(author's comments preceded by ">")
> It seems to me if you want to avoid any feelings of lust, and temptation, theoretically you should ideally refrain from listening to suggestive love songs
Absolutely. This isn't to say that listening to suggestive songs is necessarily a grave sin, but they can stir up feelings that, through a chain of events, eventually leads to a gravely sinful situation. The real question we need to ask ourselves is does listening to such songs bring us closer to God?
> with lyrics such as, for example, like the one's you posted on my recent thread ("Baby it's cold outside Favorite Cuddling Song " )
Every single on of us is a sinner and I suspect most of us sin far more frequently than we realize. The fact than a person doesn't always live up to an objective moral standard does not change the fact that the standard exists. The purpose of topics such as this is to discuss moral principles and to help people understand them so they can, if they choose, correct their faults -- not to publicly flog people for their sins.
> It seems possible to me that such lyrics might lead to feelings of lust and desire whereby it's very nature risk's the possibility of awakening the dreaded libido, and subjecting an unfortunate soul to the shame and damnation of a Mortal sin
> therefore what is one to do censor every possible sensory stimuli we are exposed to on a daily basis.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise above.
The moral requirement is to avoid willfully placing oneself in the near occasion of sin unless there is a proportionate necessity for doing so. For example:
(a) To intentionally look at pornography is immoral.
(b) If one starts looking at a porn magazine not realizing what it is, there is no sin unless they continue looking once the nature of the material is known to them.
(c) It is morally licit for a police office on the vice squad to look at porn if they do so as a required part of their job responsibility (the proportionate necessity). If, however, a person finds that this exposure leads them to other sins (e.g., masturbation), they would be morally required to attempt to transfer to another job that does not lead them to sin.
In the case of passionate kissing:
(a) It can be reasonably anticipated that such kissing will result in sexual feelings.
(b) Such feelings are not morally licit for a person to to intentionally evoke with someone other than their spouse.
(c) There is normally no necessity for a person to engage in such kissing other than with their spouse.
As we all know, sometimes these feelings can occur unexpectedly. Such temptations are not sinful as long as we make the effort to remove ourselves from the source, if possible.
> I also take issue with mere mortals having no control over bodily function's, if that were an accurate statement we would all be wearing diapers ! absurd !
Where was it suggested that we do not have control over bodily functions?
> Everyone has free will
I'm not sure what the point is? Free will is not free license -- there are many things we can do that we shouldn't.
> and can differentiate between right and wrong,
Not always. Not only are there many who have not received proper moral formation who have been incorrectly directed by those in a position of moral authority.
> if that were not so, we would all be Neanderthal's with car keys, and a Blackberry !
In many cases, we are.
> Finally, I have heard countless theories, and viewpoints from my fellow Catholic Match peers, on the interpretation of the Bible's content,
Bernard's source was a recorded homily of a Catholic priest - their was no interpretation on Bernard's part.
> and while some have enlightened me immeasurably, other appeared to be unduly, harsh, punitive, and excessively judgemental !
This could be due to fault on the part of the speaker or the listener.
> That is precisely why when I have a question regarding the Bible I seek the advice of my own ordained Parish Catholic Priest,
Unfortunately, there are many Catholic priests who give very bad advice on moral issues, as several others have documented in this topic.
> not some over zealous pious CM member attempting to impose his/her opinion on me !
Moral teachings of the Church are not personal opinions. For example, in this topic we have a priest citing very well established Catholic doctrine.
> I joined CM to have an enjoyable experience in a non judgemental relaxing and supportive atmosphere,
Our faith MANDATES that we be judgmental of objective morality; what is prohibited is judging the state of others' souls. The difference being saying 'x' is a grave sin and saying that person A is going to hell because they did 'x'.
I will also point out that there are many who joined Catholic Match to be in an environment that is supportive of their faith, not to be ridiculed for expressing and supporting the Faith by those attempting to justify moral relativism and secular cultural norms.