Kisses and touches performed for sensual and lustful motives are condemned as mortal sins by the Catholic Church and Her Saints for both married and unmarried people alike.
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 pollutionis excluded.”.
Jean
Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of
Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in
order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed.
Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused
by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do
not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.
“… Is
it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who
maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do
them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully]
that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin. If kisses
are made between strangers and publicly, as a sign of peace, by
friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is no sin. They
could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or
lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.
The
Church’s moral teaching that condemns kisses “performed
for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight” might come as
a surprise to many married couples who thought that this was lawful
to do within a marriage. Now some people will indeed be quick to
suggest that this statement only applies to unmarried people. However
the truth of the matter is that there is not a single indication in
the decree that even remotely suggests this. This
objection is also easily refuted by considering the wording and
reason behind the decree, which of course applies both to the married
and unmarried people. Note that “pollution” is an
older term used to describe “ejaculation” or “discharge
of semen” other than during lawful sex.
The Free Dictionary,
The Origin & History, pollution: c.1340, "discharge
of semen other than during sex," later, "desecration,
defilement" (late 14c.), from L.L. pollutionem (nom. pollutio)
"defilement," from L. polluere "to soil, defile,
contaminate,"
Therefore,
according to the above Church condemnation, even if spouses or
unmarried people do not consent to do anything more than the act of
kissing itself and don’t commit any other sexual sin or act, it
would still be considered as a mortal sin for
them to be kissing “for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight” even if “danger of further consent and pollution
[or ejaculation] is excluded.” This, of course, is true
both before, during, and after the marital act, and applies
both to married and unmarried people alike. Thus, spouses
may never kiss each other in a sensual way or in this way
provoke themselves into sexual lust or “pollution,”
either as an act that is separated completely from the marital act or
as an act that is committed in relationship to the marital act
(foreplay), even if pollution or ejaculation is excluded.
Again,
the condemned proposition specifically mentioned that kisses “for
the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the
kiss” is mortally sinful even though “danger of further
consent and pollution [or ejaculation] is excluded” so that no
one, whether married or unmarried, should get the idea that they
would be allowed to kiss another person for sensual pleasure as long
as they did not proceed any further than that.
This
point is important to mention since many lustful couples use all
kinds of unnecessary acts before, during and after sexual relations.
They try to excuse these shameful acts by claiming that they cannot
complete the sexual act without them. However, their sinful excuse is
condemned by this decree alone.
Now,
the main reason for why the act of kissing for the sake of venereal
pleasure is mortally sinful according to the teachings of the
Catholic Church, the saints, and theologians, is because it’s
lust and serves no reasonable purpose other than wickedly
arousing the selfish sexual desire of the spouses while not being
able to effect the conception of a child. This fact then shows us
that sensual kissing is a completely selfish and unnecessary act with
no other purpose than to inflame a person’s shameful lust,
which is contrary to virtue and the good of marriage. Again, unless
husband or wife are totally degenerated, the mere thought of having
sex with their spouse should be enough to inflame their lust and make
them ready—at least on the part of the husband. And if this is
true with mere thoughts, how much more with kisses and touches?
There
can be no doubt about the fact that many men who are ignorant about
sex and women would be in danger of “pollution” by the
mere thought of, or act of, sensual kissing or touching. It happens
even today amongst some men, mostly in young men who are unlearned in
the ways of lust—if one can call it that. That’s why the
condemned proposition that tried to excuse this mortal sin
even mentioned if “pollution is excluded,” as if wanting
to argue that only ejaculation or climax (or pollution) was the
mortal sin and not also the evil intention of seeking the pleasure.
However, as we all could see above, whether pollution actually
happens or not, sensual kisses was still condemned as a mortal sin
according to God’s Holy Law.
The
fact that many men today have no danger of pollution from sensual
kisses or touches does not make it lawful or right either. Because it
is obvious that the act is not made lawful just because some men have
hardened their hearts and become perverted. Simply said, all kisses
and touches performed for the sake of sensual or fleshly pleasure is
condemned as a mortal sin by the Catholic Church.
Master
Jean Charlier de Gerson (13 December 1363 – 12 July 1429),
French scholar, educator, reformer, and poet, Chancellor of the
University of Paris, a guiding light of the conciliar movement and
one of the most prominent theologians at the Council of Constance,
had the following interesting things to say about lustful kisses,
touches, contraception and about sensually arousing oneself:
Jean Gerson, Oeuvres
Complétes: “Several doctors [of Divinity] maintain
that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in order to enjoy
oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed. Be sure,
however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused by such
wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an even
greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do not
respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.
“… You
have committed the sin of lust: If you have fondled and stroked
yourself on your shameful member until you obtain the dirty carnal
pleasure. If you initiated such sins with others, by words, kisses,
fondling, or other signs, or immodest paintings. … If you
committed this sin differently from Nature ordered, or against the
honesty that belongs to marriage. … If you wanted to be
desired and lusted after for your beauty, your behavior, your
clothes, makeup, dancing or dissolute gazes.
“… What
a young boy should tell in confession: I sometimes stroked myself
or others, urged by disorderly pleasure; I fondled myself, in my bed
and elsewhere, something I would not have dared to do if people
had been there. Sometimes the priest cannot absolve such
fondling. If they are not confessed and the details given, whatever
the shame, one cannot be absolved, and the confession is worthless:
one is destined to be damned for ever in Hell. The action and the way
it has been done must be told.
“… Is
it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who
maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do
them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly
[and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable
deadly sin. If kisses are made between strangers and
publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without
wicked thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between
clerics, or people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place,
and in a prolonged way.
“… Is
it a mortal sin to eat and drink in order to carnally arouse oneself?
Yes, if it is out of wedlock, and even with one’s spouse, if it
is to enjoy a pleasure which is not required in marriage.
“… The
fifth commandment is: thou shall not kill.
… They commit this sin who succeed, in whatever way, in
preventing the fruit which should come from carnal intercourse
between man and woman [such as by NFP, contraception or abortion]. …
It is forbidden for two people, married or not,
to do any kind of lustful fondling without respecting the way and the
vessel Nature requires for conceiving children [that is, one
cannot perform “extra” sexual acts not able to procreate
in themselves or that are not intended for procreation]. It is worse
when it is outside of the natural way [unnatural sexual acts], either
if it is out of wedlock or even worse, within it [that is, all
unnecessary and non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are
considered as worse sins than when they are committed outside of
marriage].
“Is it
permitted for spouses to prevent the conception of a child? No: I
often say that it is a sin worse than murder [hence that
contraception or NFP is equivalent to murder]. It is a sin which
deserves the fires of Hell. Briefly, any way of preventing conception
during intercourse is dishonest and reprehensible.”
Kisses, touches,
hugs, caresses etc. can of course be sinful or non-sinful
depending on why they are performed. All kisses,
touches, hugs, and caresses performed for the sake of lust or
sensual pleasure is mortally sinful and must always be avoided at
all cost by all people at all times. Natural touches, kisses, hugs,
caresses, embraces and the like (such as those performed by family
members and by lovers in public) are not sinful provided they are
not performed for the sake of sensual or lustful reasons.
Spouses must be aware though, for even though it is not sinful to
embrace one another out of affection and love, also during the marital
act, excess or unreasonability in embracing happens easily during
the heat of concupiscence, and this is certainly sinful. Also, if
spouses hug or kiss each other out of affection and they perceive
that their lust is aroused by this act, they must immediately cease
with this deed that is arousing their lust or be guilty of the
mortal sin of unlawfully inflaming their lust.
It
is clear from the evidence thus far covered that sensual kisses and
touches are not only mortal sins, but in fact also sins against the
Natural Law. That means that any person who thinks it’s right
to kiss or touch for the sake of carnal pleasure or lust is a heretic
against the Natural Law, and as such, are therefore outside the
Church of God and thus excluded from salvation. Everyone without
exception who have kissed or touched someone or something for the
sake of sensual pleasure proved by their deed that their primary or
secondary purpose for doing this inherently evil, selfish and
shameful deed was not the lawful motive to procreate or quench
concupiscence, but rather the sinful and unlawful gratification and
excitation of their shameful lust like brute beasts without any
reason. No, it would be an insult to beasts to call these vile
spouses beasts! It would be more accurate not to call them beasts,
but demons, since beasts have no reason, and thus are blameless. In
truth, such husbands and wives are lower in their actions than the
beasts of the Earth! “Bodies corrupted by lust are the
dwelling places of devils.” (St. Hilary of Poitiers, On
the Gospel, Matt. 11:2-10)
Everyone
without exception that kisses and touches “for the sake of the
carnal and sensible delight which arises” from these acts, are
committing a mortal sin against the Natural Law. How so, you might
ask? Well, I answer that it is easy to prove. First of all, acts of
lust for the sake of pleasure are completely selfish, shameful and
unnecessary for conception to occur. Second, consider how people will
not kiss or touch their spouse in a sexual way or for carnal pleasure
in front of other people (unless they are totally degenerated). And
consider that they would be very ashamed if their parent, child or
friend walked in on them when they were committing this shameful,
selfish and unnecessary act with their spouse. It is thus clear that
their conscience tells them that it is an inherently evil, shameful
and unnecessary act; and yet, though they know this truth in their
conscience, they nevertheless refuse to feel this very same shame
when they are committing this act of lust in the presence of God and
Mary and all the Saints and Angels in Heaven.
Some
people may object that there are many other events that are shameful
and that are not yet inherently sinful such as soiling one’s
pants or being forced to show oneself naked to other people against
one’s own will. This objection, however, fails to notice the
obvious difference between 1) people committing acts of lust with a
desire or longing; and 2) events which are shameful but who are not
desired or longed for by a person in a sensual way.
Acts
of lust are acts performed for the sake of a pleasure and are
performed with the will and purpose of satisfying a sensual desire
while the events or acts of soiling one’s pants or being forced
to show oneself naked to other people is not a desire or lust that is
sought after. Thus, these people do not desire that these events
should happen. If those people who endured the events of soiling
their clothes or naked exhibition against their will would sensually
desire or lust for that these shameful events would happen in the
same way that a man or a woman lust for and desire that acts of lust
happen, they would indeed be declared the most disgusting perverts.
Who but a complete and satanic pervert would sensually desire or lust
after soiling their pants or being exhibited naked?
When
Our Lord was going to be crucified, He was forced to be without any
covering for His private parts for a while before someone handed Him
something to cover Himself with. Our Lord was obviously ashamed for
having to appear naked before a lot of people, but He didn’t
desire that this should happen, and most importantly, He didn’t
lust at it when it happened! and so, there was no fault in Him. If,
however, a person should lust or desire (in a sensual way) that he or
she should appear naked before other people (such as nude models), he
or she would commit a mortal sin and be a pervert.
Consequently,
it is not a mere shameful act that is sinful, but the shameful act
that is performed with the intention of pleasing oneself
sensually—that is sinful. Kissing for the sake of a venereal
pleasure is a completely selfish act that only serves to increase
lust, and as such, is against the natural law just like gluttony is
against the natural law. It is indeed very similar to the sin of
gluttony. One could say that those who commit this sin are gluttonous
in the marital act. It is completely self evident that no one ever
needed to break God’s law by kissing or touching their spouse
in a sexual way in order to perform the marital act. No one ever
needed to kiss or touch in a sensual way in order to be able to make
a child. This is just a selfish, shameful and condemned excuse used
by sexually perverted, morally depraved people in order to try to
enhance or inflame their sexual pleasure. Kisses and touches must not
and cannot be used to satisfy sensual pleasure as is totally clear
from the above Church condemnation and from the words of Jean Gerson
(and as we will see, St. Thomas Aquinas).
A
good example of how people who get married today sin by kissing each
other is the kiss that the husband and wife perform after the wedding
ceremony. It is obvious that those who kiss each other in a
lascivious and shameful manner are following what they have learned
from the world and the media by watching perverted and evil shows,
series and films, and that as a consequence of watching this filth,
their shame and conscience have been completely smothered due to
their lust and sensuality. Only people who have had their conscience
seared with a hot iron could ever dare to kiss another human being in
a shameful and lascivious manner, or for the sake of venereal
pleasure, and this is much more true in the case of those who do this
evil deed in public and in front of other people, and by this act,
maliciously tempt other people to sins of impurity and sensual
thoughts and desires. People who get married as well as anyone else
who want to show affection towards someone close to them must instead
learn to kiss them in a pure way as brothers and sisters kiss each
other, or as modest married people in public kiss each other, for
this is the only kind of kiss that God allows.
Tertullian, Against
Marcion, Book I, Chapter 29, A.D 207: “For He [God]
bestowed His blessing on matrimony also, as on an honorable estate,
for the increase of the human race; as He did indeed on the whole of
His creation, for wholesome and good uses. Meats and drinks are not
on this account to be condemned, because, when served up with too
exquisite a daintiness, they conduce to gluttony; nor is raiment to
be blamed, because, when too costly adorned, it becomes inflated with
vanity and pride. So, on the same principle, the estate of matrimony
is not to be refused, because, when enjoyed without moderation, it is
fanned into a voluptuous flame. There is a great difference between a
cause and a fault, between a state and its excess. Consequently it is
not an institution of this nature that is to be blamed, but the
extravagant use of it; according to the judgment of its founder
Himself, who not only said, "Be fruitful, and multiply,"
[Genesis 1:28] but also, "You shall not commit adultery,"
and, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife;" and
who threatened with death the unchaste, sacrilegious, and monstrous
abomination both of adultery and unnatural sin with man and beast.”
St.
Thomas Aquinas condemns lustful kisses and touches for married and
unmarried people alike as mortal sins
Now
we shall look at what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about kisses and
touches.
St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art.
4:
“Whether
there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses?
“Objection
1: It would seem that there is no mortal sin in touches and
kisses. For the Apostle says (Eph. 5:3): "Fornication
and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named
among you, as becometh saints," then he adds: "Or
obscenity" (which a gloss refers to "kissing and
fondling"), "or foolish talking" (as "soft
speeches"), "or scurrility" (which "fools call
geniality---i.e. jocularity"), and afterwards he continues (Eph.
5:5): "For
know ye this and understand that no fornicator, or unclean, or
covetous person (which is the serving of idols), hath inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ and of God," thus making no further
mention of obscenity, as neither of foolish talking or scurrility.
Therefore these are not mortal sins.”
“[St.
Thomas Aquinas] Reply to Objection 1:
The Apostle makes no further mention of these three because they
[kisses and touches] are not sinful except as directed to those that
he had mentioned before [i.e.
fornicators, unclean and covetous people (married people can of
course also be unclean
and covetous
too as we have seen)].”
“Objection
2: Further, fornication
is stated to be a mortal sin as being
prejudicial to the good of the future child’s begetting and
upbringing. But these are not affected by kisses and touches or
blandishments. Therefore there is no mortal sin in these.”
“[St.
Thomas Aquinas] 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.”
Notice
that St. Thomas here said that kisses and touches was mortal sins in
the general sense if “they proceed from lust”, and that
he did not say that “it depends on whether they occur in
the context of marriage/fornication or not” or that “this
is what decides or determines whether it becomes sinful.” Thus,
it is totally clear from this definition of St. Thomas that he views
the lustful intention
when performing these acts as the source
of the mortal sin itself, and not simply because they occur in
context of marriage or not (as we shall also see further down).
That
is why St. Thomas even rejects in Q. 154, Art. 1 as
lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth”. St. Thomas Aquinas writes: “We
may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain
acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth.” (Summa Theologica, II-II,
Q. 154, Art. 1) And so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all
non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature.
“[St.
Thomas Aquinas general reply to all the objections:] On the
contrary, A lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a
kiss. But according to Mat. 5:28, "Whosoever shall look on a
woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in
his heart." MUCH MORE
THEREFORE ARE
LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE THINGS MORTAL
SINS.”
This means that St. Thomas views
lustful kisses “and other like things” as worse
sins than adultery or fornication! This is probably due to the fact
that St. Thomas views sexual sins that cannot serve for procreation
as worse sins than those that can.
“Further,
Cyprian says (Ad Pompon, de Virgin., Ep. lxii), "By their very
intercourse, their blandishments, their converse, their embraces,
those who are associated in a sleep that knows neither honor
nor shame, acknowledge their disgrace and crime." Therefore
by doing these things a man is guilty of a crime, that is, of
mortal sin.”
“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, Q. 74, A. 8],
that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act, but also to
the delectation [or pleasure] of a mortal sin. Wherefore
since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more
so the other kinds of lust [1] it follows that
in such like sins [that is, sins of lust] 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 pleasure [lust] 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.”
[1]. “and
much more so the other kinds of lust…”
i.e., lust committed both inside and outside of marriage. And by the
way, St. Thomas also views sexual sins committed within
a marriage as worse
sins than those
committed outside of marriage, as we shall see further on.
And
for those objecting that St. Thomas was referring only to the
unmarried people here since he mentioned the word “fornication”
in some instances (but not others), we will provide the following
quote by him refuting this argument:
St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica,
Supplement, Q. 64. Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “If the
husband
[refuses to pay the marital debt without a just cause] . . . then he
sins, and his wife’s
sin, should she
fall into FORNICATION
[adultery, impure thoughts or masturbation] on this account, is
somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do his best
that his wife may remain continent.”
Hence,
it is totally clear from above that when St. Thomas was mentioning
the word “fornication,” he was using it to refer to the
sins of the unmarried and married people alike. And we know that this
is the case, for when St. Thomas condemned lustful kisses and touches
above as mortal sins – in the Second Part of the Second Part,
Q. 154, Art. 4 – we know that he was referring to both,
since, as he said, all
fornicators, all
unclean people and all
covetous was included in this category of mortal sinners
(see objection 1 and reply to objection 1).
That
is why, again, St. Thomas Aquinas rejects as lascivious and unlawful
“acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth” (Summa Theologica, II-II,
Q. 154, Art. 1). And so, as should be obvious, it is clear that St. Thomas
taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful
and against nature.
The
main point we can gather from this explanation of St. Thomas that he
so eloquently gives to us is that kisses and touches for sensual
pleasure is completely unnecessary for procreation of children and
serves nothing but a shameful, selfish, sinful and condemned lust.
They are therefore mortal sins and are unreasonable and unnatural.
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)
Jean
Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of
Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in
order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed.
Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused
by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do
not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.
“… Is
it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who
maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do
them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully]
that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin.”
In conclusion: To be on
the safe side and to become perfect, spouses should never touch,
kiss or even see each other naked during intercourse. Kissing and
touching before intercourse are also particularly problematic as they
lead to intercourse that is not governed by a desire to procreate.
Spouses should also never walk around at home undressed or partially
dressed. Women especially should never walk in their underwear or
naked in the presence of their husband, as this behavior without a
doubt will incite his lust. This specific problem we have today of
people walking around naked or dressed like whores in public or at
home was typically unheard of before in society, as most men and
women in the past was much more well dressed and modest, even at
home. As an example demonstrating this fact, consider how women’s
underwear looked like just 200 years ago. Believe it or not, but
these underwear were in fact more modest than what many women
wear as skirt or dress in public today!
Athenagoras
the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “On behalf of those, then, to whom
we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations of
relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should
remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos again says to us, “If
any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he
sins];” adding, “Therefore the kiss, or rather the
salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there
be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from
eternal life.”” (A
Plea for the Christians,
Chapter XXXII.--Elevated Morality of the Christians.)
