Article VIII: On Kisses and Embraces with Respect to Betrothed Persons

24. 1. Kisses, embraces, and other base or less honorable touches are illicit for betrothed persons in exactly the same way as for others. The reason is that betrothal gives them no special right to intercourse and venereal delectation; and therefore neither to those acts which contain a more or less proximate danger of venereal delectation. Billuart, l. c.; L. l. 6, n. 854.

2. Kisses, embraces, and other honorable touches, from their object and from the manner of performing them, are permitted to betrothed persons. The reason is that those acts are lawful in themselves, and therefore, as they are permitted to other unmarried persons, so also they are permitted to betrothed persons. But the question is moved specially concerning betrothed persons rather than concerning others, because in reality those acts can more easily be permitted to them on account of a special reason which has force for them, namely for mutually fostering benevolence, which is altogether necessary for them so that the future marriage may be completed. But as it is lawful to act with sensible delectation, but illicit to act on account of the same, by stopping in it, so it is altogether lawful for betrothed persons, as also for any others, to take sensible pleasure in these acts.

25. Hence there arises a threefold question that is altogether practical. The first question is: What is to be thought of those acts of betrothed persons, if they contribute to exciting venereal acts? - R. Here the general rule has force: these acts are culpable only when either the cause is bad, or there is present the proximate danger of consent.

The second question is: What if it is established for the betrothed man or woman that the other sins in these acts because of a depraved affection? - R. 1. If those touches are made before others, the other can lawfully permit those touches, lest he or she be defamed, or bring suspicion upon himself or herself, and lest others be scandalized. - 2. If those touches are made secretly, and it is certain that they are being made maliciously, when there is question of others and of betrothed persons, the doctors commonly teach that one is bound to repel those touches. But if there is question of betrothed persons, for whom often there could be a notable inconvenience in this matter, because the other will certainly withdraw from marriage, the general rule concerning scandal received seems to have to be applied, namely that this can be permitted if it cannot be impeded without grave inconvenience; but it must be impeded if this can be done without notable inconvenience.

Finally, the third question is: What is to be thought concerning these same acts when, from the frequency of lapses, the danger of consenting to the subsequent venereal delectation must be held as a proximate occasion of sinning? - And this question, as the preceding ones, can also be made concerning the looks and conversations themselves, which have a most just cause; whence parents can altogether lawfully permit such looks and conversations, although great caution and prudence must always be used in these matters.

R. Here the general rule concerning a necessary proximate occasion has force; for it is morally impossible that a betrothed man, seriously thinking of entering marriage, should not visit, look at, and speak to his betrothed woman, and according to custom exhibit to her other signs of benevolence which manifest his mutual love. Therefore the confessor will suggest remedies not only general, but also special, so that due moderation may be preserved and necessity may not be exceeded in exhibiting those signs; and then, so that he never act alone with her alone, care must also be taken that the marriage not be long deferred. But if those and other remedies do not obtain fruit, this one thing remains: that they be dealt with no otherwise than with recidivists. G. Ballerini, n. 413; Gury-Dumas, Cas., v. 2, n. 695; Reuter, Neo-conf., n. 112.

26. Another related question can be raised here: namely, whether it is lawful "for a marriageable girl to encourage several suitors to this end, that from them she may finally choose someone to whom she may be joined in marriage?"

R. 1. Negatively, "if, honesty being neglected, and not solicitous for modesty, they themselves both love and endeavor to be loved back." The reason is clear. - 2. Affirmatively, if it is done "with the greatest honesty on their part, and without any stain of modesty." The reason is that if "girls conduct themselves in this most honorable way, it makes no difference if at times they are loved basely by some one of the suitors, as can easily happen. For provided they are led not by this base end, but by an honorable desire of marriage, sin ought not to be imputed to the girls attracting suitors, but to him who takes the occasion to his own ruin, which honorable girls do not give him, while they use the right which they have to employ a means not evil of itself for the most honorable end of marriage. Therefore access is barred to all those dangerous familiarities, clandestine conversations, and unspeakable exchanges of letters; and if these are warded off by girls proceeding elegantly but modestly, no ground remains" whence the matter should be forbidden, though it must altogether be forbidden if otherwise, as often happens. Therefore as regards practice, since the matter is full of danger, great caution and prudence are needed. Ithurriaga, Cas. 14, n. 3 seqq. And here it must be noted that a girl per se sins who accepts gifts from a lover, if they come from base love, for they foster that base love; otherwise, however, as is clear, if they proceed only from honorable benevolence and friendship. G., v. 1, n. 240; L., l. 2, n. 76; La-Croix, l. 2, n. 264.