Section Two: On the Mutual Familiar Intercourse of Those Betrothed for the Future

290. - We call those persons betrothed (for the future) who, whether from a betrothal agreement properly so called or from the equivalent introduction of one into the house of the other, have a certain and mutual hope of marriage.

Sanchez ¹ indeed seems to consider only those betrothed persons between whom betrothals for the future have been contracted absolutely. But many theologians who treat what is lawful and unlawful between betrothed persons are not accustomed to define accurately whom they address by the name of betrothed persons. Yet all persons who have attained a certain hope of marriage, whether they are bound by a formal agreement or are content with a mutual firm resolution, seem to be situated in a similar condition and are commonly called betrothed persons (fiancés); so that the rules to be handed down seem to apply to both.

¹ De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 47.

Nevertheless, a prudent application of these rules demands that, even among those who are formally betrothed, the distance by which they are separated from marriage not be neglected; but those between whom marriage negotiations have begun are already to be regarded as approaching the condition of betrothed persons.

291. - Now it is conducive to the mutual happiness of spouses that, before they contract an indissoluble covenant, they should be able to make a mutual trial of qualities, affections, and inclinations; or rather, for thus we will reply more according to what commonly happens, that if through mutual conversation they learn that they had falsely judged one another's character and inclinations to be such as promise a happy and fruitful marriage, an honorable manner of renouncing the nuptials should remain.

But for the dignity of conjugal life, and especially for the honor to be rendered to the wife, it is expedient that mutual esteem and a love nobler and firmer than that which arises from carnal concupiscence should found the nuptial covenant. This love, as we saw (no. 178), can sometimes become a protection of an inviolate life for a young person.

Moreover, love inclines toward external signs and is itself promoted by them. Wherefore, "embraces and kisses had between those betrothed for the future, as a sign of benevolence and for acquiring and fostering mutual love in order to contract marriage, are altogether lawful because the end is honorable." (Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 50. Cf. also no. 53.)

292. - Immodest signs by means of touches, less honorable looks, etc., are in no way lawful for those betrothed for the future; indeed, because of the danger of a graver abuse and for the very happiness of the future marriage, they are more strongly to be avoided and restrained from the beginning. For no less than others who are not married, betrothed persons must abstain from carnal commerce, of which these things are the beginnings; but they rather place the happiness and dignity of marriage in danger than assist them. For with what reverence, civility, and moderation will a betrothed man who acts insolently toward a girl not yet his own conduct himself toward a wife subject to him? And the more carnal lust is fostered before the nuptials, the less they will be joined on account of a nobler affection. Cf. Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 51.

293. - Sensible enjoyment taken from honorable demonstrations seems lawful. For the rule of St. Thomas recurs: the pleasure of a good operation is good.

But can betrothed persons seek or admit by consent a pleasure not only more generally sensible ², but also venereal, which easily accompanies or follows the former? With the danger of pollution or of consent to it excluded, Sanchez ³, with Cajetan ⁴, Navarre ⁵, and certain others, seems to judge that this is not gravely blameworthy.

² Cf. no. 24.

³ Nevertheless, he himself does not explain very perspicuously what he understands by the name of sensible pleasure not gravely prohibited to betrothed persons, so that his meaning is doubtful.

⁴ Summula, s.v. "Betrothals"; and on II-II, question 154, article 4, in the response to objection 2, at the end.

⁵ Manuale, chapter 14, no. 18; and chapter 16, no. 12, at the end.

For Sanchez has this: "Betrothals excuse from mortal sin this pleasure, which is a beginning of copulation and which in altogether unattached persons would be a mortal fault ⁶." And afterward: "Nevertheless, it will be venial, as idle and as lacking necessity and piety ⁷." But Cajetan, treating the same kisses which he declares to be mortal in unattached persons, and distinguishing them from kisses and embraces which he pronounces plainly lawful as signs of benevolence and familiarity between those betrothed for the future, judges those kisses between those betrothed for the future, just as between spouses of the present, to be only venial, and for this reason: because a betrothal is the beginning of marriage. Finally, Navarre, loc. cit., adheres to Cajetan; and he permits to betrothed persons what he forbids to others, that is, to enjoy the pleasure which arises from kisses, without employing any distinction.

⁶ De matrimonio, disputation 47, no. 6.

⁷ [No corresponding footnote is printed in the source.]

But today, with most authors, this is more rightly rejected. For betrothed persons, as far as copulation is concerned, differ in nothing from persons who are altogether unattached. Consequently, the beginning of copulation, or of a prohibited thing, is prohibited to them no less than to the latter. No handing over of bodies has been made; therefore no use of bodies is lawful; therefore no pleasure which pertains to imperfect use can be excused from grave sin.

For the fact that a special pleasure of venereal sensation also easily arises from an honorable kiss flows from the rebellion of the flesh because of the affinity of the things; but no venereal pleasure pertains of itself to an honorable kiss, which proceeds from an affection nobler than venereal lust. Wherefore this does not hold here: "The pleasure of a good work is good." Rather, it is something disordered and prohibited equally to betrothed and unattached persons. Thus the chief argument which the adversaries used is snatched away from them.

Nor can they say: betrothal is the beginning of marriage; therefore the beginning of copulation is permitted to them. For it is a beginning not properly so called, which would give all the rights of marriage in an inchoate manner, but one improperly so called, or a preparation through a union of souls, not of bodies. Moreover, as St. Alphonsus admonishes ⁸, betrothal is a promise. But a promise to hand over a thing does not yet permit the use of the thing.

⁸ Book 6, no. 854.

294. - Those who give these honorable kisses or engage in conversations in order to take pleasure (not venereal pleasure), with the danger of consent to mortal sin excluded, sin venially, not indeed because of the end itself, taken as such, but because of the danger which is not excused by the honorable end ⁹. But they must resist the carnal movement when it arises and positively renounce it. Wherefore, they are to be dissuaded from seeking kisses expressly and deliberately on account of sensible pleasure. Cf. Lessius, book 4, chapter 3, nos. 58 and 59.

⁹ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 50.

295. - Since betrothed persons are very prone to excesses, they are to be admonished that they engage in tender conversations temperately and rather sparingly, and that in their demonstrations they not exceed the custom of upright persons in their country. Above all, let them beware of more frequent kisses, kisses given on the mouth rather than on the cheeks, and lingering embraces: these are accustomed to move the flesh gravely.

Nevertheless, some excess is not immediately to be condemned as mortal.

But betrothed persons are formally to repudiate venereal pleasure. Then, if any involuntary pleasure arises, they will be excused by a just cause. For a testimony of love is a just cause for them.

Therefore, if this is reasonable, it gives place to the principle of double effect. Nevertheless, a betrothed person who senses a more imminent pollution in these demonstrations ought, in order to act sincerely, then gently to interrupt the demonstration, if he can conveniently do so.

The betrothed woman especially is to be exhorted not to permit anything which is reserved to spouses. This is wicked and very dangerous to her present reputation: once she has permitted it, even before the time she is already so placed in the power of the man that she no longer has the option of breaking the betrothal, while she has rendered the nuptials less lovable to the man who, outside the nuptials, and consequently without their burden, has obtained what he could ask only in the conjugal state. And even if he remains constant, it is harmful to the happiness of the marriage that the betrothed woman should in some manner satiate the betrothed man before the marriage has been celebrated. For provident God wisely established that the new burdens of marriage should be relieved by new joys.

Let her also know that more things can be performed by her without carnal commotion more easily than by a young man. Wherefore, let her not admit too many signs of love, much less solicit them. Nor should she in any way fear on that account for the perseverance of the betrothed man. On the contrary, while she provides for her dignity, she increases his esteem; but disgust is generated by excessive familiarity. This is especially to be noted where the nuptials must be deferred for a long time.

The counsel of moderation, therefore, will be opportune in every respect, provided that they are not regarded as uncivil or austere. Let this brief rule be established: let them perform no more, even if it is permitted to them, than what can be performed in this matter before others, for example, their parents.

But a moral excuse will more easily be present in the one rendering than in the one requesting.

Wherefore, a betrothed woman who admits a kiss of her betrothed which, in its external appearance, is honorable and customary does not sin of herself, although she suspects or holds for certain a less good affection or intention. For she consents only to the exterior act, which is good; this does not remove the guilt of the other's evil affection or intention, so that her slight cooperation has an easy excuse from the circumstances. Cf. Cajetan, on II-II, question 154, article 4, at the end.

Nevertheless, a betrothed woman who by a gentle admonition of displeasure leads the betrothed man toward better things will be greatly praised. And she is to be exhorted to act thus when she can.

296. - Since betrothed persons are accustomed to be sufficiently exposed to temptations to evil, a grave sin is committed by parents who have no care for the familiar intercourse of the betrothed persons or who imprudently permit them to be alone ¹⁰. A scruple, therefore, is to be instilled in them.

¹⁰ Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 52.

297. - St. Alphonsus ¹¹, led by the danger of consent to pollution or to venereal movement, seems to have written severely concerning this argument.

¹¹ Book 6, no. 854.

He merely tolerates kisses and embraces where the custom prevails, even if they are done in passing; nor does he regard as practically probable the opinion which grants sensible pleasure (not carnal pleasure) to betrothed persons.

These are indeed holy admonitions. Nevertheless, care must also be taken lest upright betrothed persons be tormented by scruples and, because of the excessive rigor of a counselor, begin to have a constrained, fearful, and impeded manner of acting which renders them ridiculous, not without danger to their own religion, and more certainly turns and deters others who are less pious from piety and religion. Let us preach conduct that is sincerely honorable but not timid. It is greatly to be desired that the manner of acting of the good should be as easy and human as it is honorable and dignified.

298. - True betrothals or promises having been made, betrothed persons are bound by a certain mutual obligation to abstain from every other carnal commerce, so that those who sin lustfully with others are to be regarded as unjust in some manner. Common sense itself teaches this. Wherefore, even those parents who are accustomed to indulge many sins in young persons sharply censure the sins of a betrothed person with outsiders, so that there seems to them to be a cause for breaking the betrothal. Indeed, most theologians think that the fornication of a betrothed woman with another, because in the common estimation it makes the nuptials notably less desirable, adds to the sin a grave species to be accused in confession. Nevertheless, the matter is disputed, so that the confessor is not compelled to be solicitous about that accusation. Yet he will be able usefully to inculcate upon them their mutual right and duty. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, vol. 6, treatise 10, nos. 75-82; and Palmieri, in the theological part of the same work, vol. 2, no. 1007.

299. - You will ask how one must act with betrothed persons who frequently fall into mortal sins.

We suppose that there is question of those who would avoid these sins if they were free from the betrothal.

Therefore, if the marriage is sufficiently near, the occasion is regularly to be regarded as necessary. By suitable means, caution, and the use of the sacraments, it is to be converted into a remote occasion.

But if the marriage is remotely distant and cannot take place soon, the case becomes very complicated.

Even then the occasion must not rarely be regarded as more or less necessary, either because the danger does not arise from the special circumstances of this familiar intercourse, so that, if it were removed, another equally dangerous occasion would then succeed it, or because the opportunity of marriage is of singular value and will with difficulty be present again. Where a rationale of this kind is present, one must act in almost the same manner as in the former hypothesis.

If an excuse of this kind is lacking, a proximate occasion which cannot easily be converted into a remote one is of itself to be abandoned.

But if, as not rarely happens, it cannot be obtained that the betrothed persons either marry soon or break off or suspend their commerce, let the visits at least become less frequent, with cautions employed; and, especially from the girls, let assiduous access to the sacraments and the use of a stable confessor be required.