anything I brought up is immoral, and so far, 90% of the responses against my suggestion have brought up near occasions of sin and scandal. And if those are the only reasons against it, then what I am suggesting becomes perfectly licit, as I would not be putting myself at risk for eitherAnd if there isn’t a reason for these things to be off-limits, then maybe what SMGS is describing isn’t actually wrong. I don’t know.
. So if it is inherently immoral, explain why. If it isn’t, concede the point and then you may discuss near occasions of sin and scandal.This is uncalled for. I think I have more than sufficiently demonstrated a fidelity to the Magisterium in my numerous posts on this forum. Yes, I have a bias, considering my life is impacted by the licitness of my proposal, which I have more than admitted, but it is absolutely uncalled for to suggest I want to ignore Magisterial teachings. If you wish to show me why cuddling or non-sexually making out is immoral, please actually explain. Your singular post on the immorality of sexual actions was, to be quite honest, completely irrelevant to this thread, which is discussing only non-sexual actions.
S
SMGS127
Guest
“2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
[Emphasis mine]
The Catechism disagrees with you sharply. Making out and lust are completely separate issues.
I asked this in my above response, which you haven’t had time to see, but can you show me where the Catholic Church defines passionate kissing as exclusive to marital relations? Passionate kissing without lust and ordered away from sex seems like it would not be immoral. The immorality of this specific action, in my opinion, lies entirely with the intent behind doing so. But I am open to you showing me otherwise.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The Church does not get into every possible manifestation of sexual sin in her documents. Rather such is left to orthodox Catholic Moral Theology.
Passionate kissing is basically be said to be for married couples due to its nature to directly stimulate the sexual faculties. It is rather directed to sexual pleasure.
An examination of Conscience for Confession (from Midwest Theological Forum…via CNA):
- Did I engage in acts such as “petting,” “necking,” passionate kisses, or prolonged embraces?
B
Bookcat
Guest
And “kissing” or “dating” or being “a couple” etc. is not something for those with SSA to engage in (with the same gender).
Let alone getting excessive in kissing.
Rather:
*Friendships.
*
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12121063&postcount=38
S
SMGS127
Guest
Quoting yourself is not appropriate evidence of Church teaching, as I’m sure you are well-aware. It is not impossible to have a chaste relationship.
But this is in a SEXUAL context. If not done in a sexual context, making out (or necking or prolonged embraces) would not be a sin against the 6th commandmant, and would thus not fall under this question. Just because society can’t keep its genitalia in its pants does not mean that everyone is incapable of doing so.
B
Bookcat
Guest
To be noted is that “kissing” or “dating” or being “a couple” etc. is not something for those with SSA to engage in (with the same gender).
Let alone getting excessive in kissing.
Rather:
*Friendships.
*
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12121063&postcount=38
S
SMGS127
Guest
If you quote yourself again, I’m not going to respond to you. You are not the Magisterium, and I fail to see why you think quoting YOURSELF is evidence of any such teaching.
Just because you have one view of making out does not mean everyone thinks about sex when they make out. Sorry bud.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Making out is a sexual context.
Your misunderstanding the nature of such sins. No clothing need be removed etc…
Just kissing can be a mortal sin.
S
SMGS127
Guest
can be Making out can be a mortal sin, if done with inappropriate intentions. Just because some or even most people have inappropriate intentions when making out does not mean that making out is inherently immoral. Making out is not inherently sexual.
Ugh.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your posting too quickly. I changed who I was responding too. And actually by the way my background is that I have a degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville if that helps.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Forget making out - they ought not even be “kissing” with virtue - as a chaste boyfriend and girlfriend might do.
S
SMGS127
Guest
This is only because of a corrupted view of kissing by an immoral society. There is nothing inherently immoral with kissing or making out. The immorality lies with the LUST most people engage in when doing such acts. But such LUST requires sexual intent, re: CCC 2351. Without sexual intent, there is nothing immoral with kissing or even making out. If kissing was inherently immoral, so CPR would be. The contact of two people’s lips with good intentions (e.g. to improve an emotional bond with no sexual strings attached, or to save a life) is not immoral. Contrast this to sex, which could not even be used to save someone’s life, say if their heart stopped in the middle of the woods with no cell phone service or epipen and with a person untrained in CPR.
M
mommamaree
Guest
SMGS,
I am sorry, I was away from the computer for a moment. I do not have the time to answer you at present, as I must attend to my children. Perhaps I can return to this thread this weekend. I am sorry about that, as I know this is an important topic for you. God bless you!
I am sorry, I was away from the computer for a moment. I do not have the time to answer you at present, as I must attend to my children. Perhaps I can return to this thread this weekend. I am sorry about that, as I know this is an important topic for you. God bless you!
- Status