Immodest touches

55. On touches. 1. In one's own body. a. To touch oneself in the indecent parts for the sake of necessity or utility, for curing an illness, for driving away itching, or for wiping away filth, consent to delectation perhaps arising being excluded, is licit, although carnal movements, indeed even pollution, follow.

But it should be advised: a. that as far as can be done touches of this kind be performed in passing and mechanically, with thought turned to other things; b. that one cease from touches when the movements become more vehement.

b. To touch oneself in the indecent parts without a just cause, but short of a depraved affection, in those who know that they are not stirred by touches of this kind, is not a sin, at least in the genus of lust. But for children touches of this kind, especially while they are lying in bed, must be severely forbidden on account of the destructive consequences of this matter. But those who for a longer time without cause touch themselves basely ordinarily excite carnal movements and venereal delectation; indeed for the most part they do this from the depraved end of delectation or pollution.

2. In another's body. a. To touch a person of the same sex in the indecent parts without a just cause is grave, even if it is done mediately only over clothes, because it stirs much. The same must be said a fortiori of a touch of this kind on a person of diverse sex. Nevertheless, the libidinous intention being excluded, if it is done only in passing and without delay, from levity or play, it is not a grave sin.

a. Touches of this kind had among the impubescent from levity or play and without delay are not grave sins, because at this age they are not accustomed to excite stirrings.

b. Authors who excuse from mortal sin indecent sights or touches on a person of diverse sex done from curiosity suppose that both danger of consent to delectation and danger of pollution are absent; but in truth the circumstances in which each of these dangers is absent will be rare.

b. To touch a person of the same sex in the less honest parts, a depraved intention being excluded, will scarcely be a sin, at least a grave one; but to touch a person of diverse sex in the less honest parts can scarcely be excused from grave sin, unless it is done very much in passing, from levity or play, on the arm or shoulders. For although touches at the beginning are done on account of sensual delectation, for the most part it is impossible that carnal movements, indeed pollution itself, should not follow from them.

c. To touch a woman on the breasts, even if it is done by a person of the same sex, is not excused from grave sin, because it stirs very much and therefore induces danger of pollution and consent.

d. To touch a person, even of diverse sex, in the honest parts, if it is done from a reasonable cause, is not a sin; if it is done without a reasonable cause, even with some delay and affection, a depraved intention being excluded, of itself it is a light sin, but it easily induces grave danger.

e. To touch a beast in the indecent parts ordinarily is not a grave sin unless it is done from a libidinous affection; nevertheless if the touches are continued deliberately, especially if it is done even to the pollution of the animal, ordinarily it is a grave sin, both on account of the danger of consent to base delectation, which easily arises in the one touching, and on account of grave danger of one's own pollution.

AS we saw above, mortal sin is always committed whenever venereal pleasure is directly sought or deliberate consent is given to it, even though the venereal excitement be little and stop short of consummated sin. In other words, there is no parvity of matter, as theologians say, in sins of impurity when the venereal pleasure is voluntary in itself. It follows from this that non-consummated acts of impurity such as immodest touches, looks, talk, reading, will be mortally sinful whenever they are indulged in with a view to exciting venereal pleasure.

Even though the excitement of venereal pleasure be not directly intended, yet immodest touches will be more or less sinful in proportion as they are more likely to excite venereal pleasure, and there is no just cause for allowing them. If there is a just and proportionate cause for permitting immodest touches and any venereal pleasure that may ensue is not intended or consented to, then there is no sin in them. When there is no good reason for allowing immodest touches, they will be mortally sinful if, as a general rule in normally constituted persons, they tend to cause great venereal excitement; otherwise they will be venially sinful.

(a) Touches upon the immodest parts of another person of the opposite sex are mortal sins, and indeed of another person of the same sex, unless they are done lightly in jest or wantonness. (b) To touch the genitals of brute animals, or the less modest parts of another person, of itself does not exceed a venial sin.

In the same way immodest looks may be gravely or venially sinful, or perfectly lawful, according to circumstances. When there is just cause for them and no harm is intended or consented to, they are lawful. If there is no good reason for them, and of their nature they tend to cause great venereal excitement, they are mortally sinful; otherwise they are only venially sinful.

(a) To look out of curiosity upon the private parts of a person of the other sex, or upon human intercourse, is a mortal sin, unless it be done very briefly, or from a long distance, or if the one looking is old, cold of temperament, or accustomed to such things, because such persons are little moved. One who out of curiosity looks at obscene pictures, which are not wont to move so strongly, is more easily excused from mortal sin.

(b) Of itself it does not exceed a slight sin to look out of curiosity upon animals coupling, upon the less modest parts of a woman, or upon the private parts of one of the same sex.

(c) The aforesaid acts are free from fault if they are performed for a proportionate usefulness or necessity.

Similarly immodest conversation will be mortally sinful if it is about very obscene subjects between young persons, especially if they be of different sexes. It will be venially sinful if the subject be less objectionable, or if a dirty joke is made in passing. The confessor may, asa rule, presume that grown-up penitents, especially if they be married, who accuse themselves of immodest talk, are only guilty of venial sin; and so he may spare himself and them any questioning on the matter.

The reading of very obscene books without any good reason can hardly be excused from grave sin, unless by experience the reader knows that they have little or no effect upon him, and this should not be lightly presumed. Reading novels in which the passion of love is depicted in warm colours is very dangerous, especially for the young, and unless there is some good excuse for it can hardly be without some sin. This will all the more be true of novels which are suggestive of evil, and fill the mind with dangerous thoughts.

I. Commonly it will be mortal:

1. To touch, over the nude body, the immodest parts of a person of diverse sex, with the exception of nurses and maids who care for infants entrusted to them, unless they touch lingeringly; likewise to touch the said parts over clothing, although this, if it is done in jest and in passing, can sometimes be excused from grave fault (St. Alphonsus III, 420).

2. To touch on purpose or with delay, even over clothing, the immodest parts of a person of the same sex; if it is done in jest and in passing, grave sin will often be absent (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

3. To touch with delay either the naked breasts or the less honorable parts of a woman (St. Alphonsus III, 430). Indeed Benedict XIV condemned a book which said that touching the breasts of an honorable woman, with wicked affection and intention excluded, was in itself only venial. Likewise a young man sins gravely who holds a girl sitting on his lap; and the girl who allows this. But to touch the breasts in passing, or the honorable parts of a woman with delay, is venial.

4. To touch lingeringly or rather often the immodest parts of one's own body will be mortal for some, venial for others; otherwise it is held as venial (St. Alphonsus III, 419).

5. To touch the genitals of brute animals up to the pollution of the beast; otherwise it will in itself be venial (St. Alphonsus III, 420).

II. One who, for example a girl, permits herself to be touched is to be said to sin in this way:

1. If the touch, kiss, etc., is indecent or immodest in itself, she sins by permitting it, and indeed gravely or lightly according as the touch is gravely or lightly immodest.

2. If the touch, kiss, etc., is decent in itself, but by the intention of the one touching is libidinous, she does not sin: 1. if the touch is done in public, for example in dances, because both modesty and the avoiding of the infamy of the one touching involve a sufficient cause for permitting the sin of one's neighbor; 2. if the touch is done secretly and the wicked affection is not established. If it is established, she sins (St. Alphonsus III, 430).

20. Proposition. Very base touches, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal delectation, unless they are done from a just cause, per se speaking, are a mortal sin; but less base touches, which from their nature do not dispose proximately, but only remotely, to venereal delectation, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, per se speaking, are only a venial sin. It is proved. The reason is that one touching in the former way either himself or another person exposes himself, or even another person, to the proximate danger of venereal delectation; but in the latter way to a danger only remote; nor indeed is there present a reasonable cause for either touch, which would make it honorable. Therefore. - Billuart, de Temp., Diss. 6, art. 16; L. 415-418; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4; q. 156, a. 2, 4.

21. Corollaries. 1. To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. But to continue these touches all the way to the effusion of semen is probably mortal, because it is an action most vehemently exciting to venereal delectation. Nevertheless, if someone did this from mere levity and curiosity, and experienced that he was in no way moved venereally from it, he could not be condemned of mortal sin. Tamburini, Explic. Decal., l. 7, c. 8, n. 5; Sporer, de Matrim., n. 697.

2. Touches of one's own body, even in the private parts, do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being excluded, they are had only in passing and from mere levity or curiosity, because they are not very strong incentives of lust. L. 419; G. 416; Billuart, l. c. - But here it must be observed that a woman, for example, who has touched herself by means of some instrument, is not bound to reveal this circumstance, even if she has introduced it into the private parts, because from this there is not had a new species of sin. Nor likewise is it necessary explicitly to declare in what part of the body base touches of this kind were had. Therefore the confessor ought not to ask about these things.

3. Touches in the private parts of another person of the same sex, or in neighboring parts, even over garments, are ordinarily not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from wantonness, jest, levity, and in passing. G., l. c.; Salm., tr. 26, c. 3, n. 50; L. 420.

4. It does not exceed venial sin to touch honorable parts, for example, the fingers, hand, face, of a person of the other sex, if these things are done from mere levity, and there is no special danger of venereal delectation by reason of the manner in which these touches are made, or even by reason of one's own or another's frailty. - L. 415, 418.

5. Touches in the less honorable parts of a person of the other sex, such as the breast, legs, arms, if they are done from mere levity, curiosity, jest, etc., also do not exceed venial sin, always with special danger of venereal delectation excluded, by reason of the manner in which these touches are made or even of one's own or another's frailty. L. 430. - "Whence to hold the hand of a woman, to twist the fingers, to touch lightly the neck or shoulders, to place the foot over her foot in passing, etc., is not a mortal sin, unless, by reason of one's own personal misery or that of the other, there exists grave danger of lust. On the contrary, a young man who draws a girl onto his knees and holds her sitting there, or by embracing her presses her against himself, at least ordinarily sins mortally, and the woman voluntarily suffering this cannot any more be excused from mortal sin." Bouvier, l. c., de tactib. impud., 6; Ithurriaga, Cas. 51, n.

Gravely to be rebuked is the boldness of those young men who deliberately put their hand into the bosom of a woman; for a lustful affection, if it does not precede, certainly follows from such a touch, as experience teaches; add that the very woman who is touched is not rarely thus exposed to the danger of pollution or of lustful delectation. Touches of a woman's breasts, especially of one already pubescent, are mortal when they are pressed and lingering; but venial if they are light and are done in passing, superficially, and without lustful affection. Thus also concerning a girl touching her own bosom. Reciprocal lingering touches of women themselves among themselves upon the breasts are per se mortal, because not only to touch thus, but also to be touched thus, greatly influences the venereal matter. - Scavini, l. 1, n. 794, Milan 1874.

6. Touches in the base parts, that is, in the genital parts, or those which are nearest to them, of a person of the other sex, even had for a brief time, whether they are done immediately or mediately over the undergarment alone or even over garments, regularly cannot be excused from grave sin, either because they show an affection for venereal delectation, or because they contain the proximate danger of venereal delectation. Yet probably maids are not to be accused of grave sin who touch the private parts of infants while they dress them, even if from levity or a certain curiosity; otherwise, however, if this were done with delay, or by immediately repeating the touch, because of the proximate danger of venereal delectation and, when the boys begin to grow, because also of the danger of the boys themselves. Wherefore maids of this kind must be gravely turned away from such a depraved habit. Sanchez, de Matr., l. 9, d. 46, n. 11; Salm., tr. 26, c. 7, n. 37; L. 420, 430; La-Croix, l. 3, n. 902; Ithurriaga, Cas. 51, n. 6; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 16, who nevertheless adds: "A man who from levity or jest touches a woman in passing in the region of the private parts over garments can be excused from mortal sin, because this does not seem gravely to influence carnal commotion."

7. As other incomplete acts, about which in the preceding articles, so also touches are not evil from their intrinsic nature, as is clear from the reason constantly adduced, but only extrinsically, namely on account of the proximate danger of venereal delectation or of consent to it. And indeed all these acts from their intrinsic nature do not pertain to lust or the venereal matter, which is contained only by intercourse, pollution, or carnal delectation which proximately disposes to these or follows them in the genital parts; but they belong per se to sensuality, as is clear from what has already been said above, n. 2. Besides, "these touches or looks, apprehended as means of health or necessity, do not so move the imagination or the flesh; but if from another delightful apprehension creeping in they move gravely, this is per accidens from the misery of nature and beyond the intention of the agent, to whom, since he has a just cause of placing those acts, the effect that followed is not imputed. Besides, even granted that these acts per se influence commotion, nevertheless they have another good effect equally immediate, which can be intended, the evil being permitted, as I said above, art. 11, de poll. Always understand: provided danger of consent to the very venereal delectation arising from it is absent." Billuart, l. c. I said third.

Therefore all the aforesaid touches are altogether lawful from proportionate necessity and utility. Hence physicians touching from necessity the private parts of a person even of the other sex do not sin, even though per accidens they suffer involuntary pollution. Nor do those sin per se who touch themselves: 1. for wiping away the filth of the body, and so men can clean away uncleanness lying hidden under the foreskin, from which they suffer grave inconvenience; 2. for quieting an itching which arises from the acrimony of a salty humor flowing into the private parts; and this has place both in men and especially in women, and in some almost continually; cf. Milne Edwards, l. c., t. 9, pp. 53, 68; 3. for curing infirmities, although danger of pollution is present in all these touches. Nevertheless, if the itching, which sometimes is almost intolerable, is lighter, it is to be suggested that they abstain from touches insofar as they can without grave annoyance. Yet the confessor must use great discretion in these matters. For doubts of this kind are accustomed especially to trouble persons of timorous conscience. But exhortations, if they are a little too vehement and are not seasoned with an open declaration that otherwise every guilt is absent, will very often and easily entangle consciences in most troublesome scruples. - L. 417, 419, 420; Hom. Apost., n. 3; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4; G. 416; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 16; Bouvier, etc.

Rather, those who suffer itching in the private parts should be counseled to apply other remedies more efficacious than touches, for example water, either simple or medicated, yet according to the prescription of a physician, and especially cleanliness of those parts. - But it is not lawful to touch oneself if that itching is not itching properly so called, or arising from blood or humors, but is entirely venereal itching, or a certain vehement excitation to pollute oneself from too great an abundance of semen. This venereal itching is very unlike that which all experience in other parts of the body, and when pollution has followed it ceases altogether. Debreyne, Moechialogie, part 1, ch. 1, art. 5; 8, ch. 2, art. 2, sect. 1.

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.

30. Do the aforesaid touches differ in species from the consummated act of pollution and of intercourse, and from the other incomplete acts about which there was speech in the preceding articles?

R. To 1. Affirmatively; and this answer has force both for touches and for the other incomplete acts about which there has been speech thus far. The reason is that a begun act differs in nature and moral estimation from a consummated act. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 237, 238.

Note. Here, however, it must be noted for the full understanding of the nature of these incomplete acts, that pollution, intercourse, and venereal delectation, which precedes, accompanies, and follows them, pertain to lust, which is directly opposed to chastity; but these acts of the other senses, which are called begun and incomplete acts with respect to venereal delectation, pollution, and intercourse, to which they dispose, belong properly to sensuality and immodesty, which according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 1, ad 5, concerns acts antecedent or concomitant to the completed venereal act. "Although chastity and modesty are often taken as one and the same, nevertheless, strictly speaking, modesty is not chastity, but a special circumstance of it. It is proved: modesty is named from shame, in which bashfulness is signified; whence modesty is properly concerned with those things about which men are especially bashful, such as venereal things because of the rebellion of the genital members and, as it were, the absorption of reason, so that even conjugal intercourse itself, which nevertheless is adorned by the honesty of nuptials, is not without bashfulness, and spouses would blush to exercise it before others. But man is bashful not only about intercourse itself, but also about certain signs of it, such as immodest looks, kisses, touches, etc. And because these are accustomed to be detected more, therefore modesty regards more signs of this kind, but chastity more the venereal commingling itself. Therefore modesty pertains to chastity as its special circumstance." Billuart, diss. 4, art. 1, I say third.

Corollary. "When, therefore, similar acts precede the venereal act completed in the same passion, or accompany the same act or immediately follow it, as kisses, touches, etc., they constitute with the complete venereal act one sin in number, and do not necessarily have to be distinctly explained in sacramental confession; but when they are exercised without the completed venereal act they are a sin distinct from this, yet one in number, if they are exercised in the same motion of passion; as I said, tract. 2, quaest. 1, n. 36. Whence in such a case they are a certain incomplete lust, and are to be explained in sacramental confession." Struggl, art. 2, n. 9.

R. To 2. It is disputed, if the speech is about grave malice. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that these acts, inspected according to themselves, proceed from distinct and diverse faculties, and are ordered to distinct and diverse objects.

Corollary. "The desire of looking basely, touching, kissing, fornicating, are distinguished in species not only from morose delectation concerning those objects, but also each from each other, because they tend toward those objects as they would be placed on the part of the thing; but if they were placed on the part of the thing, they would be distinguished in species, as is clear. Hence one who once was delighted by a thought about intercourse, and once desired intercourse, does not satisfy by saying: twice I had a base thought, but he ought to say: once I was delighted concerning intercourse, and once I desired it. Similarly one who once desired to look, once to kiss, once to touch, once to fornicate, does not satisfy by saying: four times I desired to do something base, but he is bound to express those objects." La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1032.

The second probable opinion denies. The reason is that although acts of this kind physically proceed from faculties really distinct and tend to objects really distinct, nevertheless, morally inspected, they do not contain an intrinsically grave malice, but the grave malice which they contain they have from venereal delectation, to which they proximately dispose, and which is of the same species for all acts of this kind. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4.

Corollary. Therefore, when in confession the venereal delectation that followed, to which someone consented, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether he procured it for himself by a look or touch of himself, by a look or touch of another person. Yet the reason of scandal and cooperation would have to be explained, if it were present. Likewise, when in confession interior delectation of the will in venereal delectation, or a desire of the will for venereal delectation, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether that delectation and desire terminated immediately at base looks or touches. Reuter, p. 2, tr. 3, c. 3, q. 10; Tamburini, Method. Confess., l. 2, c. 1, n. 66-72.

Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 15, Sect. III, Note seqq., has these things to the matter:

"Francis Henno teaches that delectations concerning look, touch, kiss, etc., differ among themselves in species, and must thus be distinctly accused... because, he says, looks, touches, kisses are distinguished among themselves in species... but nevertheless he confesses that the practice of confessors and penitents is contrary. Besides, I think his foundation is false, namely that touches, kisses, looks are distinguished among themselves in species in the genus of lust. For since they are not evil per se, as was said, but only by reason of commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, to which they excite and tend, they have the same species of malice among themselves, namely either of carnal commotion, or of pollution, or of intercourse, etc. Whence in my judgment the penitent would satisfy who said: so many times I excited in myself or in another a carnal commotion or pollution, keeping silent whether by touches, or looks, or kisses, provided he explains the conditions of himself and of the accomplice. A fortiori he would satisfy by saying: so many times I was carnally delighted concerning such or such a person, not explaining whether concerning touches, or kisses, or looks, but indeed if the delectation was concerning intercourse or pollution, because since these differ in species from immodesty and are to be distinctly accused, so also are delectations concerning them."

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4, ad 3, speaking of kisses and touches, says "that things of this kind are not sins according to their own species." And ibid. ad 2 he says: "from lust they have the nature of sin." And ibid. in the body: "things of this kind, insofar as they are lustful, are mortal sins."

31. Do touches and other incomplete acts, when they are grave sin, contract a malice diverse in species for the various circumstances of persons?

R. As regards touches, kisses, and embraces, it is commonly affirmed. And the reason is that, in moral estimation, touches more than other acts regard the individual person, and more proximately approach intercourse. Whence just as in intercourse the specific circumstances of persons must be explained, so also in touches. Cf. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 238; L., l. 417, 453, 459, 469.

As regards looks, the Salmanticenses apud St. Alphonsus, n. 421, likewise affirm; and both as regards looks and also as regards base words, whether spoken or heard, in nearly the same way as regards touches, Sanchez also affirms, de Matr., l. 9, d. 46, n. 17, 18, 30, 45, on account of a wholly universal reason, namely because all these acts are ordered to intercourse and participate in its moral malice. But St. Alphonsus, after reporting the opinion of the Salmanticenses as regards looks, adds these things: "But Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1030, more truly contradicts this doctrine, where he says that one who, without any desire, looks venereally at a person is not bound to say what sort of person it was; for how would a woman, by looking basely at a naked priest, commit sacrilege, which consists in violation of a sacred person, since no violation intervenes there? And how would someone, by looking basely at a blood relative, commit incest?" And indeed looks, morally speaking, merely affect the person looking, and therefore properly and from their own nature are not judged to tend into the consummated act and to be, as it were, some affective beginning of intercourse. But these things also hold as regards base words spoken or heard, as is clear of itself, to which the malice of scandal can easily be added. Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 163, 167; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 16, par. Circa Turp., Nota bene; Scavini, l. 1, n. 792, note, Milan 1874; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4, ad 1, ad 2; L. 415, 417.

32. In touches which someone has with himself or with another, must the sex be explained, whether male or female? - R. Per se speaking, negatively; for this in itself is merely material. L. 467.

33. As regards touches, must the parts of the body which one gravely sinning in this matter touched be explained? - R. La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1031, has these things: "One who without venereal desire touched a girl, according to Diana, satisfies by saying that so many times he touched basely, saying nothing about the parts in which he touched. Others probably say that it must be expressed if he touched a base part." - Cf. here n. 30.

What about base touches? Very base touches, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal pleasure, unless they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are mortal sin; but less base touches, which from their nature do not dispose proximately, but only remotely, to venereal pleasure, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are only venial sin. The reason is that one touching himself or another person in the former way exposes himself or the other person to proximate danger of venereal pleasure; but in the latter way, only to remote danger; nor is there present a reasonable cause for either touch, making it honorable. Therefore. L. 415, 416, 417, 418; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4; q. 156, aa. 2, 4.

You will resolve: To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. But to produce these touches all the way to the emission of seed is probably mortal, because it is an action most vehemently exciting to venereal pleasure. Nevertheless, if someone did this from mere lightness and curiosity, and experienced that he was not moved venereally at all from it, he could not be condemned of mortal sin. Tamb. Explic. Dec. l. 7, c. 8, n. 5; Sporer de Matrim. n. 697; L. 419, 420. Touches of one's own body do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being excluded, they are had only in passing and from mere lightness or curiosity, because they are not very much incentives of lust. L. 419. Touches on the shameful parts of another person of the same sex, or neighboring parts, even over clothing, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from petulance, jest, lightness, and in passing. L. 420.

It does not exceed venial sin to touch honorable parts, for example, fingers, hand, face, of a person of different sex, if these things are done from mere lightness, and no special danger of venereal pleasure is present by reason of the mode in which these touches are done. L. 415, 416, 417, 418. Touches on less honorable parts of a person of different sex, such as the chest, legs, arms, if they are done from mere lightness, curiosity, jest, etc., also do not exceed venial sin, always with the special danger of venereal pleasure excluded by reason of delay or mode in which these touches are done. And thus it is grave to press the foot of a young girl, to pinch the arm, and also to twist the finger, because of the proximate danger of carnal pleasure. L. 415, 430. Touches on base parts, that is, on the genital parts or those which are near them, of a person of different sex, had even for a brief time, whether they are done immediately or mediately, or over clothing, regularly cannot be excused from grave sin, because they contain the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. Nevertheless maidservants who touch the pudenda of infants while they clothe them probably are not to be accused of grave sin, even if from lightness or a certain curiosity; but otherwise, if this were done studiously and morosely, because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. L. 420, 430. As other incomplete acts, about which in the preceding numbers, so also touches are not evil from their intrinsic nature, as is clear from the reason constantly brought forward, but only extrinsically, namely because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure, because of the proximate danger of consent in it. And indeed all these acts from their intrinsic nature do not pertain to lust or the venereal matter, which is contained only in coition, pollution, and carnal pleasure which disposes to these, or follows them in the genital parts; but they per se look to sensuality and modesty, as is clear from what has already been said above. Cf. 773. Therefore all the aforesaid touches are altogether lawful from proportionate necessity and utility. Hence physicians touching from necessity the pudenda of a person even of different sex do not sin, granted that per accidens they suffer involuntary pollution. Nor do they sin per se who touch themselves for wiping away the filth of the body, or for soothing itching, or for curing infirmities. Yet if the itching is tolerable, it is to be suggested that they abstain from touches insofar as they can without grave annoyance. Yet the confessor must use great discretion in these things. For doubts of this sort are accustomed to trouble especially persons of timid conscience. L. 417, 419, 420; H. A. n. 3; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4. Itching can come from infirmity, in which a physician is to be consulted. It can also come both in men and in women from uncleanness; for preventing and removing this, washings with common, simple water, or mixed with soap, suffice. Antonelli vol. 1, p. 2, on the 6th Precept of the Decalogue, c. 2.

Note: From those things which have been said about touches, it is clear what must be said in particular about kisses, embraces, and dances; these can be gravely base, lightly base, and honorable, according to the various mode in which they are done. L. 417, 429, 430; E. M.

In touches which someone has with himself or with others, must the sex be declared, whether the person be male or female? R. Speaking per se, negatively; for this of itself is merely material. Cf. 811.

As regards touches, must the parts of the body which one sinning gravely in this matter has touched be explained? R. La-Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 1031 has these things: "He who without desire of venereal pleasure touched a girl, according to Diana, satisfies by saying that he touched basely so many times, saying nothing about the parts in which he touched. Others say with probability that it must be expressed if he touched a base part."

"Are shameful touches and looks mortal between spouses on account of pleasure alone, without order to copulation? The common and truer opinion denies it.... The reason is that the conjugal state, just as it makes copulation honorable, so also makes touches and looks of this kind honorable. (Otherwise it would be exposed to very many dangers and scruples.) But just as pleasure sought in copulation does not exceed venial fault, so also in these touches and looks." L. 933. In truth, since incomplete acts of this kind are of themselves referable to the complete and perfect act, since this is licit for spouses, the former cannot per se be illicit for the same persons. L. 932, 933. A fortiori, acts of this kind are per se free from fault, whether they are less honorable or simply dishonorable, if they are immediately referred to copulation. For then they are a certain preparation for and beginning of copulation. Therefore, apart from the crime of voluntary pollution outside the vessel or of sodomy, nothing is done against the good of marriage. But the light fault which can be present in acts of this kind is easily excused by ends intrinsic to marriage itself or other extrinsic ends, e.g., because they are suitable for fostering affection or for calming concupiscence.

413. Things To Be Established. - I. Truly immodest kisses ¹ and touches, that is, those had without cause on the dishonorable parts of another, can scarcely ever be excused from mortal sin, even when venereal affection is removed, because of the grave indecency and the imminent danger of lust which they induce. Yet they are more easily excused from mortal sin if they are done on a person of the same sex than if on a person of a different sex. - St. Lig., n. 419, 420.

¹ In this place the Author denotes kisses which are imprinted on dishonorable parts. But there is this difference between kisses and touches of this sort: that sometimes a just cause can underlie the employment of those touches, for example for healing; but not likewise for kissing.

II. Kisses and touches on honorable or less honorable parts ² constitute mortal sins if they are done from venereal delight; they are venial if they are done from levity, jest, curiosity, etc.; but they lack all fault if they are done according to the custom of the country, for the sake of civility or honorable benevolence ³. The reason of these things is clear per se. - St. Lig., n. 417.

² Carefully note the distinction between the parts of the body which are less honorable and those which are dishonorable. The genital parts and those proximate to them are called dishonorable, or also base or obscene; but the breast, arms, legs, etc., are called less honorable and not base. Thus St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 422). But what the Author says about those things which have venial fault if they are done about less honorable parts from levity, jest, curiosity, etc., can be taken of some touch, but is not truly to be transferred to kisses, as the thing itself speaks per se, which the Author also notes below in the third Resolution.

Likewise, what the Author says lack all fault if they are done according to the custom of the country, or for the sake of civility, etc., must be taken of honorable parts, but must not be extended to less honorable parts.

³ ** [N. B. These things, and the Note which immediately follows, furnished matter for the VV. to write through seventy-six columns (pp. 296-334). All of them present themselves as of altogether the same weight as those which we have already seen them object many times in advance. Rather than subjoin something at the bottom of these Notes, if anything should seem worthy of some response, it has seemed opportune to insert it enclosed in brackets in the course of the Notes. Let the Reader patiently bear that, for this reason, the broken context of the discourse requires a little more labor for retaining the connection of things.]

To this pertains the common opinion of the Doctors that for the sake of civility and benevolence and for showing love, chaste touches are lawful for betrothed persons for the future, for example taking the hand, embraces, and kisses. [After the VV. (p. 297) said that in the Note the state of the question is rather darkened than clarified, they accuse it because it is said that chaste touches are lawful, not only for the sake of civility, but also for the sake of benevolence and for showing love; which (p. 299) they say was subtly added in the Note; and they continue (ibid.): "this opinion, namely that chaste touches are lawful for betrothed persons FOR SHOWING BENEVOLENCE AND LOVE APART FROM THE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY, is neither common, nor do the witnesses adduced testify to it." Thus they. - Resp. 1. Let the Reader see with his own eyes in the texts placed below whether the words "for the sake of benevolence" and "for showing love" are a subtle addition of P. B., or are the words of the alleged Authors. - Resp. 2. Let the Reader again see whether that phrase "APART FROM CUSTOM" is found in the words of P. B. And nevertheless against this fantastic shadow, namely that in the Note kisses, touches, etc., apart from the custom of the country, are asserted and defended as licit, the VV. seriously continue to fight also on pp. 300 and 301. - Moreover, by those words of the Doctors, "according to custom," "according to the custom of the country," a twofold sense, each right, can be understood: one, so that the custom of exhibiting those signs of benevolence after betrothals is indicated; the other, so that in the manner of exhibiting those signs the custom of the country is observed; and the words of St. Alphonsus have this sense also, that they are permitted in no other way than they are permitted to unmarried persons, where the usage flourishes.] I said, "common"; for thus Lucius Ferraris (V. Luxuria, n. 90): "All touches, kisses, embraces..., which are done between betrothed persons..., if they are done chastely, from a right end, according to the custom of the country, are licit. COMMON." - Thus also Giribaldi of the Clerics Regular of St. Paul (the Barnabites) (De Matrim., cap. 19, dub. 15, n. 114): "You will ask, 5. whether kisses, touches, and embraces are lawful for betrothed persons for the future? The COMMON opinion denies that dishonorable touches on immodest and hidden parts are lawful.... But it concedes that otherwise honorable touches, embraces, kisses..., are lawful; and these indeed will be venial sin if they are done only for delight to be captured; and without any fault if they are done as a sign of love and benevolence according to the accustomed manner." - Nor otherwise Reiffenstuel (Th. mor., tr. IX, dist. 4, q. 7, n. 77): "But whether touches and kisses are lawful between betrothed persons for the future is another difficulty. And indeed the Doctors everywhere confess that immodest touches between betrothed persons are not excused from mortal sin.... But if kisses and embraces are not of themselves immodest, and at the same time are done... with a view to honorable love and benevolence, they are free from fault." [Reiffenstuel, say the VV. (p. 299), alleges Navarrus; but he recommends that mothers not allow daughters to be alone and in secret with betrothed persons. - Resp. They themselves could have seen that this also is recommended below in this Note. - The VV. add (p. 300) that in the newest edition of Reiffenstuel's Theology Flavianus Ricci adds the opinion of Pontas, that the opinion condemning kisses, etc., in betrothed persons as grave sin is to be preferred, because this opinion is safe. - Resp. Let Pontas have for himself the theory of condemning something as grave fault because this is safe. St. Antoninus, to whom St. Alphonsus subscribes, says this is the same as building for Gehenna.] - And the Salamancans (De Matrim., cap. 15, n. 91): "The last difficulty is whether kisses, embraces, touches... are licit between betrothed persons for the future? It is answered that if such acts are done for capturing pleasure, they will be venial sins.... If as a sign of love, there will be no sin." [Here the VV. object (p. 299) that the Salamancans retracted these things (tract. 26, c. 3, n. 56-61). - Resp. Yet this difference intervenes between each place: that in the former, reported here, the Salamancans follow the common opinion and confirm it by authorities which have some worth; but in the latter they fortify a new opinion (l. c., n. 60) with a heap of false allegations, so that they do not hesitate to allege for it Busembaum and Cajetan, whom, forgetful of themselves, they had alleged (ibid., n. 56) also for the opposite, and whom the VV. themselves (p. 304) traduce as if excusing venereal delights! And indeed even in this place the Salamancans merely conclude that this newest opinion seems to them more probable in practice! If any seize suffrages of this sort, we willingly leave them to them.]

And that St. Alphonsus did not reject this doctrine is clear from this, that after these things were reported from Busembaum (lib. 6, n. 854): "Touches that are immodest are not lawful for betrothed persons, although embraces and kisses as a sign of love may be lawful," he finds nothing to reprehend. [Here the VV. subjoin (p. 301): "The illustrious Professor" (that is, P. Ballerini) "seems here to have labored either from a hallucination of the eyes or from distraction of mind." - Resp. Behold the words of St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 584), which the VV. themselves also transcribe (p. 297): "Croix and Viva, with other authors adduced by them, concede that kisses and embraces according to the custom of the country can sometimes be permitted to betrothed persons, but in no other way than they are permitted to unmarried persons. And THIS IS PROBABLE, provided such acts are not pressed and prolonged for some time, as Roncaglia well warns, who also admits them FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF BENEVOLENCE; but I would not admit them except where such a usage flourished, as Mazzotta also says." Does St. Alphonsus differ even a little from the opinion of the Authors who are reported above in the Note? Does he not concede that, where this usage flourishes, kisses and embraces are lawful even for a demonstration of benevolence, which nevertheless the VV. just before were traducing as a subtle addition of P. B.?]

This one thing can move some, that acts of this sort contribute to stirring up carnal and wicked motions. But here the general rule must be valid which we touched on above (note to n. 412), namely that then only are these motions culpable when either the cause is evil, or there is danger of consenting. Therefore it pertains to the Confessor in the case to inspect, not indeed whether the cause is guilty, for since it is just, by that very fact it is honorable, but whether there is danger of consent into evil, and according to his prudence to furnish remedies to the penitent. In this matter he must indeed take care that the desire of removing one from danger of sin does not drive him so far that he condemns those things as sin, especially grave sin, which according to the common opinion of the Doctors have either no guilt or only light guilt. For zeal of this sort, not indeed according to knowledge, must finally obtain this one effect: that perhaps it may deter very few from those acts, but in reality drive very many, through a false conscience thrown in, into the snares of sin; whence it will easily happen besides that, once the fear of God has been trampled because of the imprudence of the Confessor, and the horror of sin lost, they may then slip into true and graver basenesses.

The very same thing also must be observed concerning looks and conversations between betrothed persons, when from these also those motions, and sometimes even to pollution, follow. For there is a just cause why a betrothed man should visit his betrothed, and have conversations with her. Therefore the whole question will turn on that danger of consenting about which it was said above in the note to n. 412.

In this matter a difficulty not light will indeed seem to offer itself, when from the frequency of falls the danger of consenting appears to be of such a kind that it ought to be considered as a proximate occasion of sinning. Nevertheless here in reality there is no greater difficulty than if there is question of a necessary proximate occasion: necessary, I say; for, considering all the adjuncts, the Confessor would require something morally impossible if he wished to keep a betrothed man from approaching and speaking with his betrothed, or (as after Sanchez, De Matrim., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 48-50, and many others alleged by the same, Diana notes, tom. 1, tr. 4, res. 37; and tom. 2, tr. 6, res. 37) from exhibiting the customary signs of benevolence. Therefore he must use other means for removing the danger. If the penitent does not refuse these, what Giribaldi has according to the commonly received principles will be valid (De Poenit., cap. 10, dub. 3, n. 31). To the question, Whether a betrothed man can be absolved who frequently visits his betrothed, on which occasion he sins, he responds that he can be absolved when the visits are according to the custom of the country, from which he cannot abstain without mark and disgrace, because the betrothed woman would think herself despised because he did not visit her as other betrothed men do; and the same is valid concerning a betrothed woman who from speech and the sight of the betrothed man suffers distillation and pollution; for she is not bound to flee the sight of the betrothed man if otherwise she does not have a just cause and excuse, since the sight and words are honorable and according to the custom of the country, and cannot be avoided without mark and disgrace. But the Confessor will suggest means not only general but special to the matter; and according to his prudence it is necessary that he deter, as he can, from exhibiting those signs of benevolence by which the tinder of concupiscence can more easily be stirred up, or at least propose that manner and frequency which does not exceed necessity. But the manner and measure which can easily be understood by all is this: that no more be provided than what can be provided in this matter before others, for example parents, without offense to anyone. Then especially it must be required that one never remain alone with one alone, especially in a secret place. And this indeed pertains most especially also to those who have care of them. Therefore with parents, and especially with mothers, one must deal most severely, and the grave obligation of this watchful custody and caution must be urged; to which they ought to be impelled not only by conscience, but also by fear lest daughters, once corrupted, grow old dishonored in the paternal home.

But if the remedies proposed by the Confessor do not obtain the desired fruit, this one thing remains, that these persons be dealt with no otherwise than it is handed down in the Treatise on Penance that one must deal with relapsing persons.

414. • III. Touches and kisses even on honorable parts will sometimes not be free from grave fault, especially if they are exercised more often or lingeringly by young persons of a different sex without any necessity or other just cause, although on account of merely organic pleasure. The reason is that from acts of this sort, repeated or lingering, carnal commotion and venereal delight will rarely be absent. - St. Lig., n. 416 ⁴.

⁴ ** By "organic pleasure" here the Author calls that which above (note to n. 411) we called purely sensible; where we also suggested that in practice, if there is question of adults who aptly seek it, it scarcely has place precisely as such.

But that the Author seems to except from the rule which he hands down the case of necessity or of a just cause, this must not be extended to more lingering and more pressed kisses, from which even betrothed persons themselves are to be deterred, since scarcely any just cause can be thought up as regards those. (The VV. (p. 304), at these words of the Note: "this is not to be extended to more lingering and more pressed kisses," argue thus: P. B. says that betrothed persons are to be deterred from more lingering and more pressed kisses; therefore not altogether from simply lingering and pressed ones. - Resp. I deny the consequence. It is well known that among the Latins the comparative form, where a term of comparison is lacking, sometimes signifies less than the positive form; it is, namely, an elliptical locution, and there is understood "than is fitting," or "than the thing, or person, or time, or other circumstance bears or requires," etc.)

Yet the Doctors have moved another question concerning betrothed persons, namely whether some delight is lawful for them which they voluntarily take from kisses or embraces or chaste touches. I said, 1. "some delight"; for here venereal delight properly so called and proper to the genital parts is altogether excluded. I said, 2. "which they voluntarily take"; for concerning one arisen besides the intention and admitted by no consent, there is no controversy, even if it were venereal.

St. Alphonsus also treats the question thus proposed (lib. 6, n. 854), yet in such a way (for it will be useful to have touched this one thing concerning this matter in a merely historical way) that from the things disputed there it can scarcely be understood in what place the matter truly stands. And indeed for the opinion which holds that this delight is either licit for betrothed persons or not more than lightly evil (which nevertheless he does not seem to set forth accurately enough), he himself brings forward only five authors, namely Sanchez, the Salamancans, Aversa, Diana, and Azor. [The VV. complain (p. 305) that here it is said that with St. Alphonsus it can scarcely be understood in what place the matter stands. - Resp. 1. St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 854) poses the question thus: "It is asked whether between betrothed persons chaste kisses and touches are mortal sins, if they are done for capturing pleasure"; but it is passed over in silence of what pleasure there is question; 2. For those standing for the first opinion St. Alphonsus alleges only five, while very many others stand for it, indicated here, to whom also three others are added by Diana (l. c. below, res. 38). But when the question is proposed thus, it is certainly not easy to understand in what place the matter stands. Therefore. - The VV. subsume (l. c.) that, if the thirteen Authors whom the holy Doctor alleges for his opinion (l. c.) are counted, and to these are added seven others with Sanchez, fifteen others with Diana, and sixteen others with the Salamancans, now a number rises up which equals the sum of those cited in this Note. - Resp. 1. The seven with Sanchez were transcribed by the Salamancans; therefore lest they be counted twice, they must be taken away. 2. The fifteen with Diana are against the opinion of St. Alphonsus, not for it; nevertheless four are alleged also for it (l. c. below, n. 1); but since these are found repeated by the Salamancans, they cannot be counted. 3. We have already said that the allegations of the Salamancans are false, and we see some of these also with St. Alphonsus. Of what strength the allegations reported with St. Alphonsus are is shown in the following things. Therefore.] But Sanchez (De Matr., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 48) had alleged for the same opinion seventeen others; but Diana (tom. 2, tract. 6, res. 36, n. 2, 3) had added nine others to these, so that now we have thirty-one, among whom you may see the names of Soto, Cajetan, Toletus, Navarrus, Valencia, Sayrus, Reginaldus, etc.; and to these could be joined Laymann (lib. 3, sect. 4, n. 11), Palaus (De Sponsalibus, disp. 3, punct. 4, §2, n. 7), Sporer (Theol. Sacram., p. 4, c. 2, sect. 4, n. 430), Escobar (lib. 26, sect. 2, dub. 26), Filliuccius (tr. 10, part 1, cap. IX, n. 357), Tamburini (In Decal., lib. 7, cap. 3, §5, n. 61), Joann. Henriquez (in Mendo, disp. 5, q. 12, n. 4), and Giribaldi, who (De Matrim., cap. 19, dub. 15, n. 114) asserts that it is the common doctrine.

But for the opinion which contends that this delight is gravely illicit for betrothed persons, you will see alleged with the same St. Alphonsus (l. c.) Lessius, Mazzotta, Roncaglia, Concina, Bonacina with Henriquez and Rebellus, Croix with Mendo, and Viva with Suarez, Perez, and Hurtado; which allegations indeed seem to have been gathered almost from Croix, Mazzotta, and Viva. But, 1. Lessius (De Iust. et Iur., lib. 4, cap. 3, n. 59) indeed condemns these acts as grave fault in persons altogether unmarried; but (ibid., n. 58) he had handed down the opposite concerning betrothed persons thus: "To betrothed persons for the future that pleasure is conceded which is perceived precisely from a kiss and from contact of the hand or face, so that they do not sin in it even venially." [The VV. object (p. 313) that these words of Lessius are an argument which adversaries use, and whose opinion Lessius reprobates. - Resp. I concede the antecedent, and deny the consequence. Namely, those are the adversaries who treat not of betrothed persons, but of unmarried persons. Now Lessius reprobates their opinion, but does not deny the antecedent of the argument. And in reality the VV. themselves (l. c.) write: "Lessius concedes that kisses are lawful for betrothed persons by reason of the marriage begun, even on account of the delight which arises precisely from them." - The VV. subsume (ibid.) that Lessius concedes this speaking speculatively, but practically does not judge this opinion probable; and they subjoin these words of Lessius: "Therefore I would not call that opinion probable." - Resp. Those words of Lessius regard the opinion of the adversaries concerning unmarried persons, nor is it easy to understand how the VV. traduce Lessius, a classic author, as contradicting himself in the same place. Those things pertain to betrothed persons by which, at the end of the same n. 59, Lessius responds to the argument which the adversaries took from kisses licit as regards betrothed persons: "It is conceded to betrothed persons because it is a sign of future copula, to which by reason of the marriage begun they can consent." Hence it is clear that Lessius plainly concedes that antecedent of the adversaries.]

2. Say the same thing of Perez, who, while (De Matrim., disp. 8, sect. 6, n. 7) he condemns as grave libidinous delight, which is a certain beginning of copula, nevertheless concedes as licit for betrothed persons the delight perceived from kisses (ibid., n. 4). [The VV. contend (p. 314) that Perez teaches that nothing is lawful for betrothed persons except that which would be lawful for others not married. - Resp. I deny altogether. Behold the words of Perez (l. c.) which the VV. also report: "I say first, it is certain among all Doctors that the aforesaid kisses, embraces, and touches not immodest are lawfully done between betrothed persons for the future, when they are done as a sign of benevolence according to the custom of the country, for reconciling and fostering mutual love in order to contracting marriage.... Hence with the aforesaid Doctors I gather that the delight following from them is licit and honorable." Indeed (which the VV. omit) Perez (ibid., n. 5) adds: "Add that the aforesaid kisses, embraces, and touches are also licit on account of the aforesaid end, even if danger of pollution is present, provided danger of consent into sensual and venereal delight is not present." But the objection premised by the VV. distorts Perez into a sense not his own. Perez (n. 8) responds to those objecting that betrothals give no right to those things which are opposed to chastity. But he responds by conceding this freely. And when (n. 7) he had premised that sin is committed through kisses and touches even not immodest, if they are done for the sake of libidinous delight, he infers (n. 8) that betrothals do not excuse in betrothed persons for the future from mortal or venial fault kisses, embraces, and touches even not immodest, which in them, if they were unmarried, would truly be mortal or venial, that is, which would be done for the sake of sensual and libidinous delight.]

3. Bonacina (De Matr., q. 4, punct. 9, n. 6) and Mazzotta (tr. VII, disp. II, q. 2, cap. 2, q. 1) say each opinion is probable. [The VV. object (p. 315) that Bonacina said the opposite opinion was safer and more probable. - Resp. That he concedes the other to be probable is sufficient for a judgment about the liceity of the act. But that he says the opposite is more probable is not sufficient for injecting into the faithful a conscience of grave sin. These things follow from common principles approved and inculcated by St. Alphonsus. As regards Mazzotta, the VV. object that he said the opposite was far more probable. - Resp. Mazzotta said that of carnal and (as he then explains) venereal delight, I concede, and he spoke very benignly thus concerning that; that he said it of the delight about which there is now question, I deny. Behold the words of Mazzotta (l. c.), which the VV. too much truncate here and there: "I respond with Perez and others that then they are lawful, when they are done as a sign of benevolence according to the custom of the country, for reconciling and fostering mutual love in order to contracting marriage; because thus not only does baseness not appear, but indeed an honorable end is present. Which is true, says Perez, even if in the case, besides the intention, commotion of the spirits or even pollution follows, provided danger of consent into that is not present. But if they are done on account of carnal delight... which sounds like venereal delight..., far more probably they contradict," etc.]

4. Suarez (De Pecc., disp. 5, sect. 7, n. 12) and Henr. Henriquez (lib. XI, cap. 19, n. 4) have altogether nothing which makes to the matter. [The VV. confess (pp. 315-316) that Suarez has nothing about betrothed persons. But it could better have been noted that that allegation of Suarez regards another Suarez, of whom mention is made in Diana (tom. 2, tr. 6, reg. 38, n. 1), and about him nothing is to be cared for. But as regards Henriquez, he merely says (l. c.) that honorable embraces and kisses for benevolence were conceded by learned men; but they ought not to be permitted, since now betrothals do not pass over into marriage by copula with marital affection. I ask: why does he not say "ought," but "would ought"? The reason is rendered there in the note thus: "for danger of copula is present, while without arbiters they touch one another immodestly." Therefore he says this merely for forestalling dangers; which is consonant with that paragraph, where he treats of the office of the mother in the custody of daughters. But those whom he alleges in the Note, Cajetan, Navarrus, Angelus, and Silvester, are known not to forbid these signs of benevolence to betrothed persons, although Silvester (V. Matrim., 5, §8) distinguishes a twofold genus of kisses: one, which would irreprehensibly be done only with wives and betrothed persons for the present, and which would suffice so that betrothals pass over into marriage; the other, which are customarily exhibited even to betrothed persons for the future in some places, etc. From these allegations it is permissible to judge the opinion of the VV., where they say (p. 305) that up to the sixteenth century no one is found who conceded this to betrothed persons.]

5. Rebellus (De oblig. Iust., part 2, lib. 3, q. XIX, sect. 2) and Gaspar Hurtado (De Matr., disp. 10, diffic. 10, n. 48) discuss, the one indeed libidinous delight, or kisses through which venereal pleasure is begun; the other, libidinous touches and the delight perceived therefrom; which likewise are not to the matter. [The VV. concede (p. 316) that Rebellus and Hurtado treat of libidinous or venereal delight; but they deny that they are alleged beside the matter, because some Authors in reality do not condemn at least as mortal some such delight. - Resp. Whether some author has excused at least from mortal sin venereal delight is of no interest now. It is of interest in this way: that St. Alphonsus alleges the authors of the second opinion as contradicting the authors of the first. But none of the five whom he brings forward for the first opinion speaks of venereal delight; therefore Rebellus and Hurtado, who attack merely venereal delight, are alleged against them beside the matter.]

6. Croix (lib. 6, p. 3, n. 151) merely opposes to the common opinion the false allegations of Lessius, Suarez, Henriquez, and Hurtado, to which he adds Comitolus; but also this one wrongly, because Paulus Comitolus, although a man of anomalous talent and of zeal inclined to stricter things, nevertheless did not depart from the common opinion in this matter, as is clear from these things (Resp. mor., lib. 4, q. 20, n. 4): "Wherefore girls and virgins who, either from kisses and embraces of chaste young men whom they love, take honorable pleasure, whether when they think of those touches or also admit them bodily; either do not sin, or sin lightly, as Sylvester says, V. Delectatio, n. 7. Rosella, V. Cogitatio morosa, n. 4, affirms that they do not sin mortally. It must be said otherwise if they drew in obscene pleasure in mind or base pleasure in body." [The VV. note (p. 317) that, even if the force of the allegations which Croix puts forth wavers, nevertheless the suffrage of Croix himself is present. - Resp. A suffrage of this sort has as much force as the consequence which is drawn from false premises, that is, none. But the reason brought by Croix (lib. 3, p. 1, n. 894), namely that this sensible delight, especially if it is sought, could be followed by venereal delight; and if perhaps venereal delight should approach, danger could be present of consenting to it - this reason, I say, proves too much, nor does Logic consent that from a probable particular case an argument be taken for asserting grave sin for any cases whatsoever. - Concerning Comitolus the VV. (pp. 318-319) dispute through three columns, and ask whether he could rightly allege Paludanus and the Summas of Silvester and Rosella. - Resp. Those things make nothing to the matter. This is the question: whether Croix rightly and justly alleged Comitolus against those twenty authors who (as he himself says, lib. 3, p. 1, n. 894) say that delight only sensible, which arises in kisses or touches, is not mortal. Let anyone who shall have read with his own eyes the premised words of Comitolus judge.]

7. Finally Viva (De Matr., q. 1, art. 7, n. 6), although he seems to fight against the common opinion of Sanchez, nevertheless speaks ambiguously of delight, now sensible, now carnal; and he entangles the matter more when in this place he says that he follows the more common doctrine against Sanchez, while elsewhere (on proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, n. 23) he attributes the opinion of Sanchez to very many; which two things would plainly be contradictory. [The VV. contend through three columns (pp. 319-320) that Viva is altogether to be exempted from every note both of confusion and contradiction. Resp. Viva (l. c.) attacks not only Sanchez, Cajetan, and Navarrus, as the VV. feign, but also Toletus, Fagundez, Bonacina, Salas, Valencia, and others with Diana; namely he attacks those fifteen whom the VV., as we have seen, wished to cite for the opinion of St. Alphonsus! But Viva attacks these because they excuse betrothed persons from mortal sin even if they intend sensitive and carnal delight. Now let us ask: of what sort is the delight which Viva reproves? For if it is merely sensitive or sensible, such as Sanchez asserts (lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 49), calling it "sensitive delight which arises from kisses," how does he subjoin that it is more commonly condemned as mortal sin? How does he object against those authors Rebellus and Hurtado, who fight only, as we have seen, against venereal delight? Indeed, how with these does he oppose Perez also, who, as we saw above, admits this sensible delight as licit? But if Viva wishes to fight against venereal delight, how does he attribute this opinion to those fifteen Writers with Diana, who follows them? How does he attribute it to those very many whose cause (on prop. 40 of Alex. VII, n. 23) he makes common with Sanchez? I ask: is this the most suitable way of treating questions clearly, distinctly, and coherently?]

Therefore, from those alleged, there will remain Mendo, Concina, and Roncaglia, of whom the last (tract. XII, cap. 1, q. 6) says that he marvels that some admit kisses as licit between betrothed persons, and that he never sufficiently perceived how it can be said that betrothals bestow on betrothed persons a right to mutual kisses. To these things others perhaps would reply that the reason which did not shine before Roncaglia's eyes nevertheless did shine commonly before the understanding of the other Doctors whom we have suggested; for no other sufficient cause of so common an opinion can be assigned except some reason sufficiently considerable, which compels very diverse talents into one opinion. The same must be replied to Mendo, who (Statera Opin., diss. V, q. 12, n. 118) feared to follow the doctrine of so many and so grave Authors, as he says, because he did not see through the foundation of the same.

[The VV. note (p. 323) that the testimony of Concina is left untouched in the Note. - Resp. Do they not themselves (p. 324) expressly confess that Concina is called most rigid by the holy Doctor Alphonsus? Now the suffrage of a rigid author indeed is worth more than moderately when he absolves; not likewise when he condemns. Therefore in the case let them have him for themselves. - The VV. reply (p. 324): St. Alphonsus reproves very many opinions of Concina because they are more rigid than is just, or most rigid; but in this question... he does not think him rigid. - Resp. If it is so, then the force of the suffrage is not taken from Concina's authority, but from St. Alphonsus's. Now a suffrage which has no force except from the authority of the same person alleging the suffrage can be omitted without damage to the cause, since it contributes no help to the cause by itself. - The VV. add (pp. 321-323) that Roncaglia and Mendo do not stop in mere admiration, but overthrow the adverse opinion with very grave (!) arguments. - Resp. The reasons brought by Mendo are so valid that they condemn even that which St. Alphonsus approves as licit (see preceding note) in that general thesis of Sanchez (l. c., n. 47): "Kisses and embraces and other touches not immodest are excused from mortal fault between betrothed persons for the future." Nor truly is this strange; for Mendo is from those whose name scarcely appears elsewhere among allegations, except where some anomalous opinion is produced. - But as regards Roncaglia, it must be noted first that the question is restricted by him not only to kisses pressed and prolonged for some time, but moreover to those done for capturing sensible delight. Now Logic does not permit that from this a conclusion be drawn concerning all kisses, with St. Alphonsus's distinction set aside between one acting on account of delight and one acting with delight. But the argument already produced by Rebellus, and then repeated by the rest also wholly beside the matter, namely that betrothals do not give a right over the body of the other, with examples then added for illustrating the matter both of one buying a vineyard, who does not yet have a right in the thing, and of a man destined for the office of judge, which nevertheless he has not yet received - this argument, I say, is nothing but a pure sophism. And indeed do we assign a right over the body of another when we say that friendship gives a right of embracing or kissing a friend, or that the same right is present in parents toward children, etc.? It is indicated, namely, that the condition of friend to friend, of parents to children, etc., and also of betrothed persons mutually, is such that demonstrations of affection and benevolence of this kind cannot be condemned as incongruous to their state. Indeed, since that love is legitimate and honorable to such a degree that St. Thomas (see above, note to q. 7, n. 32) holds that a woman fittingly adorns herself to please the man whom she ought to receive as an act of virtue and meritorious of eternal life, it is likewise honorable to foster that love by signs of this sort.]

But another sophism must not be omitted here, against which some do not take enough caution in treating this question. Namely, they so distinguish merely sensible delight, which for example is drawn from touching silken cloth, from venereal delight, that if indeed the delight perceived from an embrace is not that merely sensible delight, it must already be held as venereal and gravely damnable, just as if there were question of brute animals. But in a rational man another element must not be neglected, whence there is delight which can neither be called back to that merely sensible delight, nor again be condemned as venereal. And in truth, does the delight which a mother experiences in the embrace of a son returned from war have anything in common with the touch of a flower? This delight indeed so inheres in an embrace of this sort that she kisses the son a hundred times, nor for a long time allows him to be torn away from her arms. Therefore, if that delight is not sensible, will it be venereal? Namely, a pleasure and delight of its own and of an altogether diverse character is present when an ardent affection of the heart pours itself out through signs or demonstrations of this sort, and seems to satisfy itself and as it were rest in them. But as often as this affection is legitimate and honorable, and in pouring itself out keeps the limits of honesty and decency, what is there in which it may be condemned, or to what purpose is that theory concerning merely sensible delight and delight proper to the touch of silken cloth summoned hither? But from this it is understood why Authors, for rendering honorable embraces and kisses of this sort, bring forward the demonstration of love and benevolence, and the fostering of the same, as an end in some way intrinsic to the work; but add the question concerning delight, which either accompanies the act or perhaps even is intended, as it were concerning a thing which accrues to the act per accidens. And indeed perhaps someone would have thought not altogether absurdly that the graver Authors, when they here name sensible or sensitive delight, by no means wished to indicate merely the sense arising from the touch of a smooth thing. For there is another affection of the sensitive appetite, and that now pleasant, now unpleasant, which almost accompanies the affection of the rational appetite from which it arises, and has joined to it also some bodily change, and especially a change of the motions of the heart, now pleasant, now unpleasant; whence commonly the heart is said to be dilated or pressed. Yet this affection and bodily change of itself has nothing common with venereal delight, to such a degree that indeed it accompanies even the most pious affections toward God; and on that account we are warned not to cling too much to this sensible delight among spiritual exercises. Now by what more apt name than that of sensitive delight would Authors designate this sensitive affection, which arises spontaneously and accompanies those acts by which, in the case, it is brought forth and is shown by some effect? And from here indeed the sense of certain locutions can be drawn out, which the VV. try wholly to drag over to signifying venereal delight; whence they accuse both Navarrus and Cajetan and also Sanchez, as if they had asserted that venereal delight is licit for betrothed persons, or at least not gravely culpable in the case. But even in these matters they have against them the rigid Mendo, whose words they themselves report (p. 322). The VV. take the occasion of accusing Navarrus from those words of Navarrus (Man., c. 16, n. 12): "For betrothals, which are the beginning of marriage, make a faculty of enjoying pleasure preambulatory to matrimonial pleasure, which is the singular determination of the same Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 154, art. 4." But these words rather persuade the opposite. For if according to Navarrus the pleasure conceded to betrothed persons is related to matrimonial pleasure as betrothals are related to marriage, it must be concluded that that preambulatory pleasure is nothing other than a certain disposition prior to another. Wherefore, just as betrothals are a disposition to marriage in such a way that nevertheless they participate nothing of the nature of marriage, so also that preambulatory pleasure must be understood as wholly without the nature of that pleasure which is exclusively marital. And from here it is given to know better what those locutions of Cajetan alleged by Navarrus mean, where (l. c.) he writes: "But it seems that just as betrothal is a certain beginning of marriage, so also an act of this sort" (namely a kiss) "is a certain beginning of carnal copula"; or (as he has in the Summa, V. Sponsalitia): "Just as a betrothed woman belongs to the betrothed man inchoatively, so the venereal delight of carnal joining between them is permitted inchoatively between the same; but it is clear that kisses... import only the beginning of venereal delight." Now the same argument as above returns. For the delight of kissing is the beginning of venereal delight just as betrothal is the beginning of marriage. But betrothal is a mere prior disposition to marriage. Filliuccius (tr. 10, c. 9, n. 357), aptly rendering the sense of these Authors, has it thus: "If they are not immodest, that is, if they are on honorable parts, as kisses, embraces, touches of hands, and the like, they are lawful, even if they" (the betrothed) "intend to capture from them sensitive delight, but not venereal. The reason is that, as marriage in the present renders copula honorable, so betrothals, which are a certain remote beginning of marriage, render honorable those touches which are a remote beginning toward copula. Cajet., Navarr., Lopez, and others with Sanchez." From these things it appears that they are indeed called a beginning, yet in such a way that venereal delight itself is excluded.]

This also must not be omitted here, that St. Alphonsus in this question in no way objected proposition XL from those proscribed by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, with danger of further consent and pollution removed, is only venial." But it seems this must be repeated from a twofold cause. For first indeed that proposition speaks of carnal or venereal delight, of which there is no question (see Duarte on this proposition, n. 489, and Viva on the same prop., n. 3); hence St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 415) uses that proposition to prove that smallness of matter is not given in a venereal thing. But then (even abstracting from the species of delight), this proposition admits exceptions, as is clear from married persons. But exceptions are not to be sought from the proposition itself, since it presents none, but from the sense of the Catholic schools. But the Catholic schools did not even suspect that the question concerning betrothed persons about which we are treating was contained in that proposition.

And these things indeed, as was premised, have been said merely historically. To these it will be useful to have added only this, that in questions of this sort the distinction which St. Alphonsus also elsewhere (lib. 3, n. 416) uses is very useful, namely that it is one thing to act on account of delight, another to act with delight. For, as we warned above (note to n. 411), the former manner of acting will most easily lead on to further things.

Here the VV. ask (p. 331): What do those words mean: "And these things indeed have been said merely historically"? Resp. They signify that the things which have been said hold the place of premises, from which others can elicit a suitable conclusion. The VV. themselves sometimes close their discourse with those words: "Let the Reader judge."

Indeed it is useful here also, merely historically, to subjoin in what way the VV. themselves gathered other Authors for the thesis of St. Alphonsus (pp. 324-330).

1. They allege Potestas thus (p. 327): "Kisses and embraces on account of natural and sensible delight... are mortal sins for betrothed persons for the future" (tom. 1, n. 2237); but they omit this explanation of the same Potestas (ibid., n. 2203): "Natural sensible delight is formally and intrinsically venereal."

2. They bring forward these things from Antoine (De Pecc., c. 7, q. 13): "Since betrothals are only a promise of future marriage, not a handing over of bodies, they bestow no present right over the body of the other in order to copula to be exercised here and now, nor therefore to acts which are ordered to it." But they omit what acts those are concerning which Antoine treats; but he expresses them thus in the thesis itself: "Every venereal delight, look, and base touch or touch of the pudenda, and any act of lust, are mortal."

3. They report these words from Candidus (disp. 11, art. 1, dub. 5): "Yet it seems to me truer and more probable that kisses and touches of this sort between betrothed persons for the future, if the end is only SENSUAL delight, are not licit, but mortal." But they omit to note that these things are not opposed to the preceding thesis of the same Candidus, where he treats not of sensual but of only sensitive delight, between which words nevertheless even Potestas (l. c.) notes that there is much difference. I said, the thesis of Candidus; for thus he begins: "I say seventh," etc.; therefore the VV. do not well feign that there the opinion of others is reported. But the thesis has itself thus: "If the end of these kisses," etc., "between betrothed persons for the future is delight only sensitive, they will be venial fault, because as such" (namely on account of defect of a right end) "even between spouses they are of similar fault."

4. The VV. bring forward these words of Cardenas (tr. 5, disp. 45, n. 205): "And thus I deny that opinion to be probable intrinsically, and after the condemnation of Alex. VII I think it is not even probable extrinsically." But the VV. wish these things to contain a response to those objecting: "Between betrothed persons for the future kisses and the delight arising precisely from them are not illicit mortally." But they omit those things which make clear that that response regards only venereal delight. For Cardenas premises these things in the same n. 205: "I respond secondly and chiefly, according to my opinion, ... that chaste embraces and kisses are licit for betrothed persons for the future, but not libidinous embraces and kisses; that embraces and kisses are licit, provided they resist the venereal delight and commotion arising from them. For... it is not lawful for them to provide consent to venereal delight, which is ordered to copula, not yet licit for them."

5. The VV. allege Mastrius; who nevertheless merely reports diverse opinions; but the suffrage for the cause of the VV. is worth as much as it is worth with Mastrius to have opposed the three false allegations of Lessius, Rebellus, and Henriquez to more, as Mastrius himself confesses, Doctors.

6. They allege Joannes Conradus, Ant. Fernandez de Moure, and Babenstuber. But in the texts which the VV. themselves allege, you discern that those authors are disputing there about venereal, carnal, libidinous delight. And from these indeed let the Reader judge also concerning some other allegations of the same weight.

IV. Kisses, touches, and embraces exercised on account of venereal delight contract malice diverse in species according to the various circumstances of the persons; for they are judged to be of the same nature as the consummated act toward which by their nature they tend. Hence in confession it must be explained whether they were had with the same or a different sex, with a married person, etc. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 417. - Lessius, etc.

415. Resolves. - 1. Kisses which mothers or nurses are accustomed to imprint on infants are free from fault. Say the same, at least ordinarily, of others who kiss infants of tender age, even of a different sex, with every wicked affection removed.

2. Young persons of either sex who in some games decently and without wicked intention embrace one another are not immediately to be accused of sin, and much less of grave sin, although they are to be turned away from games of this sort because of the danger joined to them.

3. But kisses impressed on less customary parts of the body, especially between persons of a different sex, for example on the breast, etc., or also if they are done lingeringly, especially with the tongue introduced into the mouth, likewise if they are long-lasting, repeated, etc., almost must be held as mortal. - St. Lig., n. 417.

416. • 4. They do not sin per se who touch themselves for wiping away bodily filth, or for calming itching, or for curing infirmities; yet if the itching is tolerable, it must be suggested that, insofar as they can without grave trouble, they abstain from touches. It is necessary, however, that the Confessor use great discretion in these things. For doubts of this sort are accustomed to vex especially persons of timorous conscience. But persuasions, if they are a little more vehement and are not seasoned with an open declaration about the otherwise absence of any guilt, will often and easily entangle consciences in most troublesome scruples. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 3. - But if touches of one's own body are done without cause, they do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being removed, they are had only in passing, and from mere levity or curiosity, because they are not very much incentives of lust. - St. Lig., n. 419.

5. Touches on the private parts of the same sex or on neighboring parts, even over clothes, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from petulance, jest, levity, and in passing. - St. Lig., n. 420.

6. A fortiori, with the case of necessity excluded, touches on the private parts of a different sex, even had for a brief time, cannot be excused from mortal sin; since they can scarcely proceed from any cause other than lust, and, besides that they are most indecent, they create per se a proximate danger of pollution or venereal delight. - St. Lig., n. 420. Yet probably maids are not to be accused of grave sin who perhaps touch the pudenda of infants while they clothe them, unless they do this with delay or carnal delight. - Lacroix, n. 902. - St. Lig., ibid.

7. It does not exceed venial sin, speaking per se, lightly and without delay to touch the fingers, hands, face of a person of a different sex, a wicked end being removed, and every affection and danger of lust, if these things are done, for example, from mere levity, and do not have a special danger joined by reason of one's own fragility or that of another.

Moreover, since in so slippery a matter it is not always easily clear what is venial or mortal, and on the other hand since not rarely there is present a proximate danger of gravely offending even in those things which per se do not exceed light sin, for example if they are done often and with delay between persons inclined to lusts, the Confessor must take the greatest pains to remove penitents, especially younger ones, from any touches with a different sex.

436. • Immodest touches with beasts, although they are not sins of bestiality properly so called, are nevertheless to be declared when some venereal delight is sought from them. But the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone, by means of the tongue of a beast of burden or of another beast, excites venereal pleasure or pollution in himself. Nor is it necessary to explain in confession of what species the beast was, nor whether it was male or female. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 474.

But here note that the Confessor ought to be very cautious, prudent, and sparing in questioning penitents about sins of lust, especially about those which seem more horrendous and unusual. See the rules to be handed down below in the Treatise on Penance, where there is question of the duties of the Confessor.

28. 2. Concerning touches. Almost the same must be said as concerning kisses.

(A) To touch the body, whether one's own or that of others, from venereal affection, is mortal; thus to touch the genitals of others,³ especially of different sex, even mediately over clothes, with the case of necessity set aside (as happens to physicians, surgeons, and others having care of the sick): for this provokes lust and can scarcely be done without depraved affection.

³ Antonelli notes (op. cit., t. I, n. 391) that women's breasts, and precisely their apex, are the seat of pleasure, and that excitation of these carries with it vehement commotion of the genitals, so that it is a grave sin morosely to touch the breasts, apart from the case of necessity.

Mothers and nurses, however, are excused from mortal sin when they briefly touch the organs of little children from curiosity or levity, because then generally the danger of venereal delectation is absent; but if they do this often and morosely, even for quieting children, they generally sin gravely, since from this children sometimes contract the habit of touching themselves shamefully. - To touch the dishonorable parts of beasts briefly, from curiosity or sensuality, generally does not exceed venial sin, because it does not gravely move lust; but to do this for a long time, even to the pollution of beasts, is generally a grave sin, because it induces danger of one's own pollution.

29. (B) To touch a person of the same or of different sex in less honorable parts, e.g., on the breast, without venereal affection, but without usefulness, from a certain curiosity or from sensible love, is not free from fault; if it is done briefly, from jest or levity, generally it does not exceed venial sin; but if morosely, and with grave commotion of the organs, especially if there is question of a person of different sex, it can scarcely be excused from grave sin, because of the proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation.

(C) To touch oneself in dishonorable parts, for the sake of necessity or usefulness, e.g., to drive away itching, to wipe away filth, to cure infirmity, is not sin, provided consent to the delectation which can arise from it is excluded. But every depraved affection, indeed disordered curiosity, must be diligently avoided; and therefore it is expedient to turn the mind to good things or at least indifferent things. - But if someone touches himself in dishonorable parts without just cause, from levity or curiosity, without depraved affection, he sins venially, because he imprudently exposes himself to the danger of causing carnal movements. Those who are prone to pollution, moreover, must altogether abstain from these touches.

(D) Here it can also be asked whether it is lawful to admit touches or kisses which are known to arise from libidinous affection. - (a) If the touches are of themselves dishonorable, and are done without necessity, it is not lawful, because thus there is cooperation in the sin of another without just cause. (b) If there is question of a kiss or touch honorable in itself, before others who do not know the depraved intention of the other, it can be admitted lest the other be defamed, with the danger of one's own consent set aside; if it is done secretly, so that it can be prevented without grave inconvenience, it cannot be permitted, since it is not lawful without grave cause to cooperate in the mortal sin of another.

359. - 2. Lustful touches, embraces, and kisses performed with other persons, because they begin a definite perfect act, participate in the circumstances of the agent and the patient. Wherefore it will have to be indicated whether either or both were unmarried or married, or in sacred orders.

364. - 7. Lustful touches upon an unwilling person contain a grave malice against justice which is similar to that of stuprum; and the quality of a married person or of one joined to you by relationship will have to be indicated.

401. - 1. A touch which is commonly judged modest, such as holding a hand, an embrace, or a kiss according to the custom of the country, can be disapproved only from the depraved affection of the agent, which is not to be presumed even in doubt. Nor is it very stimula- ting, and there is a just cause for permitting a spontaneous movement of the flesh.

But if the truly depraved affection of the agent is established, even a touch of this kind cannot be admitted unless a just cause of one's own detriment or that of the agent - who would be defamed by the repulse - excuses the cooperation. Therefore, an easy excuse from the grave guilt of this cooperation is at hand. Cf. what was said concerning betrothed persons, no. 295, at the end.

2. Nor are kisses given and returned from an affection of piety between parents and descendants incentives to lust.

3. Mercy, another noble affection, can also prudently - by guarding against delusion - be expressed through kisses which are directed toward an end wholly diverse from Venus.

4. Kisses, even honorable ones, by which love is signified are more stimulating. Their honesty must be estimated from the honesty of the love. Done in passing and quickly, even with a cause lacking, they are thought to be only venial.

Kisses repeated too frequently, especially upon the mouth or lips, and embraces too prolonged, because they gravely move the flesh and have no cause between unmarried persons, are judged grave, unless the carnal movement is positively repressed and, if pollution is more imminent, these things are ceased.

The dove-like kiss, by which the tongue of one is received in the mouth of the other, is marked with still graver reprehension.

5. Therefore, in practice, kisses are to be absolutely prohibited to those who, since they do not have marriage negotiations between themselves, can exercise them only from sensuality; but most especially to those between whom a suspect or less honorable love exists; and, also because of scandal, between priests and unrelated persons.

From the general rules, the confessor will gather what, while he endeavors to obtain all things, he can sometimes tolerate as having been done in good faith; let him be especially cautious and severe when there is question of those persons who profess perfect continence.

6. Kisses done in passing from some venial vanity, jest, curiosity, levity, or wantonness do not exceed venial guilt.

402. - A touch of the dishonorable parts of one's own body, made from curiosity or levity, does not exceed a venial sin, provided that scandal and the danger of venereal consent are excluded. If it is done deliberately and lingeringly, then it is more gravely reproved, because it is judged gravely stimulating of itself ¹.

¹ St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 419.

If it is done for some natural and not evil end, it will not even be venial: for example, if by rubbing you wish to extinguish non-venereal itching. Concerning pollution perhaps about to arise, cf. what was said in nos. 379, 380.

Even positive penances can be suspect. There are therefore persons who, for the very guardianship of purity, ought to put aside hairshirts and omit disciplines. Abstinences, fasts, and various acts of self-denial do not fall under this suspicion.

403. - A touch of the less honorable parts of another's body, made in passing, is not judged mortal. But kisses impressed upon parts of this kind or upon less customary places are generally mortal, because they arise from lust or proximately induce it (St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 417).

A touch of the dishonorable parts of another's body, made in passing from wantonness or curiosity, without affection and danger of venereal consent, can be excused from mortal sin, at least if the person is of the same sex and some occasion, for example of persons swimming or washing together, has given place to the wantonness. (Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 12.)

Similarly, they excuse maidservants who touch the private parts of little children whom they dress, because this age is less moving. Nevertheless, they are diligently to be deterred from frequently making these touches, lest the children assume a depraved habit of touching themselves. But those who tickle infants upon the private parts are especially to be reprehended. Moreover, it is objectively grave to excite venereal titillation of which an infant is capable.

Other touches of the uncovered dishonorable parts of another's body, especially if the person is of the other sex or is a beloved person, cannot be excused from mortal sin. (Cf. Sanchez, in the cited place; Tamburini, Explicatio decalogi, book 7, chapter 8, § 1, no. 6, at the end; § 2, nos. 3, 4.)

Indeed, touches of the private parts of the other sex over the garments, even if done in passing, are very suspect, although strictly they do not seem capable of being condemned as mortal (Sanchez, De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, no. 11; Palmieri, vol. 2, treatise 6, no. 982, who inclines toward the more severe opinion of St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 420).

404. - A touch of the genital parts of brute animals is judged venial of itself. If it is carried as far as the emission of semen, St. Alphonsus responds rather severely; but, in the end, the affection of the agent must be considered.

405. - Physicians and surgeons who, in exercising their art, must touch the bodies of others even in the dishonorable parts are excused from every sin because of necessity. Nor does involuntary pollution stand in the way. They must indeed convert the proximate occasion of sin into a remote one. This is easier for them, since they are moved by an honorable and grave end and, having implored the assistance of God, can rely upon it more confidently.

Nevertheless, it is necessary that in these examinations and in the manner of acting they not exceed due measure. Cf. Capellmann, De sexto praecepto, at the end.

Those who then sin formally are commonly situated in a necessary occasion ². And you will bring them with the greatest difficulty to abandon their art, even if they can. Wherefore it will be preferable efficaciously to turn those who are excessively lustful away from exercising a dangerous art while they are applying themselves to studies, or better still, before they have chosen those studies. For the more remote they are from exercising the art, the less the occasion seems necessary, and the more easily they will be persuaded.

² St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 488.

406. - Several women today have already attained a degree in the medical art. That they assist persons of their own sex in those matters in which they are proved to be as skilled and competent as men can contribute to a greater cultivation of modesty. But, since experience is still recent and uncertain, sick women who seek for themselves the services of male physicians are not to be disapproved.

407. - Because of the noble work of offering the breasts to offspring, the breasts of a mother give place to a twofold question.

1. Provident God has joined a certain pleasure to this pious office, which pleasure, according to the general canon often inculcated, participates in the honesty of the work, so that it can be accepted both by a wife and by a widow or unmarried woman.

But if, as sometimes happens, strictly venereal pleasure arises, the woman ought not on that account to abstain from her noble action; outside the married state, however, she is forbidden positively to consent to it. But, unless the penitent spontaneously asks a question, the confessor will do better not to excite scruples of this kind.

2. Today not a few wives, especially those of a more honorable condition, are accustomed after childbirth to retain breasts that are too dry, so that they lack a sufficient quantity of milk for nourishing the offspring. If this defect is foreseen, physicians endeavor to meet it even before childbirth by a certain preparation of the breasts, and this in a twofold manner: by an instrument, commonly called a tire-lait, by which the breasts are drawn through the aspiration of air and, as it were, artificially sucked; and by various manipulations performed by hand (massage). No inconvenience is connected with the former manner; but sexual excitations accompany the latter. Although these, as merely concomitant, are excused by the honorable end, even in unmarried persons, with consent excluded, they are nevertheless better and more prudently avoided. Wherefore, unless the latter manner excels by a serious usefulness, the former should rather be employed.

A. As to touches.

1. To touch one's own body or the body of others from a libidinous intention or venereal affection is always mortal.

2. To touch the genital parts of others, especially of a different sex, even mediately over clothing, except in a case of necessity, as happens with doctors, surgeons, and others having care of the sick, is ordinarily mortal, because it easily provokes libido and shows depraved affection. Likewise, to touch lingeringly the breasts of a woman and especially the mammary papillae, because they are seats of voluptuous excitation, which is accustomed to carry with it even vehement commotion of the genitals. An exception is made if the aforesaid parts are touched from the cause of levity alone and only in passing, as among nurses touching the organs of small children, or impubescent persons of the same sex touching one another.

3. To touch the genitals of brute animals from curiosity or sensuality generally does not exceed venial sin, especially if it is done in passing, because it does not gravely move toward libido. But if it is done for a long time or up to the pollution of the brute, it easily induces danger of one's own pollution.

4. To touch the less honorable parts of a person of the same or different sex, not from venereal affection nor from utility, but from curiosity, sensuality, or sensible love, is generally only venial, especially if it is done in passing, from joking or levity. But if it is lingering and with grave commotion of the genital organs, especially if it concerns a person of a different sex, it will easily be mortal because of the proximate danger of consenting to venereal pleasure.

5. To touch oneself in the dishonorable parts for the sake of necessity or utility, for example to drive away itching, to wipe off filth, to treat an infirmity, is not sin, provided consent to venereal pleasure which can arise from it is excluded. To do this without just cause, from levity or curiosity and without venereal affection, is venial sin, unless the touches gravely influence vehement carnal motions or bring in a proximate danger of consent.

VII. Warning. Touches, especially while they are lying in bed, are to be severely forbidden to boys on account of the ruinous consequences. Likewise boys and girls uncovering their genitals to one another from levity or curiosity are to be gravely rebuked; although at this age this per se is not mortal, it lessens chaste modesty and disposes and leads to further things.

816. Lust grows from contact; indeed, such is the nature of venereal delectation that ordinarily it is not completed except with some contact of bodies, either real, or at least imaginary.

1. It is certain among all that touch is not something intrinsically evil, but indifferent. - 2. As regards sensual delectation proceeding from touch, those things must be recalled which we have already said in n. 769, 2: some things are speculatively, but not practically, probable. The gravity of the danger or sin here is taken from the circumstances of the person, mode, or end. - 3. The greatest danger, in general, can arise from the object that is touched, if namely it has a direct relation with lust. The places of generative pleasure in a man are: the glans of the penis and the anal opening; in a woman: the clitoris, vagina, neck of the womb, and breasts (Antonelli, II, n. 166).

Note. What we say concerning touches is valid also for kisses and embraces.

817. Principles. I. Outside marriage, all touches exercised on account of carnal delectation are mortal sins. The reason is that they are exercised on account of a gravely evil end (H. Ap., IX, 3).

II. A venereal end being excluded, touches exercised without a legitimate and proportionate cause are mortal or venial, according as they bring grave or light danger of venereal delectation. The reason is clear from the things said in n. 769.

Hence: 1. They are mortal sins if, either from their own nature or on account of circumstances (for example on account of delay, on account of proneness to venery, etc.), they induce proximate danger either of venereal delectation or of pollution. - 2. If they induce only remote danger, they do not exceed venial sin. - 3. If they happen from a just and proportionate cause and with caution, they are free from fault, even though pollution follows accidentally, provided there is not consent to delectation (III, 417 seqq.).

818. III. Sinful touches upon another's body are of the same species as the consummated act. The reason is that they touch the object in its individual being. Hence, in confession it must be explained whether they were had with a married or sacred person, etc. (III, 416, 2).1

1. But the species of the consummated act is found in these touches only insofar as they betray affection toward concubitus, toward sex. Cf. the doctrine expounded above (n. 793, conclusion 2).

But that it may be known better when proximate danger of venereal delectation is present from such acts, and when remote, and what reasons excuse from sin: the following rules can be laid down.

819. I. Concerning one's own body. 1. To touch one's own private parts from necessity, or for another just end, for example on account of cleanliness, on account of soothing a non-venereal itching (provided the danger of pollution or of consent to it is absent, if perhaps unexpectedly and beyond intention it should occur), is no sin (III, 419).

2. To touch one's own private parts without just cause is never free from fault. If it happens in passing from levity or curiosity, it is venial. If lingeringly with venereal commotion, it is mortal. - And the same is valid concerning a girl touching her own breasts (III, 419, 484).

It is asked: Whether it is licit to drive away itching by touch with danger of pollution?

Resp. Very many indeed affirm; but Roncaglia rightly prohibits this, if namely the itching is not very troublesome, although he permits one to drive it away with only some commotion. In women, natural itching is discerned from venereal ardor by the fact that the former is only alleviated by friction, but the latter is immediately quieted by subsequent pollution. "In doubt, liberty possesses the right of freeing oneself from a molestation of this kind" (III, 483). "Nevertheless one should not easily believe certain girls who are accustomed to pollute themselves by touches under pretext of ardor of this kind; for if they are diligently examined, it will be known that that itching very often has rather been excited either by wicked thoughts previously had, or by a wicked habit contracted of touching themselves" (H. Ap., IX, 34).

820. II. Concerning another's body. 1. Touches (even over clothing) on the private parts of another's body, especially if it is a person of diverse sex, had without just cause, although without venereal affection, are hardly ever, outside marriage, excused from mortal sin. - The reason is that such touches, even though exercised in passing, strongly excite to lust and are greatly opposed to natural honesty (H. Ap., IX, 3). Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, n. 1036, 3.

We said: a) Without just cause; for on account of this, for example, physicians are excused, even though, while touching thus, they accidentally suffer involuntary pollution, provided they do not consent to delectation. "Would that," our holy Doctor exclaims, "in practice physicians did not continually sin in these matters" (III, 420, note 1).

b) Are hardly ever excused: because if touches of this kind should happen among the impubescent, from levity and jest without delay, they can be excused from mortal sin; because they are not accustomed to cause commotion.

Likewise, "Croix probably excuses from mortal sin female servants touching the private parts of boys while they dress them, unless they do this with delay or carnal delectation" (ibid.). But if they do that frequently and studiously, even to quiet them, certainly they sin gravely, unless they are excused by ignorance. For in this way they beget the incurable pest of masturbation.

821. 2. Touches on the less honorable parts (cf. n. 812) do not exceed venial sins, if they happen from levity of soul, jest, curiosity, or wantonness and without delay; because ordinarily they do not cause proximate danger of delectation. - But otherwise, even when venereal affection is excluded, if they happen lingeringly and with ardor.

Therefore they are to be gravely reproved who, from sensible delectation, touch a person of diverse sex on the less honorable parts. The reason is that sensual delectation very easily passes into carnal delectation. Likewise, with those (whether men or women) who touch the breasts of a woman, one must always act more severely, because this greatly moves. Cf. the things said in n. 816.

Hence, and a fortiori: a) A young man who draws a girl upon his knees and keeps her sitting there, or presses her against himself, sins mortally; as also does the girl voluntarily suffering these things. - b) Kisses impressed on less usual parts of the body, for example on the breast, must ordinarily be held mortal, especially if they happen between persons of diverse sex.

822. 3. Touches on honorable parts (i.e. kisses on the face, embraces, pressings of hands, and similar things) are free from every fault if they happen decently according to the custom of the country, for the sake of civility or honorable benevolence. They are venial sins if they happen in passing from levity, jest, wantonness; but mortal (at least ordinarily) if they are exercised with delay or ardor. "Say the same concerning kisses on the mouth, or if someone receives with his mouth the tongue of another" (III, 417). Cf. n. 769, 2.

Hence: a) "A woman or adolescent does not sin if she permits herself to be touched modestly according to custom; unless there is certainty concerning the wicked affection of the one touching, and she can then resist without infamy to herself or scandal of others. But she sins if she does not oppose lingering kisses, or even furtive ones; because evil affection is presumed" (III, 430; H. Ap., IX, 5).

b) He sins only venially, speaking of itself, who lightly touches and without delay the fingers, hands, or face of a person of diverse sex, a wicked end or affection of lust being excluded, if these things, for example, happen from mere levity, and do not have annexed to themselves a special danger by reason of his own or the other's frailty.

c) "To kiss children (understood of very young children), even with sensible delectation, ordinarily is only venial, because that delectation is ordinarily only natural" (III, 417).

d) Delay and repetition in honorable embraces are of themselves free from every fault among persons joined by close consanguinity, and not suspected of mutual concupiscence, for example between a father and daughters, a mother and sons, if they happen as a sign of special love, even with some organic delectation, provided this is not sought nor willingly felt.

Note. Since in lingering embraces there are very often the thought and desire of copulation, carnal movements, and thereafter pollution, penitents who declare embraces without those circumstances, as ordinarily happens, must prudently be questioned concerning these things.

823. 4. To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. It is more probably to be said otherwise if the touch were carried as far as the animal's pollution. - The reason is that, although such things happen only for the sake of levity, it is nevertheless an action of itself strongly exciting to venery. Those who, from necessity, join horses, bulls, etc., are excused from sin, provided they do not consent to lust (III, 419, 420). - Immodest touches with a beast are not properly sins of bestiality (III, 474).

486. Principles. - I. To touch one's own shameful parts from levity or curiosity is not mortal, provided this is done in passing, without movement of the spirits, without scandal, and without danger of delectation. - Otherwise it will be mortal.¹

II. To touch the same parts from a just cause, for example to wipe away filth, to soothe itching, to cure infirmities, etc., with base delectation absent or not voluntarily admitted, is no sin. Hence:

1° Young men, adolescents, indeed even infants, are to be strongly deterred from handling their own body; because these touches are wont to lead to greater things, and they take away shame, the guardian of modesty and morals.

2° A girl can sin gravely by touching her own bosom; for this often conduces to venereal movement.

Quaer. Is it licit to drive away a great itching by touch with danger of pollution?

Resp. Very many, as St. Alphonsus testifies, teach that this is licit: "But Roncaglia rightly prohibits this if the itching is not very troublesome, although he permits driving it away with only some movement. - Nevertheless one should not easily believe certain girls who are wont to pollute themselves by touches under pretext of heat of this sort; for, if they are examined diligently, it will be known that that itching is often" not from acrimony of the blood, but "rather ... either from evil thoughts previously had, or from an evil habit contracted of touching themselves."²

487. Principles. - I. Touches on the shameful parts of another body, especially if they are bare, and a fortiori if of a different sex, even when had with venereal affection excluded, are scarcely ever excused from mortal sin outside matrimony. The reason is that there is grave indecency in them, and grave danger of lust. - They are excused only because of the necessity of the physician and surgeon, provided they do not consent to the delectation; "and would that," ... says St. Doctor, "physicians in these things were not sinning continually."¹ Hence:

1° He sins gravely who touches the shameful parts of the different sex, even over clothing, and as through a lattice: this is very dangerous for each person. - He sins a fortiori gravely who imprints or admits kisses on parts of this sort, in which even married persons do not seem able to be excused, at least from venial sin.

2° Nor ordinarily is he excused from mortal sin who touches the shameful parts of another of the same sex, unless perhaps it is done from petulance, jest, levity, and in passing.

3° Nurses and guardians of infants sin gravely who are wont to handle and morosely touch the genital parts of infants in order to quiet them, and thus beget in them the plague of masturbation, and one all the more incurable as it is more premature. Yet they can be excused, at least from grave sin, on account of ignorance of the danger; or if they do these things in passing and without carnal delectation, for example while they dress or wash infants.²

4° Impubescent infants of the same sex touching one another immodestly from jest or levity can be excused from mortal sin; because they are not wont to be moved carnally. Yet the contrary is often clear, especially in girls, who already in the sixth year of age can experience a certain pollution, although they should never be questioned about this.³

II. Touches on less honorable parts (such as the breast, arms, legs) constitute mortal sins when they are exercised for the intention of venereal delectation, or practically (see n. 485) even organic delectation, between persons apt for copula. - They are venial if they are done from levity of soul, jest, curiosity, or petulance, without delay and danger. - The reason is clear from what was said about luxury in general (n. 484). Hence:

1° A young man who draws a girl upon his knees and holds her sitting there, or presses her against himself, ordinarily sins at least mortally; as also does the woman willingly suffering this.⁴

2° Touches of the breasts of a woman, especially already pubescent, are mortal when they are pressing and morose; but venial if they are done in passing and lightly, without libidinous affection.

3° Kisses impressed on less customary parts of the body, for example on the chest, must ordinarily be held mortal, especially if they are done between persons of different sex.

488. • III. Touches on honorable parts (that is, kisses on the face, embraces, contact of hands, and similar things) are free from all fault if they are done decently according to the custom of country, civility, or honest benevolence. - They are venial sins if they are done in passing from levity, jest, petulance; - but mortal, at least ordinarily, if they are exercised often or morosely by young persons, especially of different sex, without any necessity or other just cause, although on account of organic pleasure alone. See what was said in n. 485. Hence:

1° "A woman or adolescent does not sin if she permits herself to be touched modestly according to custom; unless (except) it is clear to her concerning the depraved affection of the one touching, and she can then resist without her own infamy or scandal of others. - But she sins if she does not resist ... morose or furtive kisses."¹

2° Young men and girls are not immediately to be accused of sin, at least grave sin, who in certain games embrace one another decently and without evil intention: "yet very many sin gravely in these things, and all are to be altogether turned away from games of this sort on account of the danger annexed to them, and seriously admonished."

3° He sins only venially, of itself speaking, who lightly and without delay touches the fingers, hands, or face of a person of different sex, evil end and every affection and danger of lust being excluded, if these things, for example, are done from mere levity, and do not have special danger annexed by reason of one's own or another's frailty. - Likewise, to kiss boys greatly, even with sensible delectation, does not of itself exceed venial sin; because then the danger of venereal delectation is ordinarily absent. - For the same reason:

4° Of itself, both delay and repetition in honorable embraces are free from all fault among persons very closely joined by blood, and not suspected of mutual concupiscence, for example between father and daughters, mother and sons, if they are done as a sign of special love, although with some organic delectation, provided this is neither sought nor gladly felt.²

5° Kisses, even if they are done from the custom of country, if they are had with delay or ardor, are ordinarily mortal. Likewise kisses on the mouth, or the tongue of another received by the mouth.¹

Note. - To touch the genitalia of brute animals is not lethal of itself; but St. Alphonsus deservedly condemns, against some, a touch of this sort all the way to the effusion of semen as mortal, not indeed on account of the waste of the brute's semen, but because such an act very much incites to lust. Those joining horses, oxen, etc., are excused because of necessity, provided they do not consent to lust.

Practical rules. 1° Touches toward another's body, embraces, and kisses, whether they are libidinous from their own nature, or from the intention of the agent, are of the same species as consummated acts; hence in Confession it must be explained whether they have been had with a married person, a blood-relation, an affine, one bound by a vow of chastity.²

2° In morose embraces there are very often the thought or desire of copula, indeed also pollution or carnal motions, concerning which those who declare embraces without those circumstances are prudently to be questioned, as ordinarily happens.

3° Young people often do not know by what spirit they are moved; hence on account of these and similar things full of danger, even if they do not yet suffer venereal things, absolution is prudently deferred for the accustomed and relapsed; because the occasion of fall, at least for one or the other, will soon become proximate.

694. A touch lingeringly made upon the dishonorable parts of another adult person without necessity is wont to introduce grave danger of venereal pleasure and consequently is gravely illicit. If there is question of infants or those before puberty, the danger is indeed less, but nevertheless even these useless touches must be altogether avoided.

A touch made in passing either a) upon the dishonorable parts of one's own body or b) upon the less honorable parts of another person (indeed without an evil intention, but also without a cause of necessity or utility) seems to be a light sin, because the danger of illicit venereal pleasure ordinarily is not so grave. But if these touches are lingering, they are also lustful and consequently gravely sinful, for example, if someone lingeringly touches a woman upon the breasts.¹³³⁹ - Concerning a dishonorable touch of beasts, judgment must be made according to the intention and condition of the person touching. Since today the vice of bestiality rages sufficiently widely, touches of this kind made without necessity must be seriously prohibited, as being gravely dangerous and inducing to lust.¹³⁴⁰

¹³³⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 419.

¹³⁴⁰ Cf. ib. n. 420.

1027. Applications. - The principles have been applied by theologians to many concrete cases; some solutions of these we add here. Yet these solutions for the most part admit exceptions; hence generally they are not to be considered as rules altogether universal, but only as general rules which hold only as in the majority of cases.

A. As to touches.

1. To touch one's own body or another's from lustful intention or venereal affection is always mortal.

2. To touch the genital parts of others, especially of the other sex, even mediately over clothing, except in a case of necessity as happens for physicians, surgeons, and others having care of the sick, is easily mortal because it provokes lust, and for the most part shows a depraved affection; unless it happens from levity alone and only in passing, as among nurses touching the organs of little children, or among those before puberty of the same sex touching one another. Likewise, to touch the breasts of a woman, and especially the nipples, morosely, because they are seats of pleasurable excitation, which usually brings with it a commotion of the genitals, even a vehement one; or on the contrary, from levity and in passing.

3. To touch the genitals of brute animals from curiosity or sensuality generally does not exceed venial sin, especially if it happens in passing, because it does not gravely move to lust; but if it is done for a long time or even to the pollution of the animal, it easily induces danger of one's own pollution.

4. To touch the less honorable parts of a person of the same or different sex, not from venereal affection nor from utility, but from curiosity, sensuality, or sensible love, generally is only venial, especially if it happens in passing, from jest or levity; but if morosely and with grave commotion of the genital organs, especially if it is a question of a person of different sex, it will easily be mortal because of proximate danger of consenting to venereal pleasure.

5. To touch oneself in dishonorable parts for the sake of necessity or utility, for example, to drive away itching, to wipe away filth, or to cure infirmity, is not a sin, provided consent to the venereal pleasure which can arise from it is excluded. To do this without a just cause, from levity or curiosity and without venereal affection, is a venial sin, unless the touches gravely influence vehement carnal motions or bring in proximate danger of consent.

B. As to kisses and embraces.

1. Those done from venereal affection are mortal.

2. Those done on dishonorable or less honorable parts, such as breasts, are easily mortal, because they for the most part excite grave carnal motions and usually indicate venereal affection; unless perhaps they are done in passing and from levity alone.

3. Those done on honorable parts, without reasonable cause, but because of sensible love and from levity, jest, or sensuality, are venial, unless there is proximate danger of consent to venereal pleasure, as easily happens if they are morose, or repeated rather often, or impressed with great affection between persons of different sex, especially the columbine kiss by which the tongue is inserted into the mouth of another.

4. Kisses, embraces, and handlings of hands according to the custom of the country, for the sake of courtesy, friendship, or kinship, are licit, even if accidentally carnal motions are excited, provided danger of consent is absent.

C. As to looks.

These must be carefully distinguished from mere sight, and they move toward lust, though less than touches, and therefore are dangerous:

1. Without necessity, to look morosely and deliberately either at the genitals of the other sex, or even at the breasts of a woman, entirely bare or covered with a transparent veil, or at a man and woman exercising copulation or immodest acts toward one another, or at persons polluting themselves, is easily mortal because it gravely moves to venereal pleasure; unless it happens in passing or very remotely, or only a child is looked at, or the one looking is a cold old man or an infant.

2. Without a just cause, to look at the less honorable parts of a person of different sex, or at the coition of animals, from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection, ordinarily does not exceed venial sin, especially if it happens in passing.

3. Without cause, to look at one's own genitals from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection is venial, especially if it happens in passing; likewise, in this mode, to look at the genitals of a person of the same sex, unless someone is prone to sodomy, or unless a very beautiful adolescent is looked at morosely.

I say 1st. Any touches whatsoever, no otherwise than kisses, if they are done for the sake of venereal pleasure, are always gravely sinful, and of the same specific morality as the consummated act to which they tend. The reason for each is evident, and similar to that which was brought forward for kisses. But base touches are carefully to be distinguished from obscene ones.

I say 2nd. Besides the case of venereal pleasure directly intended, touches are also gravely illicit if they are joined with a proximate danger of pollution, and there is no just cause excusing. For such a cause having been supposed, e.g., the necessity of medical treatment, the pollution following from it will no longer be directly willed. - But the proximity of danger is to be judged from the nature of the parts which are touched, and from the other diverse circumstances of the persons.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Touches upon the private parts of the same sex or neighboring parts, even over clothing, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from wantonness, jest, levity, and in passing. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 420.

2nd. A fortiori, the case of necessity being excluded, touches upon the private parts of a diverse sex cannot be excused from mortal sin, even if had for a brief time. Yet probably maidservants who touch the genitals of infants, while they clothe them, are not to be accused of grave fault, unless they do this lingeringly. Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid. Lacroix, n. 902.

3rd. It is venial of itself to touch the genitals of brute animals; nevertheless to touch them unto emission of semen is more probably reputed mortal by St. Alphonsus, not indeed by virtue of the destruction of semen, but because such an act excites most vehemently. But those who couple horses or oxen are altogether excused. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 419 and 420.

4th. It is also venial to touch from levity and curiosity the less modest parts of the other sex; but mortal if it is done lingeringly and with stirring of the genital spirits.

5th. In no way do they sin of themselves who touch themselves to wipe away bodily filth, or to soothe itching; if however the itching is tolerable, it is to be advised that they abstain from touches. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 3.

I say 1st. Base gazes had without sufficient cause are gravely or lightly sinful according to the danger of venereal pleasure; because this is the whole reason why they are prohibited by the law of nature. But to know the proximity of the danger, one must attend to the diverse circumstances, namely to the parts which are looked at; to the sex, age, and other natural qualities of the person looked at; to the dispositions, whether natural or acquired, of the person looking; to the distance and the manner in which the gaze occurs, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 421 and following.

I say 2nd. Gravely sinful gazes, with the case of desire excluded, do not induce the malice of the circumstances of the person who is looked at. The reason is that circumstances of this kind do not influence the act, since sight does not touch the object immediately as touch does, and no one says that we violate a sacred person by sight. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

I say. To speak, hear, or read base things for the sake of venereal pleasure or with proximate danger of consent to it is a grave sin, as is evident of itself. But if the danger is not proximate, or indeed is proximate but at the same time there is a just cause of speaking, hearing, or reading those base things, the sin will be either none or only venial. But what is said here about the base is not to be applied to speech simply obscene.