J
- Status
U
Usige
Guest
I wish I had more time to respond, but I’m getting ready to head into the wilderness for the next week.
Yes, I have a deeper emotional bond with my wife, but that is not purely because of the physical nature of our relationship. In some ways I think the physicality of our relationship can occasionally be a hindrance to emotional bonding. In other words, while physicality can be a bonder, I do not think it is an absolute requirement to have a deep bond with another person.
I am not concerned with someone with SSA having an emotional bond with someone else with SSA. I think we all need emotional bonds with others, but if we only seek out the deepest bonds with those we are sexually attracted I do see that as an area of concern. When someones says that “making out” is required to achieve that bond it implies an attachment to the physical that could be unhealthy. We should be able to have deep meaningful relationships without having to passionately kiss each other.
The reason I used your grandparents is I have seen plenty of kids have no problem playing tongue hockey in front of their parents and the world. The laxity and relativism that has come about since the sexual revolution has seriously distorted what is considered chaste (assuming most people even knew what the word meant).
I guess I cannot ever jive what you describe as making out with chastity. Yes in the past friends of the same sex may have shared a bed and given each other kisses, but I do not see anything that implies that they would lay naked and kiss for hours.
At this point I will leave you all to your discussions as we seem to have reached the point of talking circles around each other. Both camps believe their POV is correct and cannot be swayed otherwise. Wish you all the best.
I was trying to get at how much the level of physicality has to do with emotional bonding between friends and how much it goes to sexual desire. I have several friends (male and female) whom I have very deep emotional connections with. That being said I do not need to passionately kiss them to reach that level of connectedness.
Yes, I have a deeper emotional bond with my wife, but that is not purely because of the physical nature of our relationship. In some ways I think the physicality of our relationship can occasionally be a hindrance to emotional bonding. In other words, while physicality can be a bonder, I do not think it is an absolute requirement to have a deep bond with another person.
I am not concerned with someone with SSA having an emotional bond with someone else with SSA. I think we all need emotional bonds with others, but if we only seek out the deepest bonds with those we are sexually attracted I do see that as an area of concern. When someones says that “making out” is required to achieve that bond it implies an attachment to the physical that could be unhealthy. We should be able to have deep meaningful relationships without having to passionately kiss each other.
I suspect I am closer to your age then your grandparents, but I was taught that any display of affection you have to do with your love interest in private is not chaste. A kiss on the cheek or forehead - chaste. 10 minutes of passionate kissing - not chaste. Holding hands - chaste. Laying in a full body embrace - not chaste.
The reason I used your grandparents is I have seen plenty of kids have no problem playing tongue hockey in front of their parents and the world. The laxity and relativism that has come about since the sexual revolution has seriously distorted what is considered chaste (assuming most people even knew what the word meant).
What I meant by pseudo-marriage is something that would replace marriage since it’s not an option for those that are exclusively SSA. I guess I am talking about an exclusive physical and emotional relationship; something that goes beyond good friends. It doesn’t have to include actual sexual intercourse. I guess what I’m seeing is essentially something akin to a SSA Josephite marriage.
I guess I cannot ever jive what you describe as making out with chastity. Yes in the past friends of the same sex may have shared a bed and given each other kisses, but I do not see anything that implies that they would lay naked and kiss for hours.
At this point I will leave you all to your discussions as we seem to have reached the point of talking circles around each other. Both camps believe their POV is correct and cannot be swayed otherwise. Wish you all the best.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
In various examinations of conscience, making out, or passionate kissing, is included:
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/
From EWTN:
catholicnewsagency.com/resources/sacraments/reconciliation/examination-of-conscience/
From St Alphonsus (Doctor of Moral Theology):
From the Denzinger catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma12.php:
That is one of the erroneous propositions in moral matters that are condemned.
From EWTN:
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
From Moral Theology - A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities, by John A McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I never said I “needed” to passionately kiss a girlfriend. I just said that it improves the emotional bond in a way that does not necessarily use sexual faculties.
I agree. But I also do not think it to be something (outside of sexual activities) uniquely tied to marriage.
But this is my problem. “Need;” “required;” Where are you getting these terms? Nowhere have I said it is needed or required. I have said that there is no necessary prohibition against it, and it can help build an emotional bond between two people committed to taking care of each other emotionally.
Which is a product of the sexual repression movement that has happened the last century, mostly by Puritans, I might add. Before the 20th Century, very very few things indeed were linked to marriage: sex and childrearing were pretty much the only two things uniquely tied to marriage. It has only been recently that people have gone into sexual meltdowns because they so much as
eek touched a girl’s arm. Speaking exaggerated, of course, but making out has, historically, not been seen as either a uniquely marital activity nor as a lead-up to sex.No, the current “you cannot do anything physical whatsoever ever with any person because it might possibly lead you to sex” movement is the relativistic movement. It is a modern concept that has no basis in history.
No, because a Josephite marriage still involves the possibilities of childrearing (through adoption) and the reality of a Sacramental bond. This is nothing like a marriage at all. At closest, you would be calling it a commitment ceremony, which is only a small part of what a Josephite marriage entails.
Where are you getting these ideas? Nowhere in this thread have I said I would “lay naked” while making out with my girlfriend. Rau asked me if that’s what I meant when I said I had a natural desire to sleep with women, and I said [to prove the point about near occasion of sin] that I could lay naked next to a girl and still have full control over my actions. You are bringing in topics that aren’t being discussed in the thread.
Which is a shame, because I specifically started this thread to get actual theological arguments from people. Instead, this is the second post accusing me of intransigence on the issue, when all I have ever asked is for some form of evidence that this would be sinful in any way, and I have been mostly left to dry. Which leads me to…
R
Rin
Guest
The problem I have with many quotes of the kind you post, is that some (not all) of what is being said is very much affected by the context of time and culture. Some of the specific examples in the texts above would actually be perfectly fine at some places and times during the Middle Ages, and some would for sure be perfectly fine now.
One has to distinguish between sexual pleasure (which is what is probably meant by carnal pleasure) and non-sexual physical pleasure. I for one would not in any way see receiving a scalp massage as sinful in any sense of the word, but it is very pleasurable. I see no difference between that and let’s say holding a friend while watching a movie. All of these things can be done sexually or platonically. The latter would not be sinful. Various expressions of “platonic” intimacy have been condemned by theologians on grounds of cultural context, not immemorial teaching. It is important to keep this in mind - just as we have to do with regards to standards of modesty, use of language and virtually every other area that is affected by time and culture.
S
SMGS127
Guest
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Über conservative? seriously?? Far from it. I think they are moderate in various topics.
If you check Moral Theology manuals you are going to be very surprised then.
Sadly, in recent decades many topics have been left untouched by catechists, Priests, etc.
What about concupiscence?
Also, that quote makes mention of the condemned proposition that is listed under the numeral 1140 40 from the Denzinger that deals exactly with this.
The thing, is that he states that these acts are linked to the marital act.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
I found this sermon that touches the topic of kissing:
audiosancto.org/sermon/20060730-Review-of-Sins-Against-the-6th-and-9th-Commandments.html
audiosancto.org/sermon/20060730-Review-of-Sins-Against-the-6th-and-9th-Commandments.html
S
SMGS127
Guest
What about it? I am discussing using a disordered desire to further a moral good, in helping to keep each other celibate and in good health, psychologically and physiologically.
The censured quote was, as follows:
Emphasis mine. I am not discussing making out for the “sake of the carnal and sensible delight.” I am discussing making out for the purpose of strengthening an emotional bond. It is obvious why the statement was censured, as it basically says one can make out with lust venially if there is no risk of sexual activity afterwards, which is a clear violation of Catholic doctrine. But I am talking about making out without lust, which is a different topic entirely.
He actually says that “any delight taken in stirring up the appetites which surround the creative power” is linked to the marital act, not the act inherently. And just as St. Paul was affected by his cultural norms (e.g. women need to cover their heads in Mass, women can’t speak during Mass) that no longer apply today, so was St. Alphonsus affected not just by cultural norms but also by his libido and gender. He seems to make it very clear that making out (or kissing) leads him to lust. But that is not always the case with every person, nor has it historically been the case until very recently. Making out has never been a core uniquity to the marital act nor even to marriage nor even to dating until the Puritans freaked out during the last century.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Are you sure?
The Denzinger quote is from Alexander VII papacy, in the XVII century.
Have you heard the sermon I linked?
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Also, have you thought about the other person involved and their response to lust?
S
SMGS127
Guest
It says the sermon is missing.
Also, the Denzinger quote, again, was attempting to defend the ability of one to lustfully make out with another person without committing grave matter. Such would never be okay, even if there was no near occasion of sin, which Pope Alexander VII clearly states. But making out is not an inherently evil action. Intentions are thus important when discussing it. Again, only in the last century has making out been seen as somehow “unique” to marital relations. Again, in Victorian England, women would make out and have other physical intimacy short of sex with their female friends while their husbands were at work. The physical intimacy and making out were seen as strengthening their emotional bond, whereas sex and childrearing were seen as unique to the marriage. This has traditionally been the view throughout history, before the Puritans got mad that, as the popular saying goes, “someone, somewhere is enjoying themselves.”
One can make out without engaging lust; I don’t know what’s so hard for people to understand about this. Are people’s libidos and lustful appetites so out of control now that it’s impossible to so much as lovingly kiss someone without uncontrollably having sex with them? I mean, seriously, this is ridiculous. I cannot be the only person who can make out with someone without feeling like I must have sex with them.
Yes! Which is why you discuss it before the relationship starts (or gets serious) and you make sure that whatever boundaries they need to keep from lusting are being met as well.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Go to the page I linked, look at the temporary link, right click, and “save as”.
I want to see sources that corroborate that making out between females was something acceptable and with no lust involved through history.
I want to see sources that corroborate that making out between females was something acceptable and with no lust involved through history.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I’m not downloading a file to my computer; sorry.
As for romantic friendships, this is a wonderful short read, and you can look into the sources if you so wish.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_friendship
Emphasis mine.
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Try this link:
files.audiosancto.org/20060730-Review-of-Sins-Against-the-6th-and-9th-Commandments.mp3
I knew that article.
But, does it mention making out?
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Maybe some of these sources are revisionist, that is, they would try to force things and make a good argument for certain contemporary agendas.
But for the moment, I don’t have time for these.
But for the moment, I don’t have time for these.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Thank you, that link works.
I think we are using different definitions of “passionate kissing.” I am using passionate kissing merely to mean kissing that lasts longer than a few seconds, that may or may not involve the use of tongues, end of definition, which is why I prefer the term “making out.” In the sermon, he uses passionate kissing to mean, literally, kisses of sexual passion. As St. Alphonsus says, kissing specifically for the passions or for the delight of kissing is mortally sinful, but this would involve any type of kiss that led to the inflammation of lust. On the contrary, I use the term “making out” because it has a much more strict, physiological definition of the actions involved in said kiss, but makes no assumptions on the intentions behind such a kiss. On the other hand, people generally think of the push for sexual pleasure when they consider the term “passionate kissing,” as if the term necessarily somehow means someone is kissing to achieve some aroused state.
I don’t think we are discussing the same thing. I am talking about prolonged kissing for the improvement of an emotional bond, not lustfully maximizing one’s internal pleasure.
R
Rau
Guest
SMGS - could you imagine a relationship such as you contemplate with your sibling (sister)? Would that be no less proper?
S
SMGS127
Guest
I disagree with this concept. I have never once suggested that the relationship not be romantic; indeed, I have theorized that the relationship is fully able to be romantic and be moral.
Historically, romantic relationships/friendships that did not involve sex were performed with extremely close friends; indeed, they were not necessarily homosexual in nature, and lesbians historically actually took advantage of the commonality of such occasions to clandestinely have sex under the guise of a romantic relationship. Historically, people were just as averse to pursuing intrafamilial romantic relationships/friendships as they were to pursuing intrafamilial marital relationships.
So I see no reason that my aversion (or view that it is improper) to having such a relationship with my sister somehow implies that it is immoral. There is no theological evidence that a romantic relationship must be confined to marital discernment if one has no concurrent obligation (either as a religious, priest, or spouse) and the romantic relationship involves no sex or lusting/seeking of “delight.”
- Status