Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.

To submit a question, contact the author.

1. What determines the morality of an act?

2. What determines the morality of a sexual act?
3. Which types of sexual acts are moral between a husband and wife?
4. Which types of acts are moral for a husband and wife to use as foreplay?
5. Is the missionary position the only moral sexual position?
6. If the husband or wife is not fertile, due to injury, illness, or old age, is the act of natural marital relations st
moral?
7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or during her period?
8. Are divorced Catholics permitted to receive holy Communion?
9. Why is the use of contraception always gravely immoral?
10. May a married couple use barrier contraceptives to prevent disease transmission?
11. May a married woman use contraceptives for a medical purpose?
12. Must a spouse refrain from sexual relations with a contracepting spouse?
13. How is natural family planning (NFP) different from artificial birth control (ABC)?
14. Is passionate kissing only moral within marriage?
For an in-depth explanation of marital sexual ethics as well as the basic principles
of Catholic moral theology, see my book: The Catechism of Catholic Ethics.

1. What determines the morality of an act?

In moral theology, an act is the knowing choice of a human person. Each knowing choice is an ac
each act is subject to the eternal moral law. Some acts are moral, and other acts are immoral. An
immoral act is a sinful act. Sin is a knowingly chosen immoral act.
The morality of any act is based on three fonts (or sources):
(1) the intention or purpose for which the act is done,
(2) the inherent moral meaning of the act as determined by its moral object,
(3) the circumstances of the act, especially the consequences.

To be moral, each and every act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be go
moral object must be good, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences. If a
one font is bad, the act is immoral. If an act is immoral due to a bad intention, the same type of ac
be moral with a good intention. If an act is immoral due to the circumstances, the same type of ac
be moral in different circumstances.

But when an act has an evil moral object, the act is inherently immoral, in other words, the act is e

and of itself, apart from intention and circumstances. Every intrinsically evil act has an inherent m
meaning (the moral species) which is contrary to the moral law of God. Intrinsically evil acts are
justified by intention or circumstances because the moral species (the type of act in terms of mora
is inherently unjust.

Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or
of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room
any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once t
moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morall
good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Ver
Splendor, n. 67).

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and are never justified by intention, or by circumstance
by other knowingly chosen acts.
[Return to List of Questions]
2. What determines the morality of a sexual act?
A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty.

Sexual acts are not exempt from the moral law. To be moral, each and every knowingly chosen se
act must have three good fonts of morality. The intention must be good, the moral object must be
and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences.

In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and
procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive,
procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes t
sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

The natural sexual act is genital-to-genital intercourse between a man and a woman. This act is un
and procreative. Natural sexual intercourse between a husband and wife is called natural marital
relations. Only natural marital relations is martial and unitive and procreative.

The use of contraception deprives the act of natural intercourse of the procreative meaning, causin
sexual act to be non-procreative. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely
immoral because it deprives sexual relations of its procreative meaning, which is required by God
sexual acts to be moral. Therefore, natural marital relations must always be open to life (not
contracepted).

A non-marital sexual act is any type of sexual act outside of marriage. Acts of adultery, pre-marita
and masturbation are non-marital. All non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gra
immoral because these acts lack the marital meaning, which is required by God for sexual acts to
moral.

An unnatural sexual act is any type of sexual act that is not unitive and procreative. Examples of
unnatural sexual acts include oral sexual acts, anal sexual acts, and manipulative sexual acts (i.e.
masturbation of self or of another). All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always grav
immoral because these acts lack the unitive and procreative meanings, which are required by God
sexual acts to be moral. These acts are not procreative because they are not the type of act that is
inherently directed at procreation. These acts are not truly unitive, even if there is a certain mere
physical union of body parts, because this is not the type of sexual union intended by God for hum
persons. Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage because the moral
requires each and every sexual act to be not only marital, but also unitive and procreative.

To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. All non-marit
sexual acts, all non-unitive sexual acts, and all non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil an
always gravely immoral. All such acts have an evil moral object, and so they are not justified by
intention, or by circumstances, or by other acts.
[Return to List of Questions]
3. Which types of sexual acts are moral between a husband and wife?

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life. The Magisterium of the Catholi
Church teaches that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative.

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the n
law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital actmust of
necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine,
expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established
God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the
procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

"The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in
closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life -- and this as a result of laws w
into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities,the unitive an
procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its
ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called." (Humanae Vitae,
12).

Only natural marital relations (natural genital-to-genital intercourse) open to life has all three mea
marital, unitive, and procreative. If a husband or wife are infertile, due to old age, or injury, or illn
the natural marital act remains moral because it is still the type of act which is inherently directed
toward procreation (even if procreation is not attained). The essential moral nature of any act is
determined by its inherent ordering toward its moral object, not by the attainment of the moral ob
[Return to List of Questions]
4. Which types of acts are moral for a husband and wife to use as foreplay?

Acts used for the purpose of foreplay are not exempt from the moral law. Some acts of foreplay a
moral, and other acts of foreplay are immoral. Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital
relations. But the end does not justify the means. Therefore, the acts used as foreplay are not justi
merely by being a type of foreplay.

A knowingly chosen act is moral if it has three good fonts of morality (intention, moral object,
circumstances). A knowingly chosen act is immoral if it has one or more bad fonts of morality. In
to be moral, each act of foreplay must have three good fonts of morality. (A font of morality is a s
or basis for morality.)

The intention to use an act as a type of foreplay, i.e. in order to prepare for natural marital relation
not sufficient to make the act moral. The circumstance that an act occurs in connection with (in th
context of) natural marital relations is not sufficient to make the act moral. In order to be moral, e
and every knowingly chosen act must have a good intention, and a good moral object, and the goo
consequences must outweigh any bad consequences in the circumstances. The marital bedroom is
exempt from the moral law.

All three fonts of morality must be good for any act to be moral. The context of an act (its
circumstances) and the intention of the person who acts are not sufficient to cause the act to be mo

"It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that
inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) whic
supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances a
intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, mur
and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it." (Catechism of the Catholic Ch
n. 1756).

The object (or moral object) of an act is the end in terms of morality toward which the act is inher
directed. When the moral object is evil, the act is in and of itself immoral; it is an intrinsically evi

All intrinsically evil acts are inherently ordered toward an evil moral object. Intrinsically evil acts
never justified by intention or by circumstances because the very nature of the act is contrary to th
Law of God (the moral law).

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsi
evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Spl
n. 81).

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act w
is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62).

Unnatural sexual acts (oral sex, anal sex, and manipulative sex, i.e. masturbation of self or of ano
are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because these acts are not unitive and procreativ
deprivation of the marital or unitive or procreative meaning from any sexual act causes the moral
to be evil, and the act itself to be inherently immoral. In order to have a good moral object, each a
every sexual act must be not only marital, but also unitive, and procreative. Any sexual act that is
marital, or non-unitive, or non-procreative is an intrinsically evil act.

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the n
law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital actmust of
necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine,
expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established
God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the
procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-

Unnatural sexual acts are never justified by the intention (or purpose) to use these acts as a type o
foreplay, nor by the circumstance that these acts occur in the context of natural marital relations. A
unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral due to the deprivation of th
unitive and procreative meanings from the moral object.

Each knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts in order to be moral. When an act is intrin
evil, it has an evil moral object, and therefore a bad font of morality. One bad font is sufficient to
an act to be a sin. Good intentions and dire circumstances can never justify an act that is intrinsica
evil.

Furthermore, each act must stand on its own as to its morality. The three fonts which apply to any
are those which spring up from that same act. One act cannot borrow the fonts of morality from a
act. An intrinsically evil act is never justified by being done before, during, or after another act be
intrinsically evil acts are inherently immoral. Therefore, unnatural sexual acts are never justified b

being done before, during, or after another act, even the good act of natural marital relations.

Unnatural sexual acts which lack climax are sometimes called 'stimulation' (oral stimulation, anal
stimulation, manual stimulation). But the lack of sexual climax does not change the moral object
evil to good. These sexual acts remain deprived of the unitive and procreative meanings, and there
they remain intrinsically evil, regardless of intention or circumstance. Other acts of foreplay, thos
which are not unnatural sexual acts, generally do not have an evil moral object and so they are no
intrinsically evil.
Is all touching of the genitals prohibited to spouses?

No. However, touching the genitals of yourself, or of your spouse, in the same or similar manner
would be done in masturbation (i.e. manipulative sexual acts) is immoral. Any type of masturbato
touching is immoral (regardless of whether or when sexual climax occurs) because it is a sexual a
is non-unitive and non-procreative.

Any claim about the morality of an act which "dissociates the moral act from the bodily dimensio
its exercise is contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis
Splendor, n. 49.) In other words, the concrete act (the type of behavior) cannot be separated from
inherent moral meaning. An intrinsically evil act cannot become moral merely because the will di
the act toward a particular purpose. Certain kinds of acts are inherently immoral by the very natur
the act. And so, masturbatory touching of yourself or of your spouse does not become moral by be
done within marriage, nor by being done to prepare for the marital act. The bodily act itself canno
dissociated from its inherent moral meaning. So when an act, such as masturbation, is intrinsically
it can never become moral, not with any intention, not in any circumstances, not within marriage,
association with the marital sexual act.
Which acts of foreplay are moral?

Any act is moral if the intention and the moral object are both good, and if the good consequences
the act outweigh any bad consequences. If the intention and consequences are good, then the mor
of an act of foreplay will depend on the moral object. Any sexual act which is non-marital, or non
unitive, or non-procreative is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even if used for the p
of foreplay, due to the deprivation in the moral object of the marital or unitive or procreative mean
However, acts such as a husband kissing and caressing his wife's breasts, or a wife kissing and
embracing her husband passionately, are not sexual acts per se, and so these acts are generally mo
and do not need to be unitive and procreative.

In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive and procreative. Non-unitive or no
procreative sexual acts (i.e. unnatural sexual acts) are intrinsically evil, and do not become moral

being used as a type of foreplay, nor by occurring before, during, or after an act of natural marital
relations.
[Return to List of Questions]
5. Is the missionary position the only moral sexual position?

No. Any sexual position of natural genital-to-genital intercourse between a husband and wife ther
retains the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings, and so would have a good moral object. Bu
moral, each and every knowingly chosen act, in addition to having a good moral object, must also
good intention, and the good consequences must outweigh any bad consequences.
[Return to List of Questions]
6. If the husband or wife is not fertile, due to injury, illness, or old age, is the act of natural
marital relations still moral?

Yes, natural intercourse is still moral, even if the husband or wife is not fertile due to injury, illnes
old age.

Pope Paul VI: "The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united
one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, 'noble and
worthy.' It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their
it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the u
of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is n
result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the
incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the
inherent operation of these laws." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11.)

In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. This i
threefold object of every moral sexual act. This natural sexual act is procreative precisely because
inherently directed toward procreation. In other words, it is the type of act that is intrinsically orde
toward the good end of creating new life. But even when this act does not or cannot achieve this g
end (its moral object), the act remains inherently ordered toward that same end, and so it retains th
good, the procreative meaning, in its moral object. An act does not have to achieve its moral objec
be inherently ordered toward its moral object.
[Return to List of Questions]

7. May a married couple engage in natural intercourse during the wife's pregnancy, or durin
period?
Yes, natural intercourse is permitted between a husband and wife during those times.

Although the natural marital act does not result in a new conception during pregnancy, the act itse
still inherently directed toward procreation. Natural intercourse is the type of sexual act that is
inherently ordered toward the procreative meaning, as well as toward the marital and unitive mea
And so the marital act remains moral even when conception cannot occur due to pregnancy.

There are two common reasons that Catholics ask if marital relations is moral during the wife's pe
First, some ask because St. Thomas Aquinas wrote that marital relations is not moral during
menstruation. However, his opinion was based on a misunderstanding about reproductive biology
that he thought harm would result to the offspring. Given the medical knowledge that no such har
results to the offspring from marital relations during menstruation, his opinion on this point is in e

Second, some ask because they mistakenly think that conception cannot occur as a result of sexua
relations during menstruation, and they mistakenly think that marital relations is not moral if
procreation cannot possibly result. But as long as the sexual act is the type of act inherently direct
procreation, i.e. natural genital-to-genital intercourse, the act retains the procreative meaning inten
by God for marital relations. For it is the inherent ordering of an act toward its moral object, not t
attainment of the moral object, that causes an act to be either good, or intrinsically evil.

Even when natural intercourse is unable to attain procreation, it remains ordered toward procreati
and so it retains its proper procreative meaning. Natural marital relations is moral, even when the
husband and wife are unable to conceive, because the essential moral nature of the act remains
inherently ordered toward the threefold good intended by God for sexual relations: the marital, un
and procreative meanings.
[Return to List of Questions]
8. Are divorced Catholics permitted to receive holy Communion?

A divorced Catholic who is not remarried can usually receive holy Communion. Divorce is not
intrinsically evil, and so it is not necessarily a sin. But divorce can sometimes be a serious sin,
depending on the intention and the circumstances. A divorced Catholic should consult with his pa
his confessor about whether or not he has sinned by getting a divorce.

Divorced and remarried Catholics are not allowed to receive Communion because they are having

sexual relations with a person to whom they are not married in the eyes of God and the Church. If
prior marriage was the true Sacrament of Marriage, then the divorce cannot break the bond of the
Sacrament. The couple remains married to each other in the eyes of God and the Church. So when
person remarries, he or she is having sexual relations outside of a valid marriage.

Divorced and remarried Catholics can sometimes obtain an annulment, if the previous marriage w
for some reason, not the true Sacrament. Another option is for them to cease from sexual relations
stay together for the sake of the children. A third option is for them to separate. After any of these
options, with confession and permission from the Church, they may resume receiving holy
Communion.
[Return to List of Questions]
9. Why is the use of contraception always gravely immoral?

Contraception deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning, thereby causing the contracepted
sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. When a man and woman choose to
deprive the sexual act of its procreative meaning, they are choosing to reject one of the inherent
meanings of sexuality in the plan of God for human nature. This rejection is gravely immoral bec
"the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation o
order is objectively serious." (Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the n
law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of
necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-

The moral object of an act of natural marital relations is threefold: marital, unitive, procreative. T
deprivation of any one or more of these three meanings from a sexual act causes the moral object
evil, and the act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Premarital sex is intrinsically
because it is non-marital. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil because they are non-unitive
non-procreative. Contracepted acts of natural intercourse are intrinsically evil because they are no
procreative.

Pope Pius XI: "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically
against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjuga
is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberate
frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful a
intrinsically vicious." (Casti Connubii, n. 54.)

Contraception is intrinsically against the design for human nature chosen by God, whereby sexual

relations is ordered toward procreation, through the union of man and woman in marriage. The
deliberate deprivation of the procreative meaning from sexual relations is contrary to natural law,
contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, and intrinsically immoral. (The phrase
'intrinsically vicious' is a translation of the Latin text 'intrinsece inhonestum,' which is perhaps bet
translated as 'intrinsically immoral'.)

Pope John Paul II: "When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two mea
that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their s
communion, they act as arbiters of the divine plan and they manipulate and degrade human sexua
and with it themselves and their married partner -- by altering its value of total self-giving. Thus t
innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, thr
contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally
other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the in
truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality." (Familiaris Consort
32.)

The two meanings inscribed by God in the being of man and woman, for use only within marriage
the unitive and procreative meanings. In order to be moral, each and every marital sexual act mus
unitive and procreative. The use of contraception separates the unitive and procreative meanings,
depriving the sexual act of a good intended by God in His divine plan. The use of contraception c
the sexual act to life, and is therefore immoral.

Pope John Paul II, writing about Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae: "And he concluded by
emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral 'every action which, either in
anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural
consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.' "
(Familiaris Consortio, n. 32, quoting Humanae Vitae, n. 14.)

All contraceptive acts deliberately render the use of the sexual faculty non-procreative. Contracep
acts done "in anticipation of the conjugal act" would include taking a contraceptive pill or applyin
contraceptive barrier before sexual relations. Contraceptive acts done in the "accomplishment" of
sexual act would include the withdrawal method of contraception, and any inherently non-procrea
sexual act (unnatural sexual acts). Contraceptive acts done "in the development of its [the conjuga
act's] natural consequences" would include methods that interfere with conception after intercours
such as spermicides and pills that prevent ovulation.

Since the use of contraception is intrinsically evil, no intention and no circumstance can justify its
Intrinsically evil are always immoral, even with good intentions, even in dire circumstances (Veri
Splendor, n. 81). The use of contraception, even by married persons, is always gravely immoral.

Pope Paul VI: "From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of
transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On th
contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. T
very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Churc
spells it out." (Humanae Vitae, n. 10.)
The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life. The use of contraception is an
objective mortal sin because it closes the sexual act to life. The use of contraception with full
knowledge that the act is gravely immoral, and with full deliberation, is an actual mortal sin.
[Return to List of Questions]
10. May a married couple use barrier contraceptives to prevent disease transmission?

No. The use of contraception deprives the sexual act of the procreative meaning and is therefore
intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. When an act is intrinsically evil, neither a good inte
nor dire circumstances, can cause the act to become moral.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify
recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (CCC
2399)

The end does not justify the means. And so the intended end of preventing disease transmission d
not justify the use of an intrinsically evil means, contraception. Acts which are not intrinsically ev
be moral, depending on intention and circumstances. But acts which are intrinsically evil are alwa
immoral, regardless of intention and circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: "But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or
of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room
any morally acceptable way, for the 'creativity' of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once th
moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morall
good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids." (Ver
Splendor, n. 67.)

The moral species is the type of act in terms of morality; it is the essential nature of the act accord
the eternal moral law of God. Contraception is always gravely illicit because it is a type of act tha
inherently contrary to the law of God on human sexuality. The deprivation of the procreative mea
causes the moral object of contracepted sexual acts to be evil, and the act of using contraception t
in and of itself, gravely illicit. Even good intentions and dire circumstances cannot cause an inher
illicit act to become moral or justifiable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human ac
considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressu
duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves,
independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object;
as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from
(CCC, n. 1756.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act w
is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)
[Return to List of Questions]
11. May a married woman use contraceptives for a medical purpose?
There are three fonts (or sources) of morality.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The morality of human acts depends on: the object chosen; th
in view or the intention; the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the
circumstances make up the 'sources,' or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts." (CC
1750.)

Compendium of the Catechism: "The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the objec
chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose fo
which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequenc
(Compendium of the CCC, n. 367.)

USCCB Catechism: "Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), t
subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in wh
we perform the act.... All three aspects must be good -- the objective act, the subjective intention,
the circumstances -- in order to have a morally good act." (United States Catholic Catechism for A
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, p. 311-312.)
The three fonts of morality can be summarized as follows:
[1] the intention or purpose of the person who chooses the act
[2] the moral object, which determines the intrinsic moral meaning of the act
[3] the circumstances, especially the consequences, of the chosen act

When the moral object is evil, the act is intrinsically evil and always immoral. A good intention an
good consequences cannot change the moral object of the act from evil to good. All three fonts m
good for the knowingly chosen act to be moral. Whenever any one or more fonts is bad, the act is
immoral (sinful). An act with an evil moral object does not become moral by being done with a go
intention (or purpose), or in difficult circumstances.

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsi
evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Spl
n. 81.)

A medical purpose (first font) cannot transform the moral object (second font) of the act of using
contraception from an evil to good. The use of contraception deprives the sexual act of its procrea
meaning, making the moral object and the intrinsic moral meaning of the act evil. When the act of
contraception is done for a good purpose (or intention), the moral object of the act remains evil.
Intentions and circumstances cannot change the moral object. The use of contraception is intrinsic
evil and always gravely immoral, even when used for a medical purpose, or in dire circumstances
A good end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

[Romans]
{3:8} And should we not do evil, so that good may result? For so we have been slandered, and so
have claimed we said; their condemnation is just.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "It is never permitted to do something which is
intrinsically illicit, not even in view of a good result: the end does not justify the means." (Dignita
Personae, n. 21.)

Pope John Paul II: "the end never justifies the means." (Message for the Celebration of the Wor
Day of Peace, 1 January 2004, n. 8.)
Pontifical Council for the Family: "one cannot do evil for a good end. The end does not justify
means." (Cardinal Alfonso Lpez Trujillo, Pontifical Council for the Family, 3. c.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: " 'An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good inte
(cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means." (CCC, n. 1759; inne
quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, On the Ten Commandments.)

The use of an intrinsically evil means is never justified by a good purpose (i.e. a good intention).
use of contraception is intrinsically evil because it deprives the sexual act of its procreative meani
medical purpose (the intended end) can never justify the use of an intrinsically evil means to achie

that end.

Both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II taught that the use of contraception is intrinsically evil a
always gravely immoral, "whether as an end or as a means." (Familiaris Consortio, n. 32, quoting
Humanae Vitae, n. 14.)

A contraceptive act is an end when the purpose (the intention or intended end) is to prevent conce
But even if the contraceptive is used as a means to another end, such as when chemical contracep
are used to treat a medical problem, or when a barrier method is used to prevent disease transmiss
the use of contraception remains intrinsically evil. The intended end is in the first font; the effects
(consequences) are in the third font. But the act of using contraception remains inherently directed
evil moral object: the deprivation of the procreative meaning from a sexual act. A good intended e
and good anticipated consequences cannot change the inherent moral meaning of the act itself.
Contraceptive acts are inherently immoral.

Can an unmarried woman, who is not sexually active, use the contraceptive pill for a medica
purpose?

Yes. When the contraceptive pill (the birth control pill) is taken by a woman who is not sexually a
the pill does not deprive sexual acts of the procreative meaning, because there are no sexual acts.
Therefore, the moral object is not evil, and the act is not intrinsically evil. When an act is not
intrinsically evil, the morality of the act then depends on the other two fonts of morality, intention
circumstances. So if the intention is good, and if the good consequences of taking the pill outweig
bad consequences, then the act is moral.

Can a married woman use the contraceptive pill for a medical purpose, while refraining ent
from sexual relations?

Yes. But when a woman is married, she must have a grave reason to refrain from marital relations
her husband for an extended period of time. The husband and wife have a moral obligation (called
marriage debt) to have natural marital relations with each other.

[1 Corinthians]
{7:3} A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife, and a wife should also act similarly towa
husband.
{7:4} It is not the wife, but the husband, who has power over her body. But, similarly also, it is no
husband, but the wife, who has power over his body.
{7:5} So, do not fail in your obligations to one another, except perhaps by consent, for a limited t
so that you may empty yourselves for prayer. And then, return together again, lest Satan tempt yo
means of your abstinence.

Only for a grave reason could a married woman deny her husband marital relations for an extende
time.

If a wife has a serious medical problem, which can only be effectively treated with the contracept
pill, then she might take the contraceptive pill while refraining from marital relations with her hus
As long as she is not sexually active while taking the pill, the sexual act is not deprived of the
procreative meaning, and so she avoids committing an intrinsically evil act.

Can a married woman use the contraceptive pill for a medical purpose, and also use natural
family planning (NFP) so that she may continue to have sexual relations with her husband?

No. Natural family planning is moral because it does not deprive sexual acts of the procreative
meaning. NFP allows natural marital relations to retain the unitive, procreative, and marital meani
the moral object. However, the use of the contraceptive pill does deprive sexual acts of the procre
meaning. And the use of NFP, while also using a contraceptive, does not remedy that deprivation.
other words, if you try to combine a contraceptive with natural family planning, the sexual acts re
deprived of the procreative meaning by the contraceptive, and so the use of the contraception rem
intrinsically evil.

NFP is based on refraining from marital relations during certain times (e.g. times of increased fert
the couple wishes to avoid conception), and engaging in natural marital relations open to life duri
other times. The use of artificial contraception causes any acts of marital relations to be closed to
thereby making the attempt to use natural family planning not truly natural. NFP is effectively nul
whenever the couple uses any method of contraception along with a method of natural family plan

Does Humanae Vitae permit the use of contraception, if it is a therapeutic means or if it is fo

therapeutic purpose?
No. The passage that is usually cited to support this claim is the following:

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therape
means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, whi
may be foreseen, should result therefrom, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive,
directly willed." (Humanae Vitae, n. 15).

The above passage refers to indirect sterilization, such as when a woman has a hysterectomy in or
treat a medical disorder, with the result is that she is sterile. In such a case, the therapeutic means
intrinsically evil, and so it is morally permissible, even when sterility is foreseen as an unintended
consequence. But the same passage cannot be applied to contraception because the use of contrac

is intrinsically evil. The moral teaching of the Church does not permit the use of an intrinsically e
means to achieve a good end. The end never justifies the means.

Notice that the last portion of the above quote excludes as immoral the choice of an "impediment
procreation," if it is, "for whatever motive, directly willed." So even when the motive (the purpos
intended end) is therapeutic, if the means is a directly willed act which impedes procreation (e.g.
contraception, or direct sterilization), then the act is morally illicit. This distinction is important to
correct understanding of the Church's teaching. Intrinsically evil acts are never moral for any mot
purpose whatsoever, even a therapeutic motive (or medical purpose). What is permissible is an ac
as a medical intervention (e.g. removing a cancerous uterus), which is in itself moral and therefor
intrinsically evil, and which has the unintended effect of sterilization.
The impeding of procreation is an evil moral object, and the deliberate choice of any act directed
toward that end is an inherently immoral act. Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

There are three fonts of morality: "the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for wh
the subject performs the act," the moral object, and the circumstances. (Compendium of the CCC,
367.) The intention or purpose can never justify an act with an evil moral object; such acts are
intrinsically evil and always immoral.

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act w
is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

Is the use of contraception for medical purposes, by a married sexually active woman, justif
the principle of double effect?

No. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. The principle of do
effect never justifies an intrinsically evil act. Nothing can justify an intrinsically evil act because s
an act is, in and of itself, morally illicit.
"Principle of Double Effect
"An action that is good in itself that has two effects--an intended and otherwise not reasonably
attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect--is licit, provided there is a due
proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil.

"The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one's fundamental commitment to
and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in ot
words, the action must not be intrinsically evil)."
Ascension Health, Healthcare Ethics, Key Ethical Principles

The principle of double effect may justify an act only if the act is 'good in itself,' in other words, o
the act is not intrinsically evil. Whether an act is 'good in itself' or 'evil in itself' is determined by i
moral object. This 'object' is the end in terms of morality toward which the act itself is inherently
directed (or intrinsically ordered). When an act is inherently directed toward a morally evil end, th
that act is inherently evil. So the moral object determines the essential moral nature (or inherent m
meaning) of the act, in and of itself, apart from intention (or purpose) and circumstances (includin
consequences).

Pope John Paul II: "These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed
'intrinsically evil' (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account
their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstanc
Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances a
especially by intentions, the Church teaches that 'there exist acts which per se and in themselves,
independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object'." (Veritatis
Splendor, n. 80; inner quote from Reconciliation and Penance, n. 17.)

Furthermore, the type of contraception which is used for medical purposes (e.g. to control an irreg
period with excessive bleeding) is abortifacient contraception. This type of contraception can prev
conception by preventing ovulation. But it can also prevent the implantation of a conceived prena
causing the death of that very young human person.

Abortifacient contraception has two evil moral objects, to deprive the sexual act of the procreative
meaning, and to deprive the innocent prenatal of life. Both moral objects are intrinsically evil and
always gravely immoral. The evil of abortion is worse than the evil of contraception. Intrinsically
acts are never justified by intention or circumstances. Therefore, under the second font of morality
act is a grave sin.

In addition, the harm done by the abortifacient action of the pill, especially if the woman is on the
for an extended period of time so that a number of innocent prenatals are killed, far outweighs the
done by the medical effects of that same pill (regulating the woman's cycle so as to provide some
therapeutic benefit). In the third font of circumstances, the harm done by killing innocent prenatal
gravely outweighs the medical benefits of the use. Therefore, under the third font of morality, the
a grave sin.

Under the first font of intention, the intended end of obtaining the medical benefits of the contrace
pill (as a therapeutic intervention) is good. However, a person's intention includes not only the int
end, but also the intended means. In this case, the woman intends a good end (health), but by a me
that is intrinsically evil. The intention to use an intrinsically evil act as a means to a good end is an
intention. Therefore, under the first font of morality, the intention to use an abortifacient contracep

while remaining sexually active is an evil intention, despite the good intended end. For, even as
concerns intention, a good end never justifies an evil means.

In summary, the principle of double effect only justifies an act if the act has a good intention, and
act is not intrinsically evil, and the bad consequences (effects) do not outweigh the good conseque
(effects). An act that is justified by the principle of double effect is an act that has three good font
when abortifacient contraception is used for a medical (therapeutic) purpose, all three fonts of mo
are bad. Even one bad font is sufficient to cause any act to be a sin. In this case, all three fonts are
gravely immoral. Therefore, it is in no way justifiable for a sexually active woman to use abortifa
contraception for a medical purpose.
[Return to List of Questions]
12. Must a spouse refrain from sexual relations with a contracepting spouse?

Yes. The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because it deprives
sexual act of the procreative meaning. Intrinsically evil acts are not justified by intention or
circumstances. So even if the intentions of the one spouse are good, and the circumstances are ver
difficult, he or she cannot morally choose to engage in sexual relations with a contracepting spous
do so would be an objective mortal sin.

In one sense, only the contracepting spouse is 'using' the contraception (taking the pill, or using a
condom, etc.). But in another sense, both spouses are contracepting because both are knowingly
choosing to engage in contracepted sexual relations. The 'non-contracepting' spouse is deliberately
choosing to participate in contracepted sexual relations, and so he or she is participating in the
deprivation of the procreative meaning from the marital act. The lack of an intention to contracep
the part of the one spouse does not change the moral object of the act that he or she has deliberate
chosen.

Moreover, if the wife is using an abortifacient contraceptive, such as the birth control pill, both sp
are participating in the sin of direct abortion as well as the sin of contraception. The husband cann
justify continuing to have sexual relations with his wife if he knows that she is using an abortifaci
contraceptive. In the second font, both contraception and abortion have evil moral objects, and so
are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. In the third font, the bad consequences of the de
of prenatal children (due to the abortifacient action of the contraceptives) far outweighs any good
consequences. This bad consequences is particularly grave because the human persons who are ki
are particularly innocent and defenseless, and because the killing continues to occur as the marrie
couple continue to have sexual relations while using abortifacient contraception.

It is not possible to redefine what constitutes contraception, or what constitutes abortion, based on

intention and circumstances, so as to somehow permit continued sexual relations while using
contraception, or abortifacient contraception. Intrinsically evil acts are not defined by intention or
circumstances because intrinsically evil acts are independent of intention and circumstances.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church: "It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human ac
considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressu
duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves,
independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object;
as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from
(CCC, n. 1756.)

If an intrinsically evil act were defined by intention or circumstances, then an act would only be
intrinsically evil if the act were accompanied by a bad intention, or if the bad consequences outwe
the good consequences. The result of this approach would be to justify an intrinsically evil act by
basing the moral definition (or 'moral species') of the act on intention and circumstances, rather th
the moral object. All manner of intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts would then be said to b
justified by being redefined, as if they were a different type of act, based on good intentions or dir
circumstances. But such an approach is contrary to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on
intrinsic evil.

Pope John Paul II: "Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsi
evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Veritatis Spl
n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act w
is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart
knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

All intrinsically evil acts are defined solely by their moral object. So the intentions of the spouses
not determine if the chosen act is the sin of contraception, or the sin of abortion. Even if the one s
has a good intended end, does not intend to deprive the marital act of the procreative meaning, an
not intend the deaths of any prenatal children, a good intention does not justify the deliberate choi
a gravely-disordered intrinsically evil act. The non-contracepting spouse is deliberately choosing
participate with the contracepting spouse in contracepted sexual acts, even acts which might resul
abortion. And so the 'non-contracepting' spouse is actually a participant in the sin of contraception
even in the sin of abortion. Though the one spouse is not using the contraceptive, or the abortifaci
contraceptive, this same spouse is deliberately choosing to participate in the contracepted sexual a
This type of participation is intrinsically evil.

Some moral theologians might view the non-contracepting spouse's participation as a form of form

cooperation. However, formal cooperation with an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral act is its
intrinsically evil and gravely immoral. And so, even in this approach, the 'non-contracepting' spou
committing an objective mortal sin by agreeing to have sexual relations with the knowledge that t
other spouse is contracepting.

Neither the sin of contraception, nor the sin of abortion, can ever be justified by any good intentio
by any difficult circumstance, no by any other factors whatsoever. A good intention does not justi
intrinsically evil act. And every human person is obligated by the eternal moral law to avoid
committing any and all intrinsically evil acts, regardless of the consequences.
[Return to List of Questions]
13. How is natural family planning (NFP) different from artificial birth control (ABC)?

To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. NFP allows m
relations to be open to life and open to the will of God concerning procreation. The sexual acts of
husband and wife who use natural family planning always retain the unitive and procreative mean
Therefore, the use of NFP is moral.

But the intentional use of contraception deprives the sexual act of its procreative meaning. Theref
the use of artificial birth control is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act
intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.
Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission
life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the un
aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission
human life. A specific and more serious moral evil is present in the use of means which have an
abortive effect, impeding the implantation of the embryo which has just been fertilized or even ca
its expulsion in an early stage of pregnancy." (Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum 'Go
me' for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4-5.)

The deliberate use of ABC is intrinsically evil because it deprives the marital act of the good of
procreation, and also harms the unitive meaning. The use of artificial birth control is contrary to th
moral law and inherently immoral.

However, natural family planning does not deprive sexual acts of the procreative meaning. NFP
consists of two types of acts: abstaining from sexual relations for a period of time, and engaging i
sexual relations open to life for a period of time. But when engaging in sexual relations, the spous
sexual acts are always marital, unitive, and procreative. They do not use any type of contraceptive

or device. They engage only in natural marital relations open to life. While it is true that abstainin
from sexual relations for a time is not procreative, it is also not a sexual act, and so it need not be
procreative. The Church has always permitted married couples to refrain from marital relations fo
periods of time.

[1 Corinthians]
{7:1} Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch
woman.
{7:2} But, because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her o
husband.
{7:3} A husband should fulfill his obligation to his wife, and a wife should also act similarly towa
husband.
{7:4} It is not the wife, but the husband, who has power over her body. But, similarly also, it is no
husband, but the wife, who has power over his body.
{7:5} So, do not fail in your obligations to one another, except perhaps by consent, for a limited t
so that you may empty yourselves for prayer. And then, return together again, lest Satan tempt yo
means of your abstinence.

Notice that Sacred Scripture permits both types of acts which comprise NFP: natural marital relat
open to life, and abstaining from marital relations for a limited time, with the consent of both spou
Furthermore, the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent implies that NFP is moral.

CANON VIII. "If anyone says that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a
separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitatio
a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, 24th Sessio
the Sacrament of Matrimony)

So anyone who claims that the Church errs by allowing "a separation between husband and wif
regard of bed" (i.e. abstaining from sexual relations) "for a determinate or for an indeterminate pe
is asserting a heresy. Those who claim that natural family planning is not moral, and is no differen
from artificial birth control, are contradicting the definitive teaching of an Ecumenical Council.

The good end of family planning must be sought by a good means in order to be moral. The use o
artificial birth control is the use of an immoral means to a good end. For the end does not justify t
means. But natural family planning allows every marital act to be open to life. ABC is inherently
directed toward closing the marital act to life. That is why NFP is a moral means, and ABC is an
immoral means to the good end of family planning.
[Return to List of Questions]

14. Is passionate kissing only moral within marriage?

May a man and a woman who are dating, but unmarried, engage in passionate kissing? Is passion
kissing outside of marriage moral, or a venial sin, or a mortal sin?

Many moralists claim that 'passionate' kissing is always an objective mortal sin for any unmarried
and woman, regardless of intention or circumstances, even if the couple is engaged. But they allow
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. The
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 inhe
disordered. But the addition of the adjective 'passionate' does not signify a different moral nature,
different moral object. So if the type of act and the moral object have not changed, then the act ca
be intrinsically evil. For the moral object always is the sole determinant of the moral nature (or sp
of an act.

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

Second, passion refers to emotion. But emotions, even strong emotions, do not necessarily imply
For example, Jesus became angry in the Temple, when He drove out the buyers and the sellers: "Z
for your house consumes me." (John 2:17). And He experienced the emotions of sorrow and fear
garden at the beginning of His Passion: "My soul is sorrowful, even unto death." (Mt 26:38), 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 fal
state is not itself a sin, and when it is accompanied by sin, the sin is not necessarily mortal. Emoti
are not knowingly chosen acts. Only knowingly chosen immoral acts are sins. A knowingly chose
immoral act might result in one emotion or another, or a person might knowingly make a sinful ch
in response to an emotion, but emotions are not themselves sins. So the idea that kissing becomes
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 g

them a sign, saying: 'Whomever I will kiss, it is he. Take hold of him.' " (Mt 26:48). But the act it
kissing is not intrinsically evil.

Neither does any emotion, even emotions resulting from the fallen state, have an evil moral objec
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. T
feeling of jealousy is not the sin of envy. The emotion (or feelings of) passion are not the sin of lu
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
dwell on that harm, and he sins by choosing not to forgive the injury, and he sins by choosing vari
acts that result in excessive anger. And in experiencing this excess of anger caused by his sins, he
next choose the sin of revenge. But the initial anger is not a sin. And the subsequent excessive ang
bad consequence of his knowingly chosen acts, but it is not itself a sin. (Excessive anger is 'physic
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 difficu
the unmarried couple to remain chaste. In this case, if the acts of physical affection or sensuality d
include any intrinsically evil acts, then the morality would depend on intention and circumstances
the fact that the emotion of passion occurs during kissing (or similar acts) does not cause the act t
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 se
act, or a circumstance in which the kissing can reasonably be anticipated to have gravely harmful
consequences (such as a near occasion of mortal sin). Or a related but distinct act might be gravel
immoral, such as an interior act of lust. But the use the term 'passionate' to describe the kissing do
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 w
considering marriage, or who are engaged, in preparing for later acts of natural marital relations o
life. This good consequence can certainly outweigh some bad consequences of limited moral weig
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
moral, but when it becomes, at some point, passionate, it is said to be suddenly gravely immoral.

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
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 int
of one or both persons, but this would be a venial sin. There may be some limited bad consequenc
excessive sensuality in that the persons are aroused and chastity becomes somewhat more difficul
not necessarily gravely so. And there is no gravely immoral object in such acts, since all genital se
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
not necessarily objective mortal sin. The mere emotion of sexual passion is not a knowingly chose
immoral act. And the acts that lead to this emotion may be moral, or may be venial sins. Kissing w
passion may have some degree of disorder in intention or circumstances, but not so that this know
chosen act would be always entirely incompatible with the love of God and neighbor, and with th
of grace in the soul.

by Ronald L. Conte Jr.

Roman Catholic theologian
Translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible
More about the author
For an in-depth explanation of marital sexual ethics as well as the basic principles
of Catholic moral theology, see my book: The Catechism of Catholic Ethics.