Would it be sinful to intimately touch someone or be touched by them if there is no sexual attraction or intention? No lust involved?
What is your definition of “intimately touch”?
Ok. There is a woman and a man. The man is a celibate homosexual and the woman has no physical attraction to the man. They are very close best friends. They like to show their closeness and trust by touching each other under their clothes. There is nothing sexual about it. No arousal. No lust whatsoever. Just a symbol of how close they are in their friendship.
This is foreplay and is inappropriate for unmarried persons.
I have many very close friends to whom I am not sexually attracted, towards whom I feel no lust. I have no problems touching them in plenty of ways to show my closeness. Hugs, kisses on the cheek and so on. Such are fine and good ways to show physically the closeness one feels towards another person.
None of them involve touching UNDER the clothes, and neither I nor these friends would even contemplate touching each other under the clothes. No such touch underneath the clothes is either necessary or desirable in connection with someone to whom I feel no sexual attraction. Always excepting medical purposes or the like, of course.
The logic involved in such a step, if taken to its ultimate conclusion, could be used to argue that even frankly sexual touch would be fine if one felt no lust nor sexual attraction towards the person whom one was touching in a frankly sexual way.
<<Ok. There is a woman and a man. The man is a celibate homosexual and the woman has no physical attraction to the man. They are very close best friends. They like to show their closeness and trust by touching each other under their clothes. There is nothing sexual about it. No arousal. No lust whatsoever. Just a symbol of how close they are in their friendship.>>
You’re asking about a gay man and a woman who has no attraction to him engaging in foreplay.
This is so Alice-in-Wonderland it’s not even worth considering.
The only circumstance I can imagine this happening is some kind of medical emergency and immediate first aid is needed before the paramedics get there!
If you have a impure thought you should go to confession, especially if you dobn’t know what an impure thought is!! The definition of what is …is!!
What two consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors in a private manner without harming one another, a body massage, etc, is not for anyone here to cast a moral judgement, but they will do so. These two appararently have not broken any laws as I see it on the surface… It may not seem to be a proper healthy relationship, but only God imo can judge whether this is sinful as he may judge masturbation. Didn’ t Jesus have men wash his feet? Seems very strange, but there are foot fetishes too. God may frown upon it, but is it sinful? I don’t think so.
He also washed THEIR feet. And that was a service of hospitality that was provided by the head of every household for his or her guests. Not an intimate thing at all. Moreover, the feet are not those parts of the body hidden by the clothing. And yes, if someone has a foot fetish then a footrub becomes an occasion of the sin of lust and sinful.
A massage is often a different thing entirely from ‘intimate touch’. Sportsmen and those suffering from physical ailments receive completely non-intimate massages all the time. This comes within the realm of healthcare if not actual medical treatment. And in such situations is permissible. Even nudity is permissible if healthcare or medical treatment requires it, doesn’t mean that you can strip off naked willy-nilly in front of your friends.
And yes, God does judge, and He provides us with the Church as well as those who are older and wiser than us to instruct us for our guidance. He in many situations tells us loud and clear by these means what is right and wrong. He would be a pretty poor sort of God to leave us to constantly wallow in a morass of spiritual ignorance, after all. So He doesn’t, and we need to take heed of those in authority whom He has sent to guide us in matters spiritual.
Also, it was said that Jesus washed the feet of his Diciples. Was it odd? I think so, but feet were dusty and needed attention I suppose and it was probably no big deal for man to wash another man’s feet back then? Who knows what it was all about really? Jesus and his home boys. I can’t judge the strange relationship he had with these men any more than you can.
Those who study history and have read non-biblical sources can tell you, as they’ve told me, exactly what it was all about. History didn’t all disappear into a vacuum, you know.
Guests in any household in Israel routinely had their feet washed as a gesture of hospitality. We know this because it is a matter of historical record that this happened - people wrote about it being done and its significance, just as they wrote about the kinds of food they ate and the clothes they wore and so on, so we know about those things as well.
And from the Bible we know so too - Jesus reproached his host Simon, the one who criticised Mary, because Simon had neglected to be hospitable to Him by washing His feet as any good host would’ve done.
I have males in my life that I am friends with but I would never consider touching their privates. (I am a heterosexual male) What would make one want to touch someone in that manner unless there was some attraction? Your question begs more questions. Very interesting dilemma…teachccd
So your conclusion to get back to the query, that you deem it sinful as to the interaction of this woman and the gay man as this person describes it? Are you leaning toward if you do deem it sinful a Mortal sin?
This is a good one for the clergy to answer I suppose. Black White or Gray?
As far as we can judge by the extremely limited information you have given us, probably sinful to at least some degree. And thus to be avoided.
The better questions to ask are - in what way does this behaviour advance either party in their walk with Christ? In what way does it help bring about God’s kingdom on earth? Being that it does neither, and in fact is more likely to do the opposite, shouldn’t it be avoided?
I would guess it’s very temporary and nobody can or should judge it sinful. Let’s wish them the best and they find happiness. God gave them freedom of choice and they should enjoy life.
The morality of each and every knowingly chosen act is determined by three fonts:
- the act itself (as determined by the moral object)
- the circumstances
The mere fact that there is no lustful intention, or that there is a good intention (to express closeness), does not make the act itself moral. The acts that you are describing are sinful.
Many people tend to excuse themselves and their sins by lying to themselves. I do not know what you mean by touch, but if it is what I think, then yes indeed you are in mortal sin.
Take heed to the word of God below, if you are guilty, change.
The Revelations of Saint Bridget
Book 1 - Chapter 13
God speaks: "My enemy has three demons in himself. The first sits in his sexual organ, the second in his heart, the third in his mouth. The first is like a skipper who lets water in through the keel, the water, rises by increasing gradually, and then fills up all of the ship. Then the water floods over and the ship sinks down. This ship is his body that is harassed by the temptations of devils and by his own lusts as though by stormy waves.
First, the evil lust entered into his body through the keel, that is, through the evil desire with which he took delight in bad thoughts. And since he did not resist through repentance and penance and did not repair his body’s ship with the nails of abstinence, the water of lust increased daily while he gave his consent to evil. Then the belly of the ship filled with evil desires, and the water flooded over and drowned the ship with lust so that it could not reach the haven of salvation.
The second demon sits in his heart and is like a worm lying inside an apple. The worm first eats the core of the apple and then leaves its filth there and crawls around inside the whole apple until it is completely useless. This is what the devil does. First, he destroys the man’s will and good desires, which are like the core where all the soul’s strength and all goodness reside, and when the heart has been emptied of these goods, the devil then leaves in their place in his heart, worldly thoughts and desires that he had loved more. The devil now drives his body to what pleases him, and for this reason, his strength and understanding are diminished and he begins to hate life. This man is indeed an apple without a core, that is to say, a man without a heart, for he enters my church without a heart since he has no love of God.
The third demon is like an archer who looks out through the windows and shoots at the careless. How can the devil not be in him who never speaks without mentioning the devil? That which is loved more, is mentioned more often. His bitter words, with which he hurts others, are like arrows shot through as many windows as the number of times the devil is mentioned and innocent people take offense at his words.
Therefore do I, who am the truth, swear by my truth that I will condemn him like a whore to the sulfurous fire, like a deceitful traitor to the mutilation of all his limbs and like a scoffer of the Lord to eternal shame. However, as long as his soul and body are united, my mercy stands ready for him. What I demand of him is that he should attend the divine services and prayers more often, not to fear any humiliation or desire any honor, and that evil or bad words will never be mentioned by his mouth."
Saint Bridget was canonized by Pope Boniface IX in the year 1391 and confirmed by Pope Martin V in the Council of Constance in the year 1415.
The Revelations of Saint Bridget were accorded an exceptionally high degree of authenticity, authority and importance from an early date. Pope Gregory XI (1370-78) approved and confirmed them and judged them highly favorably, as did Boniface IX (1389-1404) in the papal Bull Ab origine mundi, par. 39 (7 Oct 1391). They were later examined at the Council of Constance (1414-18) and at the Council of Basel (1431-49), both judging them to be in conformity with the Catholic faith; The Revelations were also strongly defended by numerous highly regarded theologians, including Jean Gerson (1363-1429), Chancellor of the University of Paris and Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468).
Titus 1:15 “To the pure themselves, nothing is impure.” If there is no sexual intention and no lust, only the body of a good friend created and gifted by God is it really sin? Is there any way to have a priest come in here and answer this?
It is vital to read the entire passage in context. He is speaking here about those who insist on circumsision for new Converts.
You may want to read the next verse as well:
15 To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 **They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed. **
I’m a married heterosexual woman. My dh and I practice NFP. When we are trying to avoid a pregnancy (like right now), during our fertile periods, we engage in other types of touching to express our love and intimacy. Back rubs, shoulder rubs (fully clothed), hugs, hand holding, non-sexual kisses (pecks on the lips and cheeks). Why can’t this celibate homosexual man and heterosexual woman do these things? These two people fondling each other is at the VERY LEAST a near occasion of sin. What happens when the celibate homosexual man’s penis doesn’t recognize that the hand stroking it belongs to a woman and becomes erect? What happens when the woman’s body naturally starts responding to this man’s caresses? WHY DO PEOPLE WANT TO PLAY WITH FIRE AND TRY TO FIND LOOPHOLES TO AVOID GETTING BURNED?? JUST STAY AWAY FROM THE MATCHES ALREADY!!!
Another example: I love my children w/ every fiber of my being. I love several other peoples’ children almost as much. Would anyone outside of NAMBLA even consider my touching any of the aforementioned children in the way the OP described this man and woman touching as appropriate? Of course not!! Let’s stop lying to ourselves and exercise some common sense!