Is french kissing ok?

This isn’t for me, but for a friend, he asked. My gut feeling is no.
Just last night he was telling me I was ridiculous for not wanting to do ‘stuff’ with a girl and etc. I showed him a short video of chastity speaker and all around great guy Jason Evert on youtube…and the reaction was not expected…

All of a sudden he wants to embrace catholic values, in his own words, he was raised a catholic, but never followed it. Now he’s having a hard time explaining to his girlfriend why exactly he has a change of heart and why he wants to stop doing ‘stuff’, so she is putting up natural defences and one question he asked me is french kissing ok??

Only for married couples. For unmarried couples it can be terribly tempting to go further as it enflames the passions.

If it tempts him or his girlfriend, then no. If it doesn’t, I don’t see why not. :shrug: It’s certainly fine for married couples, if they enjoy it.

for dating:
a peck on the cheek
for engagement:
kiss on the mouth
for marriage:
french

just an opinion although I had this awkward conversation with a guy at my school.

The problem is that it is basically a species of “How much can I get away with?” A recipe for disaster.

Lots of wisdom in that opinion. :thumbsup:

I just youtubed him, he’s well good…but apparently he already has a wife :frowning: darn it

LOL!!
doesn’t he have a show on EWTN? or used to?

I completely agree! :thumbsup:

I guess I’m lucky that way…I am completely turned off by french kissing. Every boyfriend I have tries it sooner or later and I have to give them the “if you stick your tonuge in my mouth again I’m going to bite it” talk, usually followed up by “you don’t think I’ll do it? Well just try it and see.” To date, I have not had to bite anyone. :slight_smile:

I was told by a very traditional, very orthodox priest that there is no moral teaching against it. A Catholic would be incorrect to state that “french kissing” is intrinsically wrong. Lust, on the other hand, is. If french kissing is not lustful for a particularly strong/disciplined couple, and simply serves to develop a stronger emotional bond between them, I don’t see how it could be sinful. I have personally French kissed many times without lusting…with prayer and discipline it is certainly possible to keep your passions totally in check (at least in my experience).

That being said, I recognize how dangerous it could be for many people.

Even if not lusting is possible, what of the other person and what of the situation where “it’s never been a problem for me (or the other) before, but…” Safer not to french kiss so as not to “push the envelope” and have it become a disaster. It sounds like a situation that would be a favorite for Satan.:eek:

For married people yes, not for anyone else.
none of the privileges reserved for marriage may be stolen and abused by anyone else.

Is french kissing just snogging? :shrug:
I’m starting to think I go for the completely the wrong lads…,maybe that’s why they always go wrong, snogging on the first date is always what I’ve done.

…heads back to youtube to watch some modersty and chastity videos :rolleyes:

French kissing IS foreplay. Why would you engage in foreplay, get each other aroused when you are not married?

This is one of those questions where, although I don’t really have an answer, always makes me wonder, “what’s the point, then?” Honestly, the only time I french kiss my husband is during foreplay, and occasionally b/f he leaves for work, if I want to tease him and let him know they’ll be something “special” happening when he gets home that night. Whether is causes lust or not, it is an incredibly intimate act. Think about it: you’re exchanging body fluid with someone, and in a way it does kinda simulate the marital act, in an oral fashion. It’s not something that should be done casually, just for recreation. I mean, there’s a reason we don’t french kiss our relatives! It’s not just a showing of affection to someone. I would think, at the very least, it shouldn’t be done until you’re at least engaged. JMO.

In Christ,

Ellen

Thanks for all your advice, I will relay this to him in due time. I just ask that you can keep him in your prayers, he just had a “high” yesterday after hearing Jason and of course with a high there is a low, I don’t want him to go back to that…

Ever consider how it might affect your partner? :smiley:

I think this is probably the best thing to do, although now it may be hard or too late to set this kind of rules in his relationship. If that is the problem, and his girlfriend is not wanting to cooperate, nor willing to understand his motivations, then tell him that it is possible that the best thing he could do is ending up with her.

Christianity is all about being obedient to God’s Will and suffering because of that; but it’s also about being rewarded with eternal life and supreme happyness, even here, on this earthly life, if we succeed in following God’s commandments with faith.

I am glad to re-answer this- the official documents should convince him to no longer try get you to french :kissme: and stop at a non-lustful, form of :kissme:.
forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=3948814&postcount=137

If he keeps it up, ditch him, he who does not respect you now, is now worth your time.:cool:

p.s. I will start with the ending. The one I gave previously:

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)

"Reply to Objection 2. Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally sinful."
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4

accounting for places it is acceptable

"I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (I-II, 74, 8), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins."
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4

Relooking at original:

Introduction
**This response has a debate outside of theology,m ending with the difinative words of the Great Summa Theologica, with Imprimatur, and written by Aquinas, the great Philosophy student.

Romance is a showing of greater truth, and the saints must be looked into

I would pray to the saints on this, it is not for us to say something is acceptable, when we cannot say it with thew credit of our conscience, and evidence, just because one does it. Personally, I see such as very special, and a gift, so why would we waste it on just any interest, rather- on a special person, further, I would look to the other moral religions, and see how much distance they put between couples. This shows it too be intimate action, but not necessarily sexual, as we hear of God’s intimacy with us, his secret relations, which we experience in true darkness, and joy.**

Love, as a gospel

So, romance is a reflection of a greater truth, therein, is this acting a dignified, true acting, which does not deny the love of our future, ordained to be spouse, whether God, or our human spouse?

How to debate this issue, who do we want to read our debate?

And so, we must approach such, as though speaking with them, and I would think prayer would be required, to ensure that it is a sign of goodness, and not simply the enjoying of a ice-cream, which incapacitates reasonable views, and creates strong empathetic responses, which could hamper the mind as to God’s intention.

It is sinful to be out of proportion with truth, without sane reason

If anything causes us into that that a person may objectify a person, it is wrong, and sexual pleasure sought for itself is wrong, I think too much focus on this aspect is likely therein incorrect, as it sets up the fellow spouse, or courter as a pleasure inducing person, and not as what they are- a person of God.

Not wrong purely as precursor, but perhaps of it’s own

I also doubt it is always a precursor to other activity. It does of course weaken the will to thoughts of more.

The opposition to chastity, or it’s addition
(in orgininal debate)

Check the source of many of those who object, many also support guy to guy or girl to girl marriage, or think it good, or are not Catholic, which makes their position in moral theology something in which they either speak in general, or not for Catholic use.

Hearing our bodies on the subject

So, is it immoral because it is embarrassing, if people were perfect, it would be, but we are not all perfect, however, the embarrassment of people, does show that they believe it somewhat wrong, or that the circumstance is not to be desired, in which they feel so, and so they believe either that it is wrong, or should be private, that is their judgment, and that of others who think that people should not publically do so, except in movies, where we acknowledge it as the telling of something private, as a society (Not necessarily as the church), as such, there is something that causes us to hide such, or ask others to.
Other possible reasoning

Also, it is a showing of weakness, and so embarrassment itself does not make this wrong, but protective of one’s emotion, and courter-


Also, we cannot say, would we do this with this or that historic figure, I certainly would not, but this is because I would keep this for a person I am infatuated, and in love with, and not relate it to a person we respect too greatly to imagine in such, it is like saying, would you do this with this and that saint- the response is negative, it would take from our perception of how great they were, and harm their message. Thinking of what they would do is better than what we would do with them**.**

Emotions are not the source, let us look at the official response, which is active

Is this hiding of emotions, and embarrassment of showing these, and the fear of incorrect views, or is it the actions of conscience, perhaps either or both, but the ultimate one is the official one-

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: The parts of Lust (Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154)

"Reply to Objection 2. Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust, which is the source of this hindrance: and on this account they are mortally sinful."
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4

accounting for places it is acceptable

"I answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works. sin in two ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss, caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin, for it is possible to do such things without lustful pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above (I-II, 74, 8), that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to the delectation of a mortal sin. Wherefore since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more so the other kinds of lust, it follows that in such like sins not only consent to the act but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently, when these kisses and caresses are done for this delectation, it follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they are lustful, they are mortal sins."
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article4

Yet, there is also other views, other than those of Saint Thomas Aquinas.** All of them discourage this action as dangerous outside of marriage.**

(I would of course say that I always use his work as a sounding board, and have not found any source endorsing this action, so the church seems to condemn it outside of cultural reason, and of married purpose, and it’s own compass says this is mortal offense, outside of cultural or other purposes!)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.