I. You have heard, Christian reader, the holy discipline of the betrothed drawn from the divine Scriptures and the Fathers. I am compelled to transcribe the opinions of very many, that I may succour readers less skilled, and admonish them to abstain from those which will appear to them themselves false. Readers are not only to be instructed, but also to be untaught.
II. QUESTION I. Do the betrothed sin mortally by taking morose delight in future copulation? ANSWER. Some distinguish delight in copulation thought of as present and thought of as future. Lest I seem to impose upon them, behold what out of others Fr. Sporer writes, part 4, chapter 1, section 1, no. 428: “It is one thing to consent and take complacency in a copulation thought of as future, and in the venereal delight to follow at some time from such future copulation; which to the betrothed is not unlawful. For since from the betrothals themselves contracted, and as it were by an inchoate right, such copulation and delight is to be at some time in the future, they ought not to be saddened by it or to turn away from it, but can lawfully consent to it, take complacency in it, or rejoice over it; since it is nothing else than to rejoice over the hope of a future good, which hope is present and lawful. So with very many Sánchez, Diana, and so forth.”
III. These men ought to have adverted that the human mind can indeed reach these metaphysical precisions. But concupiscence does not make precisions; it is borne and wallows in the venereal mire as in fact it is. Wherefore this complacency is equally deadly in the betrothed as in other men.
IV. QUESTION II. Are touches, kisses, and embraces lawful between the betrothed? ANSWER. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 1, disputation 2, no. 5, teaches these things: “According to the common opinion embraces and kisses between the betrothed de futuro are lawful, on the ground that betrothals are a certain beginning of matrimony, and consequently grant a right of using the matrimonial preambular pleasure. Therefore through betrothals a right in the body is acquired, otherwise no use of it would be granted; and consequently he who violates this right by fornication will be guilty, beyond the fornication, of an injustice committed, necessarily to be opened in confession.” And this opinion is exceedingly probable.
V. These men therefore distinguish a twofold carnal pleasure: one preambular, which is lawful to the betrothed; another consummated, which befits the married. They bring forth the reason. Betrothals are the beginning of matrimony. Therefore through betrothals an inchoate right in the body is acquired; otherwise no use of it would be granted. Therefore preambular pleasure is to be granted to the betrothed. This doctrine is common, says Fr. Sánchez, among the more recent authors. The same the Salmanticenses teach, tract 9, chapter 15, point 6, no. 91, where they say: Just as betrothals are between them a certain inchoation of matrimony, so also there are lawful in that state acts which are in some manner an inchoation and beginning of copulation. Sánchez, and so forth.
VI. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 7, chapter 5, no. 61, page 193, says: “To the betrothed de futuro it is exceedingly probably lawful without sin to have certain signs of love, such as kisses, touches, modest looks, and amatory conversations, even on account of the delight residing in them, but without danger of pollution, or of consent to it, or to copulation; but by no means immodest ones. So Thomas Sánchez. … I find one excuse in a betrothed man exercising these chaste actions with a foreseen but not intended danger of pollution, and without danger of consent to it. For if he were in an occasion in which he would be held UNMANNERLY if he abstained from them, he could usurp them, because there is already present a reasonable excuse.”
VII. This doctrine is more filthy than the preceding. There would be need of Tertullian's words against paradoxes so unheard-of. Can the betrothed exercise mutual kisses, touches, and embraces even with a foresight of pollution? We admonish confessors and all readers to beware of these lax opinions. Let adversaries evince that these comments are not adverse to evangelical chastity, and then let them attain the victory. Can the betrothed exercise mutual kisses, touches, and embraces even with a foresight of pollution, lest one be held unmannerly?
VIII. The unchaste doctrine of Tamburini Fr. Sporer transcribes at no. 430, and Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 5, question 12, no. 141, transcribes all the recounted paradoxes, without disapproving them, but after his probabilistic manner subjects all things to the arbitration of his readers; he shows himself nevertheless to incline to the contrary opinions as more probable. But what does it matter, if the others be probable?
IX. Fr. George Gobat, tract 10, no. 672, writes here: “Sánchez in the place cited, no. 49, uses indeed the name of sensitive delight, but by this he certainly understands venereal delight, as is plain from no. 3. … I confess nevertheless that it not rarely happens that a confessor is compelled in practice to suppose the opinion of Sánchez, unless he wish to dismiss such betrothed persons without absolution, as being those to whom he will with difficulty persuade either that those embraces, kisses, and so forth are mortal, or that, acknowledging them to be mortal, they should form a purpose of amending themselves.”
X. The dilemma of Fr. Gobat is marvellous. Either a confessor will with difficulty persuade that kisses, embraces, and touches of this kind exercised with venereal delight are deadly sins; or if the betrothed acknowledge them to be mortal, they will with difficulty form a purpose of amending themselves. Therefore either they would have to be dismissed without absolution, or the opinion of Sánchez is to be employed. Not the first: therefore the second. For to this a confessor is compelled — that he admit the opinion of Fr. Sánchez, unless he wish to dismiss such betrothed persons without absolution, and to diminish the frequenting of the churches. But such betrothed persons from such touches, kisses, and embraces take venereal delight, and according to Tamburini sometimes with a foresight of pollution. But this delight, replies Sánchez, is an inchoation of copulation, and in all unmarried persons would be a mortal fault. It is nevertheless to be adverted, subjoins Fr. Gobat in the place cited, that the betrothals be absolute: for if the betrothals were suspended by a condition, the doctrine of Fr. Sánchez would not be to be admitted. But in no way is this doctrine to be preached to those betrothed who have contracted betrothals under a condition.
XI. I myself set down nothing against these paradoxes, to be lamented rather than refuted. Let confessors themselves compare the recounted opinions with the doctrine of the holy Fathers, which I have indicated in the preceding chapter, and with the Gospel of Christ; and then let them themselves sit as judges.