Is Hugging/Kissing acceptable when done on their own?

[lifeisbeautiful]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom

The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated. Sometimes they must. Examples:
.....
So while you state your understanding is that the two cannot be separated, people here have already shown that Church teaching does not support that understanding. Certainly if you are more comfortable not separating the two for your own relationship that's perfectly fine and accetable by Church teaching since all couples must discern for themselves what God's will is for them. I hope, however, that you will not present your understanding, your preference, to other Catholics and non-Catholics as the teaching of the Church on the matter, as John Paul II's Theology of the Body would show it is not the case.

Hi

I have not had time to read this whole thread, but I do know that the Church teaches that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Its not up to us to discern whether or not we want to adhere to this. These two aspects are inherent to the act. The procreative aspect does not mean that the wife will get pregnant from the act, it can be there even for people that are not fertile.

From the CCC point 2366:
So the Church, which "is on the side of life" 151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act must remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."

"This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." 153


Here is an excerpt from the document referenced by the Catechism:
Paul VI, Humanae vitae 11

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12]
NOTES
11. Cf. Pastoral Const. Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.
12. Cf. Pius XI, encyc. Casti Connubii, in AAS XXII (1930), p. 560; Pius XII, in AAS XLIII (1951), p. 843.

[vluvski]

YinYangMom,
The procreative and unitve aspects of sex cannot be licitly separated.

Many posters are confusing the procreative aspect of sex with the reproductive aspect of sex. Reproductive sex is not required by the church, only that each act of sex be in favor of (pro-) life (creation).
The woman's fertility is one aspect of God's creation, so by intentionally abstaining from sex during infertile times because of serious reason to avoid pregnancy, we are embracing God's design for creation, thus being procreative despite not being reproductive.
If we bring in barriers, contraceptives, or otherwise frustrate the marital embrace, we are no longer embracing the way God intended sex, and therefore are not being procreative.

[LittleDeb]

Originally Posted by cynic

that's all fine and good, but from what I know catholics are allowed unity/intimacy- and the satisfaction therein - only in the process of being open to life. They aren't to be separated. So it would seem that intimate acts of affection, whether sexual or not, should be limited to when they will serve this function.

I think this boils down to a confusion over what you might believe, not over what Catholics might believe.

What I am reading in your statements is that you figure if abstinence is involved, then no intimacy is allowed as it may cause a couple to 'slip.' This could not be further from the truth.

What the rest of us are trying to help you understand is that the DIRECT time involved might be separated from a kiss and a hug to when you actually participate in the marriage act. That is fine!!Your definitions of intimacy, unity, and procreative, seem to be skewed towards rigid ideas.

YingYangMom was trying to help you understand on your terms but it seems to be causing confusion. What she meant was that all acts of intimacy have some unitive qualities to them. She is saying that just because you cannot participate in the marriage act in that particular moment doesn't mean you cannot show affection.

What is confusing to the rest of us is WHY anyone would want to 'just make out' and then stop. It just doesn't make sense to any of us why you would want to push yourself to a point of total sexual arousal and then just stop.

The sin there would be a sin of selfishness (on both people) not a sexual sin.

[Dmitri451]

Originally Posted by cynic

For husband and wife, is it ok to passionately hug and kiss (clothed) if there is no intention to have 'relations'? From what I read it sounds like all contact that is possibly arousing - even if not deliberately so - should be restricted to the moments directly prior to 'relations' and not done at all outside of this time. So other than small kisses and holding hands, all other forms of contact should be avoided. Is this what you have to believe?

Without getting as graphic as I did in previous posts, let me reiterate the obvious:

Of course it's OK to show passionate affection for your spouse, even with your clothes on, if there is no intention to have 'relations' (presumably right then).

I would probably even go so far as to say that if the only time you show passionate affection for your spouse is when you're naked, then you're not living up to your obligation to make them feel loved.

Just don't let yourself or your wife get to the point where either of you feels the temptation to masturbate, or where you run the risk of climaxing without intercourse.

Can it be any plainer?

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by lifeisbeautiful

Hi

I have not had time to read this whole thread, but I do know that the Church teaches that the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act cannot be separated. Its not up to us to discern whether or not we want to adhere to this. These two aspects are inherent to the act. The procreative aspect does not mean that the wife will get pregnant from the act, it can be there even for people that are not fertile.

From the CCC point 2366:
So the Church, which "is on the side of life" 151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act must remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."

"This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." 153


Here is an excerpt from the document referenced by the Catechism:
Paul VI, Humanae vitae 11

These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, "noble and worthy,"[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12]
NOTES
11. Cf. Pastoral Const. Gaudium et Spes, no. 49.
12. Cf. Pius XI, encyc. Casti Connubii, in AAS XXII (1930), p. 560; Pius XII, in AAS XLIII (1951), p. 843.

The acts here are addressing the marital embrace. It is not separating out passionate kissing and caressing as the OP is wondering about.

YES, whenever a married couple goes all the way the act itself must be both unitive and procreative...at that point the two are inseparable, as you've noted.

But when one partner is unable to engage in the 'act' for a period of time (as noted in my examples), passionate kissing and caressing fulfills the unitve aspect of sexual intimacy even though the procreative aspect is not possible at that time.

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by vluvski

YinYangMom,
The procreative and unitve aspects of sex cannot be licitly separated.

Many posters are confusing the procreative aspect of sex with the reproductive aspect of sex. Reproductive sex is not required by the church, only that each act of sex be in favor of (pro-) life (creation).
The woman's fertility is one aspect of God's creation, so by intentionally abstaining from sex during infertile times because of serious reason to avoid pregnancy, we are embracing God's design for creation, thus being procreative despite not being reproductive.
If we bring in barriers, contraceptives, or otherwise frustrate the marital embrace, we are no longer embracing the way God intended sex, and therefore are not being procreative.

I fail to understand how this explanation applies to my post.

When I said the unitive and procreative could be separated and sometimes must I specifically cited examples of how that would look....where did I mention ABC or suggest they could be separated just because they wanted to separate them?

[vluvski]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom

I fail to understand how this explanation applies to my post.

When I said the unitive and procreative could be separated and sometimes must I specifically cited examples of how that would look....where did I mention ABC or suggest they could be separated just because they wanted to separate them?

Let me clarify: Your examples are perfectly permissible situations. However, it is only the reproductive, not the procreative, aspect of sex that is separated from the unitive act.
They are inseparable by any licit means.
LittleDeb shed some light on your intent here. It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by vluvski

It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

Then we're still on the same page
You had me worried there for a second

[Dmitri451]

Originally Posted by vluvski

It is the sex act that must always be unitive and procreative. Acts that are not explicitly or implicitly sexual may indeed be unitive without being procreative. I say the morality of such acts depend mostly on the hearts of the couple engaging in these actions, which none of us can see.

By "the sex act", do you mean only sexual intercourse?

Would this mean that actions like briefly and gently caressing each other's private parts, without significantly arousing each other, would be licit? I don't know how they could be considered anything but sexual.

[lifeisbeautiful]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom

The acts here are addressing the marital embrace. It is not separating out passionate kissing and caressing as the OP is wondering about.

YES, whenever a married couple goes all the way the act itself must be both unitive and procreative...at that point the two are inseparable, as you've noted.

But when one partner is unable to engage in the 'act' for a period of time (as noted in my examples), passionate kissing and caressing fulfills the unitve aspect of sexual intimacy even though the procreative aspect is not possible at that time.

Since you said in another post: "Sex and all actions leading to it serve unitive AND procreative functions for a married couple.

Sometimes it's all about the unitive.
Sometimes it's all about the procreative.
Sometimes it's all about both.
All times it's about God."
and later said:
"The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated."


It sounded like you use the term sex to talk about the marital act etc.

Anyways, there is no substitution for the unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Actions can be unitive, but the unitive aspect of the marital embrace cannot be fulfilled without the marital embrace, which in itself must include the procreative aspect.

Also, the Catechism says:
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.

It does not say or.. this is why contraception is morally disordered.

This is a sticky subject and it is very personal to each couple as each couple has different boundaries or different levels they can reach without causing deliberate arousal, so I would not dare to venture into trying to say what each couple can or cannot do if they are not planning on participating in the marital embrace, although there are a few obvious things that cannot be done outside the embrace like reaching climax, etc.

Here's a question/answer from the ask an apologist section that can help:

"Does that mean that any oral sex activity must be followed by sexual intercourse? Or is oral sex allowed so long as there is no male climax? That is, does all sexual activity have to have as the intent climax by the male during sexual intercourse or is husband wife sexual activity permissible so long as the intent is that if there is a male climax it occurs during sexual intercourse?"

"Fore play is just that. It is what happens beFORE intercourse. To deliberately arouse one’s spouse sexually is to invite him or her to intercourse. To do otherwise is to act in an overtly un-loving way. Certainly, playful actions that are sexual but do not arouse can be appropriate in marriage.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P."

link:http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...ghlight=sexual

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by lifeisbeautiful

Since you said in another post: "Sex and all actions leading to it serve unitive AND procreative functions for a married couple.

Sometimes it's all about the unitive.
Sometimes it's all about the procreative.
Sometimes it's all about both.
All times it's about God."
and later said:
"The unitive and procreative aspects of sex can indeed be separated."


It sounded like you use the term sex to talk about the marital act etc.

Ah, I see now how that was not as clear as it could have been. Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, when I used the term sex I was talking about the marital act itself.

If I recall correctly the distinction I was trying to make was that "leading to it" part....I was trying to show that one can begin the dance toward the marital act on a Monday knowing that the dance can't start until Friday (in the instance of NFP, or getting over a cold/flu, or wrapping up studying for finals, or a big presentation at work)....in that the displays of affection on Mon, Tues, Wed, Thu which culminate with the marital embrace on Friday are part of the same act and therefore not sins of lust in and of themselves and therefore morally disordered.

I see the real confusion comes from my using the term "all"...in those cases I was referring to the intent/motivation behind giving intimate displays of affection. And I see now where a marital embrace couldn't ever be only about the procreative since the unitive is intertwined in that. Of course, I suppose if that ever did happen that could be wrong - I'm thinking about people who are trying hard to conceive so they 'unite' when they 'have to' rather than when they want to???? - but how could wanting to create a life ever be wrong??? I digress, sorry.

Anyways, there is no substitution for the unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Actions can be unitive, but the unitive aspect of the marital embrace cannot be fulfilled without the marital embrace, which in itself must include the procreative aspect.

I believe we're in agreement here, because we're speaking specifically about the marital embrace itself, wherein you are absolutely correct that each engagement of that embrace must be unitive and procreative. But is seems you recognize the distinction that certain actions outside the marital embrace can serve to unify a relationship and thus serve the unitive purpose of sexual intimacy. The acts themselves do not complete the unitive purpose of the sex act, but they do help to unify a couple when sex is not possible for one reason or another. No?

Also, the Catechism says:
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.

It does not say or.. this is why contraception is morally disordered.

You lost me here because I was not aware contraception was part of this discussion.

We agree that sexual pleasure cannot be sought for in and of itself. But intimacy between couples both being desirous of union - whether in 15 minutes or 1 week or 2 months (say one of them is going away on a long business trip or something) when both parties are giving and receiving the displays of affection in love and sincerity does not fall under "sought for itself". And I'm talking about passionate kisses and caresses which arouse in anticipation but not to the point of leading them to lustful thoughts and actions like doing everything but going all the way (that, just makes no sense for any married couple, imo).

This is a sticky subject and it is very personal to each couple as each couple has different boundaries or different levels they can reach without causing deliberate arousal, so I would not dare to venture into trying to say what each couple can or cannot do if they are not planning on participating in the marital embrace, although there are a few obvious things that cannot be done outside the embrace like reaching climax, etc.

Agreed. It is clearly between the couple and God. I just didn't want any married people out there thinking it's a sin to passionately kiss their wife goodbye in the morning because it gets him and/or her excited. There has to be respect and love in said actions though, at all times.

Here's a question/answer from the ask an apologist section that can help:

Was that for my benefit or the original poster's? I've never suggested making out like that is part of the unitive function of displays of affection. And even the OP stated he was only talking about kisses and caresses, not that other stuff.

[lifeisbeautiful]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom

Ah, I see now how that was not as clear as it could have been. Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, when I used the term sex I was talking about the marital act itself.

If I recall correctly the distinction I was trying to make was that "leading to it" part....I was trying to show that one can begin the dance toward the marital act on a Monday knowing that the dance can't start until Friday (in the instance of NFP, or getting over a cold/flu, or wrapping up studying for finals, or a big presentation at work)....in that the displays of affection on Mon, Tues, Wed, Thu which culminate with the marital embrace on Friday are part of the same act and therefore not sins of lust in and of themselves and therefore morally disordered.

I see the real confusion comes from my using the term "all"...in those cases I was referring to the intent/motivation behind giving intimate displays of affection. And I see now where a marital embrace couldn't ever be only about the procreative since the unitive is intertwined in that. Of course, I suppose if that ever did happen that could be wrong - I'm thinking about people who are trying hard to conceive so they 'unite' when they 'have to' rather than when they want to???? - but how could wanting to create a life ever be wrong??? I digress, sorry.



I believe we're in agreement here, because we're speaking specifically about the marital embrace itself, wherein you are absolutely correct that each engagement of that embrace must be unitive and procreative. But is seems you recognize the distinction that certain actions outside the marital embrace can serve to unify a relationship and thus serve the unitive purpose of sexual intimacy. The acts themselves do not complete the unitive purpose of the sex act, but they do help to unify a couple when sex is not possible for one reason or another. No?



You lost me here because I was not aware contraception was part of this discussion.

We agree that sexual pleasure cannot be sought for in and of itself. But intimacy between couples both being desirous of union - whether in 15 minutes or 1 week or 2 months (say one of them is going away on a long business trip or something) when both parties are giving and receiving the displays of affection in love and sincerity does not fall under "sought for itself". And I'm talking about passionate kisses and caresses which arouse in anticipation but not to the point of leading them to lustful thoughts and actions like doing everything but going all the way (that, just makes no sense for any married couple, imo).



Agreed. It is clearly between the couple and God. I just didn't want any married people out there thinking it's a sin to passionately kiss their wife goodbye in the morning because it gets him and/or her excited. There has to be respect and love in said actions though, at all times.



Was that for my benefit or the original poster's? I've never suggested making out like that is part of the unitive function of displays of affection. And even the OP stated he was only talking about kisses and caresses, not that other stuff.

Sounds like we are astarting to get on the same page now

I posted the thing from AAA more for the answer part than the question:

"Fore play is just that. It is what happens beFORE intercourse. To deliberately arouse one’s spouse sexually is to invite him or her to intercourse. To do otherwise is to act in an overtly un-loving way. Certainly, playful actions that are sexual but do not arouse can be appropriate in marriage.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P."

Also, the fact that both people love each other and are participating does not guarantee that sexual pleasure is not sought for itself.

I did not understand what you were saying about starting the dance before...
Are you saying foreplay can start on Monday if the act will culminate Friday?

[YinYangMom]

Originally Posted by lifeisbeautiful

Also, the fact that both people love each other and are participating does not guarantee that sexual pleasure is not sought for itself.

Well, I suppose so, if both are prone to lust and self gratification and are only using each other, but that would mean they don't really understand what love is and so to say 'both people who love each other' is kind of contradictory, no? But I get what you're driving at and I would agree.

I did not understand what you were saying about starting the dance before...Are you saying foreplay can start on Monday if the act will culminate Friday?

Sure, why not? Hypothetically, let's consider an example:

My husband, for the past couple of days has been suggesting with words that he 'wants me' but when he's done so I've been in the kitchen cooking or in the family room folding laundry or changing into my pajamas after an especially tiring day.

Well, I know he's in the mood, but I'm not, but I also know I need to get myself in the mood relatively soon or else he will begin to feel rejected, taken for granted, unappreciated, undesireable, etc. Running through my calendar in my head there is work, committee meetings, carpooling the kids back and forth between different activities, basically the stuff which keeps me running from 6:30am until 10pm with little rest in between (and he's one to be asleep by 9pm no matter what)...but I do see a free Saturday at the end of the tunnel. So I set my sights on emotionally keeping stress to a minimum all week so that by Saturday I can be relaxed and open to my husband. This is going on in my head only, my husband doesn't have a clue.

So, let's say that was on a Monday...Tuesday morning as we get dressed in the morning before heading to work, I make a special effort to give him a passionate kiss and hug to tell him how much I love him and that I'm thinking of him 'in that way' (definitely different that what we're used to - enough to give him a little 'charge' but not too much as to leave him frustrated). He goes to work feeling happy, loved, secure. That evening, after dinner before I head out to my meeting I give him another passionate kiss/hug and tell him I love him. I do the same Wed, Thur, Friday...with Friday, my finding more opportunities to demonstrate my intent (a slow build, so to speak)....

By going out of my way to be especially demonstrative with our usual displays of affection I am focusing on the unitive aspect of our marriage until we can get to the procreative part. If I did not take the time to show him my interest along the way we risked some real tension and distance by Saturday to the point where had I been in the mood then, he could easily have dismissed me by saying "he's" too tired.

So in that sense I see the dance beginning on Tuesday, coming to fruition on Saturday, and the passionate acts in between not being morally disordered.

[Dmitri451]

Originally Posted by YinYangMom

So in that sense I see the dance beginning on Tuesday, coming to fruition on Saturday, and the passionate acts in between not being morally disordered.

Bravo! That's what I've been saying all along, but you've really hit it spot on.

[rayne89]

My husband and I use NFP. We use the most conservative standard because it would deadly for me to pregnant. If you think I would go 10 to 14 days without kissing and hugging my hubby that's insane.

Yea we kiss, sometimes even makeout like teenagers. My husband was told in confession a very orthodox priest that married couples need to show physical affection to each other. Yeah hubby gets aroused, I though men did when ya breathed on them. I asked him before if it makes waiting worse because I certainly wouldn't do it then. Like Ying Yang Mom said, he said he'd feel rejected if I did't do these things even though he knows we have to wait.

Most of what we do is completely spontaneous, just having fun in the moment. It's not like we're planning "lets have a 10 minute make out session at 10 o'clock." I adore my hubby and it just comes naturally.

Sheesh people if ya'll are married enjoy each other for crying out loud. Just know your limits.