I was reading an EWTN article that says people who are dating shouldn’t engage in prolonged passionate kissing. What the heck does prolonged passionate kissing even mean? Does that mean French kissing?
Well I’m engaged and I am wondering what the Church views is acceptable for an engaged couple in regards to kissing? I know that french kissing should be saved for marriage, but what exactly is chaste kissing for engaged couples?
I would specifically like to know the Church’s stance. Thanks
Well Marie, perhaps if opinions haven’t helped you shoud be talking to your confessor. I would suggest though to simply avoid the passionate kissing if you are both looking to save your virginity for that very special day. You will be avoiding mortal sin and possibly very much heartache.Peace, Carlan
Prolonged passionate kissing means exactly that - prolonged passionate kissing that lead to arousal, regardless if one uses or not his/her tongue. Any kind of kiss, including French kisses or kisses on the cheek, shoulder, neck, hand etc. can be chaste or unchaste, depending on the degree of sexual attraction between the partners (some may become aroused even without any kisses, some don’t like French kisses at all) and on how do they act on that attraction (if they indulge in “prolonged passionate kissing”, it will be more and more difficult to stop and at least one of them will feel sexually frustrated afterwards).
That’s why I doubt there’s any Church document on this topic. The Church gives only a rule of thumb - that people should avoid the “near occasion of sin”. But each person learns to know what it is his/her personal “threshold” - AND their partner’s “threshold” - between chaste affection and lustful behavior.
The Church’s only teaching on kissing is that of any temptation. If it causes you to sin, you shouldn’t be doing it because you are putting yourself into temptation. And if you are knowingly putting yourself into temptation, that in itself is sinful.
Prolonged passionate kissing doesn’t have to mean french kissing (involving tongues), it is any kissing that lasts a while. So, making out, even without tongue, would fall under this category.
Best rule of thumb, IMO, don’t make kissing an activity for a couple to do to kill some time, even if you love them. Prolonged kissing can lead to temptation and even into sin. Stick to just hello kisses, goodbye kisses, and quick kisses to say “I love you”. Leave the prolonged kissing to foreplay in marriage.
I didn’t know you could chastefully french kiss outside of marriage? I don’t think it would be a good idea for my fiance and me to engage in french kissing before marriage but we do find I guess what many would call ‘making out’ (open mouth but no tongue) in few minute increments to be very sweet and loving. It does not escalate to anything more (if it involved tongue that would be another story, which is why we don’t do that).
In this particular case, it is a personal issue only. All that matters is whether it leads you to sin. If it doesn’t, then don’t worry about it. Don’t drive yourself crazy, don’t sweat the small stuff… sweat the big stuff instead!
It sounds like you’re doing a good job… keep it up!
Before the wedding, between the fiancé and the fiancée, by nature, by essence and by principle:
the fact of kissing the cheeks of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the forehead of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the ears of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the arms of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the eyes of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the neck of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the shoulders of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the back of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the chin of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the lips of mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of kissing the mouth of the other is not sinful;
the fact of practicing the french kiss is not sinful;
the fact of holding the waist of the other is not sinful;
the fact of holding hands of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the legs of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the knees of the other is not sinful;
the fact of seeing the other in swimsuit is not sinful;
the fact of touching the thigh of the other with the hands is not sinful;
the fact of dancing together is not sinful: the Rock and Roll, the Valse, the Slow…etc.
The kiss on the lips is not sinful;
The kiss on the mouth is not sinful;
The French kiss (an open mouth kiss, the normal French kiss, the standard French kiss) is not sinful;
The passionated French kiss (an open mouth kiss, very passionated) can be sinful under some special conditions;
The fact of putting the hand on the thigh (between the knee and the hip, in the middle of the hip and the knee) of the other as a sign of tenderness, when we sit down, is not sinful.
The fact of saying the contrary is very odd, my humble opinion. Here, only the wrong intention can be sinful and /or only the wrong effects (the breaking of the red line). That is the question, how to define the red line???
The “red line” to be???
Materially speaking, the fact of going further, as in a married couple. In the facts, the fact of trying the first steps of marital act (sexed and sexual touchings, per se, for keep going, for arousing and for exciting), i mean the sexual intimate parts (low parts) and the breasts.
Intentionally speaking, for arousing and for exciting the body of the other; the difference between a simple expression of love and of tenderness, even before marriage, and the will the go further for preparing the union of bodies.
The near occasion of sin??? Which is the good acception, in catholic sense, without the christian heresies and without the ideologies of the human nature. As catholic, we need to avoid them, it is a catholic duty, it is a natural moral obligation.
In the USA and in the English speaking countries, the catholics are touched by the " ism" doctrines and practices, the heresies and the ideologies, in link with the fundamentalist protestant movements: puritanism, victorianism, moralism, rigorism, jansenism (in France too), the integrism, the quiverfull movement, the externalism, the pessimism, the negativism, the fact of seeing everywhere the sins.
In those countries, the moral view about the corporeity, the sexed, the sexual is very odd and is full of wrong acception. In Europe, the link between the faith and the reason about these topics is more balanced and moderated (just moderation).
By nature, the behaviors of my list are neutral, are not morally wrong, only the intentions or and the circunstances can be morally wrong.
I hate this rule of thumb because it is inaccurate. Different people are comfortable with different levels of PDA in front of others. This level of comfort has nothing to do with whether the action is chaste or unchaste. Some things are just private. For example, I have very rarely kissed my fiance in front of others because I just don’t feel it is appropriate to go around making such displays all the time. That doesn’t mean that it is immoral to give a quick, (or even slightly prolonged) kiss to my fiance, just that I am not comfortable with making this act of affection a public thing as I view it as a private affair. Others would have no problem making out in front of their parents, and their parents would have no problem with such a scenario either. This really just isn’t a great way of explaining things. :shrug:
*"External Sins against Modesty
Such sins are looks, touches, embraces, kisses…In themselves these acts are morally indifferent. They become sinful through one’s intention and especially because of their influence in exciting sexual pleasure.
I. Gravity of these Sins.
The intention to arouse sexual pleasure by such actions makes them gravely sinful every time
The influence that these actions exert in stimulating carnal pleasure renders them gravely or venially or not sinful at all according to the extent of their influence.
…If there be [a good reason] the actions are not sinful, provided one neither intends to the sexual pleasure…nor consents to them if they arise spontaneously."*
I’d add this:
Generally, theologians consider the “good reason” to have to be proportionate to the natural influence something has on arousing the passions. A weightier reason is needed for more passionate acts.
Also, the near occasions of sin should be avoided.
Jone goes on to say a few pages later: “As far as sexual liberties are concerned, engaged persons are forbidden to do anything which is not permitted to other single people. They may touch, embrace, or kiss each other in a becoming manner to manifest their mutual affection. Evidently, however, they may not consent to sexual pleasure that might be caused therby.”
I would think that engaged people do have a more “weighty reason”
Some people are perfectly comfortable making out in public, some don’t even like to kiss on the cheek.
Truth is, there is no particular Church teaching on what type of kissing is and is not ok before marriage. It really just depends on the people involved and whether or not they are able to kiss each other without getting so tempted that they would eventually break.
I agree with most of your list, that most of them are considered morally neutral. However, I was told that French kissing (kissing with tongue specifically) is a directly stimulating action, that it is in itself a form of foreplay because it stimulates arousal and prepares the body for sex. That’s why I was told that French kissing should be reserved for marriage.
I agree that much of the English speaking world is affected by the “isms” as you say and you’re probably right that I’m being affected by it. It is confusing because half of my culture tells me to be promiscuous and the other half tells me to be a prude.