Kiss & Tell
In the course of conversation last night, Paul (Navy Boy) sent me here.
"It's really old," he said, "you'll like it."
I'm not sure I liked it. It made me distinctly uncomfortable, and much of what he says would be violently disagreed with by friends and/or exes (i.e.: Jared).
First, he defines marriage.
Very Catholic. Given that, he later says,
Okay, well and good. I agree with what he says about surrender and sacrifice on behalf of the one we love, even if I don't always *feel* like love is a function of the free will. That love, of course, is properly defined as infatuation.
Then he is asked if kissing is a sin.
Well, that's no fun to give up. In fact, I have demonstrated myself profoundly bad at giving it up. One could even say that I have a desire to commit the aforementioned indulgence by kissing too much, too passionately... etc.
And so I send you back to his definition of love. "to say 'I am in love' should mean 'I am willing to surrender my will, to sacrifice my desires, to place duty and fidelity above all else, in behalf of one person whom I have found suitable for a successful marriage.'" (Emphasis mine.)
So how can I love a human being if I don't love my God enough to surrender my will and sacrifice my desires?
Just some food for thought. I forsee violent disagreement in the comments area. Have fun.
"It's really old," he said, "you'll like it."
I'm not sure I liked it. It made me distinctly uncomfortable, and much of what he says would be violently disagreed with by friends and/or exes (i.e.: Jared).
First, he defines marriage.
I might add that it also depends on what you mean by marriage, but we shall take for granted that you mean what the Lord meant, viz., an indissoluble sacramental partnership between a man and a woman who pledge themselves to help each other toward happiness on earth and in heaven, and to beget and rear children for the kingdom of God.
Very Catholic. Given that, he later says,
Love is a function of the free will, and it can last as long as the free will exercises itself according to the above definition. Therefore, to say "I am in love" should mean "I am willing to surrender my will, to sacrifice my desires, to place duty and fidelity above all else, in behalf of one person whom I have found suitable for a successful marriage.
Okay, well and good. I agree with what he says about surrender and sacrifice on behalf of the one we love, even if I don't always *feel* like love is a function of the free will. That love, of course, is properly defined as infatuation.
Then he is asked if kissing is a sin.
In answering it, we shall consider the moral angle first, and then add considerations of prudence and common sense. There are two different kinds of kissing that can be referred to in the question. The first is the ordinary kiss of greeting and farewell, the kiss that people are not ashamed to give in public or in the presence of others, the kind of kiss exchanged between a mother and son, brother and sister, relative and relative. It is a salutation, a symbol, a sign of love and respect for a person to whom one is bound by the more sacred ties of human relationship. Clearly this kind of kissing is not sinful, not sinful even between a boy and girl in love.
Usually when this much has been explained, young people answer rather scornfully: "Oh, we don't mean that kind of kissing." Or they will cry out with still greater scorn: "How can you expect us to kiss like a brother and sister if we are in love?" This is very revealing. It means that what such young people have in mind when they ask "Is kissing a sin?" is not the mere symbol or salutation of affection, but something inspired by and bound up in some way with passion. They are referring to close and protracted embraces; The kisses that gratify, in some way, the yearning for bodily union with another that can lawfully be fulfilled only in marriage. Sometimes they do not realize that this is the origin of their desire for protracted kissing experiences, but the fact remains that it is just that, and in many cases it leads them straight into the great sins that beforehand they would have said they abhorred. That is why such kissing, prolonged, passionate, exciting, is a sin in itself. It is a sin in so far as it springs from and leads to indulgence in sinful passion.
Well, that's no fun to give up. In fact, I have demonstrated myself profoundly bad at giving it up. One could even say that I have a desire to commit the aforementioned indulgence by kissing too much, too passionately... etc.
And so I send you back to his definition of love. "to say 'I am in love' should mean 'I am willing to surrender my will, to sacrifice my desires, to place duty and fidelity above all else, in behalf of one person whom I have found suitable for a successful marriage.'" (Emphasis mine.)
So how can I love a human being if I don't love my God enough to surrender my will and sacrifice my desires?
Just some food for thought. I forsee violent disagreement in the comments area. Have fun.
16 Comments:
I really don't think God's as fond of sending people to Hell as the advisor priest thinks he is.
By Maureen, at 3:06 PM
I don't think He wants to send anybody to hell, but that doesn't mean that we can just go about fulfilling our every desire.
By Alice Teresa, at 11:20 AM
Or, I should say, trying to fulfill our misguided desires.
By Alice Teresa, at 7:36 PM
Let's see here -- I don't think I disagree as violently as you might think. But let me work through this.
The main problem I have is with the paragraph you emphasize -- the one that says that to say that "I am in love" is to "...surrender my will, sacrifice my desires, to place duty ... above all else, in behalf of one person."
In my opinion, love (in the sense you are defining it, which is, essentially, marriage) is a commitment, not a duty or an obligation. The point about surrendering will is outmoded at best and frightening at worst -- marriage relationships (as well as all love relationships) are equal partnerships -- some sacrifice is important but free will is essential. Both partners have a responsibility for making the marriage work, but neither should "surrender their will".
For me, at least, the same thinking is true of faith as well. Now, far be it from me to try to remark on matters of faith to an evangelist such as yourself, but for me faith also is a commitment and not an obligation. God does not demand that we "surrender our will" to him -- rather, he prefers we make our own choices as (we hope) rational, moral, individuals. When we make mistakes, I believe that god hopes we learn from them and change our future behavior and is not the wrathful fire-and-brimstone sort of deity.
If the choice we make when we begin a love or begin a faith is to surrending our will to all future choices, directing all our behavior as we believe would best please our spouse/god, then we have no room for mistakes and no opportunity to learn more about ourselves and develop as individuals.
The temptation of a misplaced faith or a misplaced love (or, as Mr. Miller [Donald, not Dan] would have it, one's "determination to snare a husband [or wife]," is that it, according to Mr. Miller's reasoning, provides the admirer, or, by extension, adherent of a faith, an opportunity to sacrifice his or her free will and, instead, have his or her future choices be dictated by either the rules of the faith or the object of affection. This seems to me to be pretty dead-on, especially for people of our age who must contend with difficult choices as we undergo adolescence.
I have more to come -- I just think it has a word limit on this thing.
By Jared, at 2:40 PM
It's also important to note that this bit of doctrine was published in 1955 -- a mere seven years after the Kinsey report had shown the first bit of public light on sexual activities that had theretofore never been discussed openly.
Times (and attitudes towards heterosexual relationships) since 1955, which is probably the most significant flaw of the whole document. The author's stated desire to use phrases like "company-keeping" and even seemingly insignificant minutiae like hyphenating "boy-friend" are telling of if not this document's obsoleteness then at least its antiquity. I'm sure some might disagree, but I believe that organized religion, like love, must be adaptive to changes in public attitudes and all other circumstances over time. While this does not necessarily call for a "watering-down" of liturgical restrictions, Catholicism (and other religions) can still maintain its convictions and foundations while being less static and prescriptive. I'm sure most people would agree with me that it is frankly silly for Miller to expect young people who feel romantic attraction for each other to 2004 to kiss "as a brother and sister" -- i.e. on non-pink parts of the face -- but the expectation of abstinence of sexual intercourse until marriage is still acceptable. Of course, this begs the question that some will undoubtedly ask -- "what will happen in 50 years when sex has just as much meaning as a kiss?"
These "some" likely recommend that Catholic attitudes towards sex and romance remain static, or nearly static, and that we should promulgate Miller's views today just as much as in 1955 in order to save our society from its continued downward spiral into decadence. However, the failing of Catholicism (and several other organized religions) to allow acceptable outlets for passionate romantic feelings without any concept of sin or guilt attached is what has hampered its ability to both preach the core fundamental belief behind this debate (i.e. abstinence) and to connect with a younger audience. The problem with Miller's approach is that it is simply not reasonable in today's society, and a more open, accepting faith that operates without assigning sin left and right might do its own self some good.
By Jared, at 3:04 PM
To sum up:
Miller: The boy and girl who make [kissing] cheap will almost invariably cheapen even nobler and more important things.
Jared: It'd be better for everyone involved if the Catholc Church lost the "invariably".
By Jared, at 3:30 PM
Patrick here. I won’t post a very long comment for several reasons; one reason should be obvious, but another is that I’m on the road and don’t have the time or focus for a full ramble.
I would like to begin by pointing out that we are, in fact, discussing kissing in the abstract.
Anyhow, I was rather surprised at a distinction made by Jared in his comment about commitment versus obligation, in religion and relationships. I think that it’s correct to say that an ideal of “following the rules” is inadequate for either; however, I think that the image of Catholicism teaching a follow-the-rules theology is more of a straw man than many outside the Church know. The faith really is about a relationship with the Lord, and the actions ought to flow from love rather than calculation.
Using the analogy of relationship with God to romantic relationships, one can say that there are many actions that reflect true romantic love: surprises, inside jokes and stories, letters to one another, each insisting on the other having their way, signs of respect and signs of affection. One might even condense some of these into rules, as writers of etiquette have done many times over; traditions such as the man walking on the street-side of the sidewalk were originally spontaneous acts of care for the lady, later codified into standard manners.
But in a relationship, it’s not enough to act according to the “rules of love”; the actions ought to be the outpouring of love, wanting what’s best for the other. Still, the actions of such a love will conform to those standards and ideals, and so it is meaningful to hold up as an example and instruction all of those rules.
In the same way, I don’t see myself as following a code so much as discerning the demands of my loves, and acting accordingly. When I’m at my best, I am freely choosing to act from love: to do what is best for all around me, what is best for my family, for Alice, for my friends, and for the will of God. Of course, I’m rarely at my best and all who know me see my foolishness and selfishness from time to time.
If I discern well and truly, my actions will reflect a true moral system, but it’s not a matter of simply following a system: after all, the first and greatest command is to love God wholeheartedly, and the second is to love one’s neighbor as myself. Just as I ought to ultimately want what’s right and best for myself, I ought to pursue unselfishly what is right and best for those around me, as humbly and wisely as I can discern it.
And in case you’re wondering, this is indeed a Catholic understanding of ethics.
Whoa, I suppose I was wrong about this being a short comment. It might indeed be the start of a blog entry when I really do have time.
By Patrick, at 9:49 PM
Well said, Patrick.
By Jared, at 11:05 PM
Jared, in your first comment, you appear to have separated "commitment" and "obligation" into two different categories- defining "obligation" as a rule that one follows, blindly, and "commitment" as acting from one's free will. The author does not deny the role of free will in the love of a married couple (or, by extension, in faith... not really that great a stretch. Read Story of a Soul.).
Remember, though, that in the Catholic faith, both Marriage and Baptism/Confirmation are permanent. Baptism and Confirmation leave an "indelible mark" on the soul, along with Holy Orders. Marriage can be recieved more than once, but as long as both members are alive, it is indissoluble.
Now, a married couple that have made this commitment, their commitment comes with several obligations. Not sleeping with other people, for example, would be a pretty obvious obligation in marriage. People don't always follow it, and they aren't supposed to follow it blindly, but there it is as a socially and morally defined obligation to not sleep with other people.
I have made a commitment to be a Catholic. I am now obligated to attend Mass on Sundays. I went to mass daily and on Sundays (sometimes twice, because I didn't like missing the Liturgy of the Eucharist during my RCIA days) even before I was baptized, and obligated to attend, because I wanted to be there, even if I couldn't recieve. I have made a commitment, which involves fulfilling specific obligations, and my fulfillment of those obligations comes out of love and my own free will. It can be blind obedience, but it oughtn't be.
A married couple just isn't going to be lovesick and infatuated every single day. They'll argue, they'll be bored, they'll be tired, but as Patrick has said, love is wanting what is best for the other. They may not really want what is best for the other, they may be too tired, too angry, and too frustrated. Yet, as a married couple, they have made a commitment and are obligated by that commitment, and must do their tired, cranky best to want what is best for the other. This is where love, as a choice and obligation, is tested in a marriage, and far too often these days, it fails.
By Alice Teresa, at 1:06 AM
Now, the Christian ideal of "surrendering the will," that is, obedience within a marriage should follow from the above. The key to a Catholic marriage is that the married couple makes Christ present to one another. Throughout the Old Testament, God is the Bridegroom, and Israel his Bride, and in the New Testament, we see the paradigm once again.
"Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body...Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word...So husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." - Ephesians 5:21-28
Oh, I wish I had a picture of me in my veil! I was such a cute little Mennonite, back when I read these passages entirely literally. Many liberal Protestants and other non-Catholics have trouble understandinng what it means, because they don't understand how Christ loves his bride, the Church. He loves her, and each of her individual members, so much that he died the most ignominious death so that she might spend all eternity with him. That's a hard model to follow, certainly.
I'm not sure that I have anything else to say about obedience, except reminding you that for love-and a marriage- to survive, one has to be willing to submit what you may want in order to do what is best for the other. Patrick repeats this like some sort of mantra, and I have to agree with him. It is a beautiful model for marriage, but not really what I meant to talk about.
The original post is a very personal post. Warning: R-rated paragraph follows.
One can, of course, kiss with love free from lust. But to kiss driven by lust, to kiss in a way that fuels such desires, is a sin. And I am coming from a High School world where, just as you say, sex didn't mean that much more than a kiss. I was lied to for years about sexual morality, about sexual safety (saying that you can't get STDs/diseases from oral sex, etc.), by people I trusted. My acting mentor, my biology teacher-- my therapist told me that if my boyfriend's demands for oral sex made me uncomfortable, I should practice first with an ice cream cone! (I'm sorry, I know that was too much information, but I had a point to make.) For me, I need to be very, very, careful to keep myself from falling into the same sorts of desire-driven sins that marked my life in High School. I may even need to give up kissing for a time.
And what I need to learn is that, while it may be hard to give up, I have to do it to live the Catholic life that I want to live. Sin separates us from God, and we are taught that to be truly contrite, we must regret it, not becase of the pains of death or the fear of hell, but because we have offended our Lord. I can say that I love God, but if I persist in persuing occasions of sin, how can I be telling the truth? And how can I love another human being enough to marry them, to be self-sacrificing, if I can't sacrifice something for the sake of my soul?
By Alice Teresa, at 1:37 AM
In other news, it's 11:39 and I'm having hot dog buns for dinner, and I will offer a real, live, prize (well, not live, but it is real) to the person who can figure out the following biblical reference:
"She sayeth to the Atkins, ha, ha!"
By Alice Teresa, at 1:39 AM
I guess maybe my point wasn't all that entirely clear.
I agree with most of what Alice has to say in the PG sections of her posts (I mean, I have to, really, given that I do not understand all the ins and outs of Catholicism as well as she).
One slight quibble I have is with the Ephesians passage Alice chooses to quote. The problem with Miller's argument is exemplified again by the passage, which states that "wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." As if that weren't enough, the passage describes women as something naturally unclean -- men purify women by marriage as Christ purified/sanctified the Church through his sacrifice. The word "cleansing" is actually used.
In today's world, as Patrick eloquently puts it, marriage requires a double sacrifice -- or, rather, a double subordination -- a willingness to put the other partner first. But it is the theme of the impurity or fallibility of women (e.g. Eve taking the forbidden fruit) that somewhat upsets me about the selected passage and what also irritates me about the R-rated bit.
Alice says she thinks that all expression of sexual thoughts is sinful. I guess she also thinks that all sexual thoughts are sinful. But it is here that the Catholic Church fails.
We cannot be held responsible for impure thoughts. Even the saints, I'm sure, had impure thoughts at one time or another in their lives. But the point is not whether or not they felt shame or guilt at having these thoughts -- really, the shame or guilt the Catholic Church assigns as "sin" for impure thoughts is intended as a deterrent against sinful action (i.e. sex). Kissing is not impure -- it gives us a safe, healthy way to express attraction and desire.
Is sexual attraction wrong within the grounds of marriage? I assume it is not, if it is, I have another matter on my hands entirely. The Catholic Church outlaws entirely every acceptable means of displaying affection (an embrace that lasts longer than three seconds is a sin? What about holding hands?). If we attempt to heed every of Miller's warnings and do exactly as he says, we can only serve to repress our passions to a certain breaking point. In other words, without any acceptable avenues for romantic affection to be expressed, passions have been shown to boil over far beyond one's desired breakwalls.
By Jared, at 11:28 AM
The biblical "quibble," Jared, that you run into stems from a misunderstanding of how Catholics interperet the epistles of Paul. St. Paul is hard to understand- he's not as confusing as Kant, but I just finished reading Romans and came out of it with my head spinning, wondering how anyone (read: believers in Sola Fide) could trust it for their eternal salvation. Thus, given that "A text without context is a pretext for a prooftext," here is a bit more that Paul has to say about married life, from 1 Corinthinans.
"The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife." (1 Cor. 7:3-4)
And, in response to the idea of "purification," or aiding one another to happiness in heaven, he says, "For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother." (1 Cor. 7:14)
The point is that you can't take any one passage from the epistles (or any of the bible) and use it as an example of Catholic anti-feminism. It all must go together, the Song of Solomon, Ephesians and Corinthians, and be read in the light of sacred tradition. The Bible comes from the Early Church, not the Church from the Bible. While the author of the Liguorian article must have had such passages in mind as he wrote about married love, he makes no references to a wife submitting to her husband- only that the members of a couple must submit to one another. Because I am a woman, you may have assumed that he meant the submission of the wife, but he doesn't say that, and what he does say is in keeping with the Catholic interpretation of the above passages, which you claim to agree with. I didn't say anything about female submission in the R-rated part of the post, and this is the last that I am going to discuss it, because you are arguing against something that the church doesn't teach.
A certain beloved Calcutta Beati once said that "A day without temptation is a day wasted," and I, for one, am inclined to agree with her. Temptations are not sins, but acting on them is a sin. I don't believe that I said anything to the effect that "all sexual thoughts are sinful," and if you think that I did, I must have been unclear. So long as you aren't describing sexual thoughts that are indulged and lead to other sexual sins, we are in agreement.
Now, as for the Church's opinion within marriage, I direct you to another Liguori publication, How to Survive Being Married to a Catholic, where they quote Vatican II. Unfortunately, I don't know which document it is in. "Married love is uniquely expressed and perfected in the exercise of the acts proper to marriage. Hence the acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honourable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." This translates to "Sex within marriage is a good thing."
Now, the Catholic Church does not "outlaw entirely every acceptable means of displaying affection." It demands that we act in chastity and respect towards those we are in relationships with, and that we avoid those stumbling blocks that will lead us to sin. (1 Cor. 8:8-13) In my situation, kissing (or kissing as I know it) may very well be the stumbling block that the Liguorian article describes.
As for repression, I direct you to C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Book Three, Chapter Five. (I wish I could quote the entire chapter.)
"Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about 'repressions'. It teaches us that 'repressed' sex is dangerous. But 'repressed' is here a technical term: it does not mean 'supressed' in the sense of 'denied' or 'resisted'. A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form. Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all. When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else...Virtue--even attempted virtue--brings light; indulgence brings fog."
By Alice Teresa, at 1:52 PM
Okay, I do have a little more time now.
First off, it ought to be made clear that the article is not Catholic doctrine, but the perspective of a particular Catholic on what advice ought to be given to young girls embarking on dating. This does not preclude the truth of its conclusions, but it is a mistake to take the document as “the Catholic teaching on dating”. It’s not as if there’s a room in the Vatican where clerics get together and decide embraces should last for three seconds or less.
What we are bound to do is to act according to love, love which wants what is best for the other (not always what would please the other at the moment; see the case of a wife confronting a husband about drinking because she loves him). This includes saving much sexual expression for marriage, as going too far ultimately hurts yourself and the one you love. It does not mean repressing desire, but it does indeed mean fighting against lust.
For lust is distinct from sexual desire, as the Church uses the terms. The latter is the desire for union with one person, a self-giving romantic love, and it expresses itself in all the little details of a relationship, though its ultimate fulfillment is the sexual act. This desire, when pure, wants to be with that other forever in marriage; it forsakes all others in the process. The desire surely includes the physical expressions of love, but wants them only if integrated into a complete love for the other.
Lust, however, is a disproportionate desire for a specific sort of physical pleasure- regardless of how it is to be found. One motivated primarily by lust would ditch their current object of affection if another came along who offered greater pleasure. Lust cares nothing about the other (and sometimes doesn’t even require another person), just about getting that pleasure. Thus lust is possible- and deadly- even within marriage, as in the case of a brutal husband who demands sex every night.
I should make clear that lust and desire both exist to varying degrees in a given relationship; it would be as unusual to find a relationship based solely on lust as one that avoids it entirely. But the latter is the ideal.
Thus we have to discern what expressions of affection are proper to a relationship before marriage. I think that Miller is too stringent on this in general: to make a blanket assertion that kissing romantically is a sin is in my opinion not true. But there are some actions short of intercourse which one can say are too far in every case outside of marriage. And for a particular couple, something even short of those actions may be too much because of young age, or prior habits, or one’s temperament. Just because X is not always and everywhere wrong doesn’t preclude X being perhaps wrong here and now.
And as for the repression argument, it seems to me quite easily demonstrated that improper “outlets for sexual desire” have the reverse effect they intend: a couple who goes too far will increase, not relieve, their lust for the next time they see each other. I have yet to see a real-life example of a romantic couple driven to disastrous actions because their relationship is too Platonic; I have seen several cases of “slightly too far” becoming “way too far”.
I have no quarrel with long embraces or with romantic kissing, in general. I do think Miller improperly implies that his conclusions are universal and infallible. But in the particular case of Alice and I, there are other factors to consider, and I want first and foremost what is best for us. If that is to forgo much kissing for the time being, that’s a small sacrifice to make for a girl I love so dearly.
By Patrick, at 3:15 PM
Oh, Alice, I do know exactly what you mean, but the "it" in this sentence:
wondering how anyone (read: believers in Sola Fide) could trust it for their eternal salvation.I assume refers to "one's own ability to understand Scripture" and not to Scripture itself.
Ambiguity can kill ecumenicism (and who should know that better than me?)
By Patrick, at 3:20 PM
Right. It= one's personal ability to understand the Letter to the Romans.
Or inability to understand, as the case may be (I may find Paul less confusing than my ol' friend Immanuel, but not by that much).
Isn't anyone going to take up my biblical quiz? I'll give you a hint: it's in the Old Testament.
By Alice Teresa, at 3:31 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home