Passionate Kissing Prior to Marriage

Many moralists claim that ‘passionate’ kissing is always an objective mortal sin for any unmarried man and woman, regardless of intention or circumstances, even if the couple is engaged. But they allow that non-passionate kissing is moral. There are several doctrinal problems with this claim.

First, only intrinsically evil acts are always immoral regardless of intention or circumstances. There are three fonts of morality, if an act is immoral regardless of two fonts, it must be immoral under the remaining font. Intrinsically evil acts have an evil moral object; the moral nature of the act is inherently disordered. But the addition of the adjective ‘passionate’ does not signify a different moral nature, nor a different moral object. So if the type of act and the moral object have not changed, then the act cannot be intrinsically evil. For the moral object always is the sole determinant of the moral nature (or species) of an act.

We are not here discussing lust, which is intrinsically evil, because lust is a type of act, not an adjective describing an act. Although, in secular terms, any act might be described as lustful, such a phrasing does not necessarily signify the objective mortal sin of lust. If kissing, or any other act, even the mere act of looking at a person, is accompanied by an interior act of lust, it is that interior act which is always gravely immoral, not the kissing or the looking.

Second, passion refers to emotion. But emotions, even strong emotions, do not necessarily imply sin. For example, Jesus became angry in the Temple, when He drove out the buyers and the sellers: “Zeal for your house consumes me.” (John 2:17). And He experienced the emotions of sorrow and fear in the garden at the beginning of His Passion: “My soul is sorrowful, even unto death.” (Mt 26:38), and, “And he began to be afraid…” (Mk 14:33).

Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual arousal. But this emotion which results from being in the fallen state is not itself a sin, and when it is accompanied by sin, the sin is not necessarily mortal. Emotions are not knowingly chosen acts. Only knowingly chosen immoral acts are sins. A knowingly chosen immoral act might result in one emotion or another, or a person might knowingly make a sinful choice in response to an emotion, but emotions are not themselves sins. So the idea that kissing becomes a mortal sin merely because an emotion occurs during kissing is absurd.

Third, kissing does not have an evil moral object. “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (Romans 16:16). A kiss might be accompanied by a sin of one type or another. “And he who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: ‘Whomever I will kiss, it is he. Take hold of him.’ ” (Mt 26:48). But the act itself of kissing is not intrinsically evil.

Neither does any emotion, even emotions resulting from the fallen state, have an evil moral object. Although certain interior sins, such as lust, or hatred, or envy, etc., are often confused with the associated emotions (feelings), morally there is a very sharp distinction between experiencing an emotion, and knowingly choosing an immoral act. The emotion of anger is not the sin of hatred. The feeling of jealousy is not the sin of envy. The emotion (or feelings of) passion are not the sin of lust. No emotion has an evil moral object, because feelings are not knowingly chosen acts.

An excess of anger might occur if a person is harmed by another person, and he sins by choosing to dwell on that harm, and he sins by choosing not to forgive the injury, and he sins by choosing various acts that result in excessive anger. And in experiencing this excess of anger caused by his sins, he might next choose the sin of revenge. But the initial anger is not a sin. And the subsequent excessive anger is a bad consequence of his knowingly chosen acts, but it is not itself a sin. (Excessive anger is ‘physical evil’, not moral evil.)

An excess of passion may be the result of sinful acts, such as unmarried persons choosing acts of excessive physical affection or excessive sensuality. And the resultant feelings may make it difficult for the unmarried couple to remain chaste. In this case, if the acts of physical affection or sensuality do not include any intrinsically evil acts, then the morality would depend on intention and circumstances. But the fact that the emotion of passion occurs during kissing (or similar acts) does not cause the act to become an objective mortal sin.

Fourth, when an unmarried man and woman kiss, the fonts of intention or circumstances might be gravely immoral: such as an intention to induce the other person to commit an intrinsically evil sexual act, or a circumstance in which the kissing can reasonably be anticipated to have gravely harmful bad consequences (such as a near occasion of mortal sin). Or a related but distinct act might be gravely immoral, such as an interior act of lust. But the use the term ‘passionate’ to describe the kissing does not imply that any of the three fonts is gravely immoral, nor does it imply an accompanying gravely immoral act.

Fifth, kissing and similar acts of limited sensuality (but always non-genital acts) assist a couple who are considering marriage, or who are engaged, in preparing for later acts of natural marital relations open to life. This good consequence can certainly outweigh some bad consequences of limited moral weight. And the intention to express affection, or to prepare for moral sexual acts at a later time, within marriage, are moral intentions.

Sixth, the usual approach to this question lacks any consideration of degrees of sin. Kissing is said to be moral, but when it becomes, at some point, passionate, it is said to be suddenly gravely immoral. There is no acknowledgement of degrees of sin. But without any gravely immoral intention, or a gravely immoral object, or bad consequences that outweigh good consequences to a grave extent, there is no basis for this claim of mortal sin.

Seventh, under the three fonts approach to morality, none of the fonts is gravely immoral merely because the kissing has become passionate. Some degree of selfishness might be present in the intention of one or both persons, but this would be a venial sin. There may be some limited bad consequences to excessive sensuality in that the persons are aroused and chastity becomes somewhat more difficult, but not necessarily gravely so. And there is no gravely immoral object in such acts, since all genital sexual acts are absent from mere kissing and similar limited expressions of affection and sensuality.

Therefore, passionate kissing and similar acts of affection between an unmarried man and woman are not necessarily objective mortal sin. The mere emotion of sexual passion is not a knowingly chosen immoral act. And the acts that lead to this emotion may be moral, or may be venial sins. Kissing with passion may have some degree of disorder in intention or circumstances, but not so that this knowingly chosen act would be always entirely incompatible with the love of God and neighbor, and with the state of grace in the soul.

The above text is an excerpt from my book:
Roman Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics

by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.

Please take a look at this list of my books and booklets, and see if any topic interests you.

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in arguments, ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Passionate Kissing Prior to Marriage

  1. Ville says:

    1) The notion of sexual passion in kissing is a knowingly chosen act IF the couple continues with the kissing that they know are arousing their lust. If they did not intend to arouse their lust they would stop kissing when they perceive that this was happening. If they don’t stop then they are engaging in the intrinsically evil act of arousing their sexual pleasure, an act that the Church has always condemned as mortal sin for all people, married or unmarred, but which you, strangely, reject.

    2) Pope Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz. 1140)

    3) Also, we are not talking about people here kissing without the intent to arouse their passion, but about people that are kissing for this exact reason. People who French kiss also do this in order to derive an unlawful pleasure and “for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss”. Hence that it is a mortal sin.

    4) In fact, the Church explicitly teaches that it is a mortal sin, as we could see above. But you apparently reject this dogma of the natural law thus teaching formal heresy. There is no excuse for breaking the natural law as you do, but the worst of all is that you teach this heresy to others and, in fact, encourages them to commit this mortal sin and heresy. You hypocrite! You criticize and write against others for doing this very sin, yet have fallen into it yourself!

    • Ron Conte says:

      Ville, I’ve edited your post above, and also numbered the remaining paragraphs for easier reference. My reply follows.

      1. You are confusing passionate expression of affection and love with lust. The Church has always taught that lust is intrinsically evil. But passionate feelings and even some physical arousal are not lust. For lust is prohibited even to married persons. But married persons licitly have passion and arousal. Your phrase “arousing their sexual pleasure” is not used by the Church, and is rather strange. Sexual pleasure refers to the climax of a sexual act. Taking pleasure in expressing affection is not per se sexual pleasure, and is not intrinsically evil. So what you claim to be “always condemned” by the Church as mortal sin simply is not condemned. You have badly misunderstood Church teaching.

      2. There are many long lists of condemned errors in Denzinger. The vast majority are an expression of the non-infallible teaching of the Church. These are not dogmas, the rejection of which would be formal heresy. As for the meaning of this particular condemnation, it does not necessarily imply all that you conclude. The “for the sake of carnal and sensible delight” pertains to the intention, not the species of the act. So this does not in any way imply an intrinsically evil act, but rather an intention. My assertion is that couples may kiss to express affection and love. This does not equate to “carnal and sensible delight”.

      Also, the condemnation seems to be based in part on whether the opinion is or is not probable. So one might hold the very same opinion as a possible opinion, as long as one does not state it is probable. In other words, the Magisterium was preventing the assertion of that opinion as probable, but still permitting the opinion to be held and expressed.

      3. You don’t know what the intention is of other persons. The intention resides in the subject who act, not in the act itself. Kissing is not intrinsically evil; French kissing is not intrinsically evil. And the quote in #2 only refers to the intention. Intrinsically evil acts are determined by the object. So it is not true that all unmarried persons who French kiss are committing an intrinsically evil act, nor is it true that they all have the same intention.

      4. As I’ve explained above, the Church does NOT “explicitly teach” that passionate kissing is a mortal sin. Also, the quote you present does not say what you claim it says, and the quote is not dogmatic. So even if someone were to reject that quoted text, it is not a heresy.

      You have ignored all of my theological arguments, presented in the post. You have badly misunderstood Church teaching and moral theology. You are making false accusations based on your own pride and ignorance. Also, your comments are no longer welcome on this blog.

  2. Francisco says:

    By personal experience, I can attest that it is false to say that anyone who French kiss (or passionate kiss on the lips) is in order to have sexual arousal, or equals to having sexual arousal.

    I had my first girlfriend when I was 12 years old, we were both around the same age, we were “innocent” with sexual information, but my drive to kiss (or French kiss) her was all natural with no intention whatsoever to have sexual intercourse with her and I did not have sexual arousal of my reproductive organ at all (God is my witness). I can say that we just kissed because we truly loved each other, yes, there is carnal pleasure in the act but this does mean this equals “automatic” intention to go beyond that point.

    Now, if some one feels sexual arousal while staying too close with a partner, then the person should stop or reject the body’s reaction, be watchful and prevent situations which may cause him or her to sin, but a body reaction (an arousal due to our concupiscense) without the person’s consent is not a sin. There is no sin without consent.

    • Ron Conte says:

      You are using the term “carnal pleasure” in the broad sense, for any bodily pleasure (e.g. the pleasure of eating tasty food). In theology, the same term is often used more narrowly, for sexual pleasure. So the kissing you describe is not necessarily carnal in the narrow sense.

  3. Francisco says:

    Yes, I did not mean sexual pleasure, what I meant the pleasure of the lips muscles only, like a tasty sweet (not beyond that at all).

Comments are closed.