The Duties of Engaged Persons

The Duties Imposed by Engagement to Marry.—(a) Before Engagement.—Courtship is lawful for those who intend to marry, for without it the mutual knowledge which is requisite for a prudent choice is impossible. But courtship should be employed, not as a period of pleasure and extravagance, but as an opportunity for learning the suitability of the parties, one for the other, and their desirability in virtue, religion, sanity, intelligence, health, wealth, position, love of children, sobriety, steadiness, etc. Visits are lawful during courtship, but not the same familiarity as is permissible after engagement. The time of wooing should not be protracted, and as a rule after a year the parties should either become engaged or decide they are not well matched.

(b) At the Time of the Engagement.—The parties are gravely bound to make known to each other all personal defects which cannot be concealed without serious injustice, such as the lack of virginity or other quality which one party makes a conditio sine qua non, or the presence of a diriment impediment or of a very harmful or displeasing characteristic (such as venereal disease, sterility, disgrace, race, the fact that one is a widow, etc.). There is no duty of justice to manifest defects whose concealment will not be detrimental (such as poverty, lowly origin), but there may be a duty of charity to reveal them, as when their concealment now will lead to an unhappy marriage. As to fornication, the man is not obliged to confess it, unless perhaps when he has an illegitimate child; nor the woman, unless she is actually pregnant, or cannot keep the matter hidden afterwards and can make it known without serious harm to herself (see Self-defamation, 1577; cfr. 1978, 2132). But those who have been guilty of these mistakes should undergo a test on the question of physical health.

(c) During the Engagement.—Fidelity requires that an engaged person be true to the other party, avoid paying court to a third person (see 2526), and give the signs of affection that are usual between engaged persons. The relationship between the engaged parties does not give them the right to what is intrinsically evil (e.g., voluntary pollution, proximate danger of consent to sin, continuance in a familiarity which is a proximate occasion of sin), or to what is lawful only to married persons (e.g., intercourse and the liberties pertinent to it). But it does give them the right to manifest their affection by acts indifferent in themselves (e.g., visits which are not private, too frequent, or too prolonged; the decent kisses usual between betrothed lovers on meeting and parting), even though unintentionally pollution may follow (2538). Persons who intend to marry soon should acquaint themselves before marriage and from reliable sources with the fundamental physiological facts of sex, so as to avoid the mistakes which often wreck conjugal happiness, beginning with the honeymoon itself; they should have some money or the prospect of being able to support themselves, and the woman should know how to take care of a home.

(d) At the End of the Engagement.—A formal promise to marry (Canon 1017) imposes the duty of marriage within a reasonable time (i.e., at the appointed date, or, if no date was fixed, at the time when one of the parties reasonably requests it), unless the engagement be broken (e.g., by mutual consent, by a circumstance that makes marriage impossible, such as marriage to a third party or choice of the clerical state; or unnecessary, such as the fulfillment of a resolutory condition, supervening impediment, Papal dispensation given for a just cause); or unless one of the parties has a right not to keep the engagement on account of a notable change in the circumstances, or a breach of faith, or opposition of parents that will make the marriage inadvisable, etc. The obligation to marry is one of justice, and is grave when the contract was bilateral; it is one of fidelity or justice, and grave or light according to the intention of the promisor, when the contract was unilateral (see 1888). There is no action to enforce an engagement, for forced marriages are unwise (Canon 1017, n. 3); and in practice confessors and pastors should not insist on fulfillment of the promise. But damages can be sued for, and the confessor should deny absolution to one who refuses to make just restitution in a case of breach of promise (see 1803). An informal promise to marry (i.e., one invalid naturally or positively) produces no obligation to marry in either forum (see 454); but it does produce a duty of restitution in breach of promise, if there was force, fraud, or deceit.

Conditions for the Signs of Affection between Engaged Persons.—(a) Objectively, these signs must be suited to the condition of merely engaged, not of married persons. Brief and modest kisses are proper for lovers, but greater intimacy, such as long and lone conversations in secluded spots, are wrong.

The chaster the relations between the betrothed, the less occasion for future regrets and recriminations. “Petting” purchases a cheap physical thrill or excitement at the cost of present moral danger for two persons, of the degradation of love to its lowest expression, and of loss of self-respect, with the probable risk of a future ill-fated marital career ending speedily in disillusionment and divorce. It is essentially selfish and unwise.

(b) Subjectively, the signs of affection must not be a proximate occasion of sin; nor may they be accompanied by consent to sin, or be used for the sake of venereal pleasure. Joy at the thought of future marriage intercourse and sensual pleasure in present kisses (2514) are in themselves not sinful, but in practice they are as a rule gravely dangerous. Motiones carnales, quales sunt erectiones, signa sunt delectationis venereae quando conjuguntur eum pollutione vel proxime praeviis ad eam; sunt signa delectationis mere sensualis, quando amorem sensibilem sequuntur ex motu sanguinis, quin in resolutionem seminis ex se tendant (2497 b).

I. Lawful things among betrothed persons. - N.B. By the name of betrothed persons here are called not only those who are bound by a valid sponsal pact, but all those for whom, whether from a pact of this kind or from an equivalent introduction of one into the house of the other, there is a certain and mutual hope of matrimony.

1. Honorable significations of love are altogether lawful between betrothed persons, according to the custom of the country, for example kisses, moderately used. Nor is sensible delight, not carnal, which accompanies a demonstration of this kind, to be rejected. For the end of conciliating and fostering mutual love in order to matrimony is honorable; and delight follows the nature of the operation.

2. But because no handing over of bodies has been made by sponsals, and sponsals prepare matrimony by the union of souls alone, they can indeed permit venereal delight, which easily, in the present condition of men, accompanies or follows the more general sensible delight, but they cannot deliberately seek or admit it. Rather, they must resist and positively renounce the rising carnal motion. And on account of the danger of consenting to carnal delight, betrothed persons are to be dissuaded from seeking kisses or conversations expressly and deliberately for the sake of sensible delight. But they are to be led to propose to themselves a higher end.

But what if the bridegroom asks for or impresses a kiss outwardly honorable and customary in appearance, but which the bride suspects or even knows is asked for or impressed with an affection or intention less good? Since the exterior act is good, she will have an easy excuse from the circumstances if consent is given to that alone.

Things to be counseled. 1. Since betrothed persons are very prone to excesses, they are to be admonished that they mingle tender conversations temperately and rather sparingly, nor exceed the native custom of upright persons in demonstrations. Especially let them beware of more frequent kisses, of kisses given on the lips rather than on the cheeks, of amorous embraces: for these are wont to move the flesh gravely. Although some excess is not immediately to be condemned as mortal; nor is that circumspection to be advised which permits nothing except a constrained manner of acting: a counselor too severe is little heard.

But betrothed persons should formally repudiate venereal delight. And that he may act sincerely, the bridegroom who, in demonstrating affections, feels pollution more imminent, must gently interrupt the demonstration, if he can do so conveniently.

2. As much as is necessary for avoiding dangers of this kind, the bride, through parents or a person endowed with authority, is to be especially exhorted from the beginning not to permit anything illicit. Let her know that this is not only wicked, dangerous to reputation, and damaging to her liberty of withdrawing, but also rather opposed to future happiness and to the present constancy of the young man. To present constancy, since a person easily consenting to sin is esteemed less, since nuptials are rendered less lovable to him who already before has obtained everything which he could seek in the conjugal state alone. To future happiness, since, at least in part, she will have rendered vain that wise ordination of divine Providence by which the new burdens of matrimony are relieved by new joys.

At the same time let her know that more things can more easily be exercised by her than by the young man without carnal commotion. Wherefore, with charity itself impelling, let her not admit many significations of love, still less solicit them, but let her follow this brief rule: let her not perform more than what can be performed before others, especially parents.

Moreover, the longer nuptials must be deferred, the more moderately one must act, lest the sponsals become a proximate occasion of sin, and because by too much intercourse disgust is easily generated.

For preventing dangers, the frequent use of the sacraments through the sponsals is greatly to be advised.

Duties of parents. Since betrothed persons are very subject to evil temptations, parents commit a grave sin when the intercourse of the betrothed has not been a care to them, or when they imprudently permit them to be alone. Therefore scruple is to be struck into them.

— Betrothed persons who frequently fall into sins which without sponsals they would avoid, if matrimony is rather near at hand, are regularly to be treated as persons dwelling in a necessary occasion. This, therefore, by apt means, caution and use of the sacraments, is to be converted from proximate into remote.

But if matrimony cannot be made soon, even then not rarely it is to be held as a more or less necessary occasion, either because the danger does not arise from the special circumstances of that intercourse, or because the occasion of matrimony is of singular value and will with difficulty be present again. Where a reason of this kind exists, one will have to act almost in the same way as in the former hypothesis.

If an excuse of this kind is lacking, a proximate occasion which is not more easily converted into remote is of itself to be deserted.

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

I. Not only honorable but also useful is a promise of matrimony, especially bilateral, since it fosters peace of souls, prepares happier marriages, and meanwhile aids chastity itself. These promises are subject to the general rules of promises; they can be absolute or conditioned; but all, if there is question of nuptials of Catholics or of mixed nuptials, must be made in the solemn form of writing duly signed. Nevertheless a promise fraudulently made, even invalid, begets the obligation of repairing damages, and hence also, sometimes, of contracting nuptials. But this obligation must be imposed circumspectly.

Moreover he sins by fraud who has concealed occult defects by which nuptials are rendered pernicious or damaging, or notably useless for the ends of matrimony; proportionate inconvenience excuses from revealing defects which render nuptials merely less desirable.

2. But promises of themselves are not to be made without consulting parents. Although an action is not given for urging the celebration itself of matrimony, nevertheless he sins gravely who withdraws from validly promised nuptials without the consent of the other party or without grave cause, which is judged to be present whenever the marriage is foreseen to be going to be unhappy.

Betrothed persons cannot promise nuptials to others; and, sinning luxuriously with others, they are considered unjust in some way: nevertheless the gravity of the circumstance of sponsals is disputed.

II. 1. Betrothed persons have, in the sponsals themselves, even broadly so called, a just cause for demonstrating mutual love by customary signs.

2. Nevertheless they can consent to no venereal delight. But for receiving a kiss outwardly honorable, although vitiated by intention, they will draw a sufficiently easy excuse from the circumstances.

I. QUESTION I. What is the end of betrothals? ANSWER. Betrothals were therefore instituted by the Church, that the faithful might approach the great sacrament of matrimony adorned with virtues and sanctity. For betrothals are to this sacrament what the catechumenate is to Baptism, the clerical tonsure to Orders, the noviceship of Religious to solemn monastic profession, as in the Supplement, question 43, article 1, reply 6, the Angelic teaches, saying: The first espousals are properly called betrothals, which are certain sacramentals, as is the exorcism of Baptism. Chiefly for these three sacraments to be rightly received the Church has established that the faithful be prepared and disposed by the exercise of virtues: because in the receiving of these they embrace a new kind of life, and profess a new state. But how shall they sustain the burdens, offices, and duties of the new state, as befits and is expedient both for families and for the commonwealth, and not merely for private felicity, unless they approach it well-mannered, instructed, and proved? As therefore those who are about to profess the monastic religion are constituted candidates under the care and vigilance of a watchful master, that they may thoroughly learn what they ought to profess; so the betrothed ought under the mastership of their own parish priest to exercise the apprenticeship of the conjugal state, that they may prepare themselves for celebrating so great a sacrament, and may be well disposed for sustaining the burdens which follow thence.

II. QUESTION II. What are the duties of parish priests in the instruction of the betrothed? ANSWER. First of all a parish priest ought to instruct young men and girls that they contract not betrothals tumultuously and suddenly, nor in taverns and profane places, nor after drinking-bouts, sportive spectacles, and dances; but let them send before serious considerations, and before witnesses, chiefly their parents, prepared with a singular affection of piety, let them approach the celebration of this sacramental rite. Let the parish priest explore the skill of the betrothed in the Christian religion, whether they are versed in those things which as Christians they cannot be ignorant of without sin. But besides those things which it befits Christians to know, they must needs be instructed in those which regard the conjugal state. They are gravely to be admonished that they dwell not under the same roof, lest a mutual and burning love from excessive nearness and familiarity burst forth into impure flames.

III. Let him instruct them that from the ancient custom of the Church betrothals and marriages were wont to be celebrated through the prayers of the faithful and the blessing of the Church, that the troublesome tribulation of the flesh, which is wont to accompany marriages, married persons might be able to bear with Christian fortitude. Tertullian, Book 2 To his Wife, chapter 8, teaches this: Whence shall we suffice to narrate the felicity of that matrimony which the Church conciliates, and the oblation confirms, and the blessing seals, and the angels announce, and the Father holds ratified? For not even on earth do sons rightly and lawfully marry without their fathers' consent.

IV. That a parish priest may be able to imprint the true image of Christians upon the souls of the betrothed, let him first propose to them to be seriously meditated the order of uncreated Wisdom, whereby God willed to propagate those souls which are to occupy the seats of the damned spirits. He willed this propagation to be at once carnal and spiritual, or made fruitful by divine grace. Hence it is that the persons destined for this generation first contract betrothals, which are a certain sacramental rite, says St. Thomas, and, the apprenticeship of Christian virtues being performed, they receive the great sacrament of matrimony, by which their souls are sanctified by the grace of the Redeemer for the procreating of offspring. Happy, says Tertullian, are the marriages which the Church conciliates — that is, which are made in the spirit of the Church, and for the ends predetermined by God. Tertullian subjoins that marriages are confirmed by the oblation, namely when the betrothed are signed with the heavenly blessing by those set over the Church amid the solemnities of the Masses and the common prayers of the faithful. Just as for the other sacraments to be rightly received there precede sacramentals, as lustral water, eulogies, and the interior virtues of the soul; so betrothals are, as we have seen from St. Thomas and Tertullian, certain sacramentals, by which the candidates of matrimony, being sealed, ought chiefly to exercise themselves in those virtues which lead to the guarding of the conjugal covenant whole and unstained. And the preparation of the betrothed must needs be so much the greater and more diligent, as they ought to serve not themselves only but others also. For married persons are public persons, chosen for preparing and preserving the Christian commonwealth, for multiplying the people of God, and for filling paradise. To these things both betrothals and marriages by divine institution look.

V. A virgin, betrothals having been contracted, is to be veiled, says Tertullian — that is, she ought to withdraw herself from the eyes, conversations, and familiarity of men, and chiefly of her betrothed, lest the flower of virginity contract defilement, and lest by a reciprocal lust they conciliate to themselves a divine curse in place of a heavenly blessing. Let the betrothed bear themselves chastely, modestly, and bashfully, that they may kindle in their betrothed a love not carnal but divine. What example have the betrothed? says Tertullian, Book On the Veiling of Virgins, chapter 11: Rebecca, who, when she was being led to a bridegroom as yet unknown and herself unknown, as soon as she learned that he was the one whom she had descried from afar, did not sustain the wrestling of the right hand, nor the meeting of a kiss, nor the communication of a salutation; but confessing what she had felt — that is, that she was espoused in spirit — denied herself a virgin, by being veiled, and already a woman, out of the discipline of Christ. For she showed that nuptials also are made by affection and by the mind, as also is the marriage-veil. What of this, that Tertullian sets before Christian betrothed the example not of Rebecca only but even of heathen brides? He carps at the vanity of exterior apparatus and the pomps of married women. He reproaches Christian betrothed with cutting through the very laws of nature, and with dishonouring in Christians that very modesty implanted by nature which even heathen brides guard. Nay rather, Tertullian goes on there, among the heathen they are led veiled to their husbands. … Among us not even natural things are preserved, as though our God were other than nature. And again, chapter 12, he cries out against the more exquisite adornment and superstitious ornament of the betrothed: They arrange the hair, and with the needle they wantonly insert a fringe upon themselves, and by the tresses divided from the forehead they profess an open womanliness. Then they seek the shape of a coiffure from the mirror, and macerate the face with a more fastidious washing, perhaps interpolating it with some medicament; they make the mantle project outwards, and pinch the shoe into many shapes. … Why do I pursue each thing? The manifest array alone carries about their whole womanliness. Tertullian in the same place, chapters 14 and 15, prescribes to betrothed virgins a withdrawal from the company of men. He sets forth the monstrous abortions of ruined modesty, and describes one by one the evils which the study of pleasing brings forth. The very concupiscence of not lying hidden is not chaste: it suffers something which is not of a virgin, the study of pleasing men. Strive as you will with a chaste mind, it must needs be that she is imperilled by the publishing of herself, while she is struck by uncertain and manifold darts, while she is tickled by the fingers of those pointing at her, while she is loved too much, while amid embraces and assiduous kisses she grows warm. Thus the brow is hardened, thus modesty is worn away, thus it is loosened, thus it learns to desire to please otherwise. But indeed true and whole and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself: it will not endure even the eyes of women; it has other eyes of its own. It flees to the veiling of the head, as to a helmet, as to a shield, which may protect its own good against the strokes of temptations, against the darts of scandals, against suspicions and whisperings and rivalries, and against envy itself.

VI. That these things have grown obsolete, and antiquated by a contrary use, some will reply, who, seeing an opposite corruption everywhere prevailing, and unable to coerce it within the confines prescribed both by nature and by the Scriptures for modesty and Christian decency, opine that the testimonies of the Scriptures and the doctrine of the Fathers, nay the very rights of nature, are to be adapted and accommodated in whatever way to the morals of today. But Tertullian, kindled with zeal for truth, chapter 16, thunders in this fashion: In this the defence of our opinion consists, according to Scripture, according to nature, according to discipline. Scripture founds the law, nature attests it, discipline exacts it. Which of these accords with the contrary opinion, or what colour has the diverse sentence? Of God is Scripture, of God is nature, of God is discipline. Whatsoever is contrary to these is not of God. If Scripture is uncertain, nature is manifest. And concerning the testimony of nature Scripture cannot be uncertain. If nature be doubted, discipline shows what is more ratified with God. Nothing is dearer to him than humility, nothing more acceptable than modesty, nothing more hateful than glory and the study of pleasing men. Let that therefore be to thee Scripture, nature, and discipline, which thou shalt have found ratified with God; as they command us to examine all things, and to follow the better.

VII. These things, however somewhat prolix, I have willed to transcribe out of Tertullian (and only the study of brevity hinders me from transcribing like things from almost all the Fathers), that parish priests may have present the true and ancient discipline of the betrothed to be inculcated upon the betrothed of today. These men ought to cry out more loftily. If discipline and morals have been changed, have the holy Scriptures? Have the divine laws been changed? Has nature been changed? Is it less prone to evil? Is it less lustful, less frail, less slippery? Nay it has been made more ardent, more shameless, more luxurious by evil custom, you say. Therefore it is to be coerced with stronger barriers, healed with stronger remedies, guarded with a keener study. These things, I say, parish priests ought to inculcate and to exaggerate for the sake of the elect, and that the reprobate may have no excuse. Let them draw documents to be delivered to the betrothed from the Fathers, from the Rituals, and from the holy Scriptures themselves.

VIII. Let parish priests besides imbue the betrothed subject to their own care, and teach them the most grave burdens which accompany the conjugal state; that constant and reciprocal love with which they ought to follow one another, whether infirm or sound; a robust patience, by which they ought to tolerate mutual infirmities, defects, and excesses. Let them diligently explain the most grave burden of educating offspring, of ruling a family, and of directing all things to the glory of God. Let them admonish in graver words that, if either be entangled in some custom of sinning, they should straightway study to tear it out, lest either absolution be denied them when the nuptials are to be celebrated, or they perfect the sacrament of matrimony sacrilegiously, and lay the foundations of a new state with sacrileges and outrages, whence afterwards innumerable evils, dissensions, hatreds, and internecine quarrels remain. Let them diligently instruct them that they learn to love one another with a Christian and divine love: because if they shall have done this, throughout the whole course of life the same flame will burn; but on the contrary, if from an unchaste and venereal love, from embraces, kisses, and obscene touches they take their beginning, both in this and in the future life they will be burned with pitch and sulphur. Carnal pleasures do not extinguish the thirst, but irritate and increase it. With vehement desire riches are coveted by the avaricious, girls by the unchaste; but once possessed they straightway grow cheap. A betrothed woman given into the power and use of her betrothed becomes to him after a few days an object of loathing and weariness, unless a divine love confirm the conjugal bond. Why are marriages commonly not covenants of reciprocal love, not knots of mutual benevolence and tranquillity, but occasions of discords, hatreds, and hardships? Because an impotent lust, obscene outrages, and a chain of crimes, not the sacrament of Christ, joined their bodies: it bound them not in the Lord, but in the mire of luxury, no otherwise than horses and mules, as is said in Tobias 6: They who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and so give themselves to their lust as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the demon hath power. But thou … shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.

IX. A parish priest will be able to read several most salutary documents, both in the holy Scriptures and in the ritual books, to be explained to the betrothed — some from the altar, others in the tribunal of penance. For he ought to exhort the betrothed that they frequent the divine sacraments, by whose grace they may be able to press down a kindling lust, and to prepare their souls, adorned with the offices of virtues, for the binding of the sacramental covenant. In confession he will instruct them in most grave words with what chastity, with what modesty and honesty they ought to exercise matrimony. He will temper his discourse according to the diverse acumen and knowledge of the betrothed. If a parish priest be prudent, he will be able to manifest all things which shall be necessary for Christian instruction, without pronouncing a word less modest and chaste. He will imbue them with this, that those things only are permitted to married persons which conduce to the begetting of sons in Christ, all those being rejected which the modesty implanted by nature abhors. If the betrothed be well-mannered, a brief instruction concerning the use of matrimony, always within and never outside confession, will suffice. Wherefore a parish priest ought chiefly to bend himself to this, that he educate and exercise girls and young men in the holy fear of God, and make them chaste and modest, and propagators of the progeny of God.

I. You have heard, Christian reader, the holy discipline of the betrothed drawn from the divine Scriptures and the Fathers. I am compelled to transcribe the opinions of very many, that I may succour readers less skilled, and admonish them to abstain from those which will appear to them themselves false. Readers are not only to be instructed, but also to be untaught.

II. QUESTION I. Do the betrothed sin mortally by taking morose delight in future copulation? ANSWER. Some distinguish delight in copulation thought of as present and thought of as future. Lest I seem to impose upon them, behold what out of others Fr. Sporer writes, part 4, chapter 1, section 1, no. 428: “It is one thing to consent and take complacency in a copulation thought of as future, and in the venereal delight to follow at some time from such future copulation; which to the betrothed is not unlawful. For since from the betrothals themselves contracted, and as it were by an inchoate right, such copulation and delight is to be at some time in the future, they ought not to be saddened by it or to turn away from it, but can lawfully consent to it, take complacency in it, or rejoice over it; since it is nothing else than to rejoice over the hope of a future good, which hope is present and lawful. So with very many Sánchez, Diana, and so forth.”

III. These men ought to have adverted that the human mind can indeed reach these metaphysical precisions. But concupiscence does not make precisions; it is borne and wallows in the venereal mire as in fact it is. Wherefore this complacency is equally deadly in the betrothed as in other men.

IV. QUESTION II. Are touches, kisses, and embraces lawful between the betrothed? ANSWER. Fr. Thomas Sánchez, Book 1, disputation 2, no. 5, teaches these things: “According to the common opinion embraces and kisses between the betrothed de futuro are lawful, on the ground that betrothals are a certain beginning of matrimony, and consequently grant a right of using the matrimonial preambular pleasure. Therefore through betrothals a right in the body is acquired, otherwise no use of it would be granted; and consequently he who violates this right by fornication will be guilty, beyond the fornication, of an injustice committed, necessarily to be opened in confession.” And this opinion is exceedingly probable.

V. These men therefore distinguish a twofold carnal pleasure: one preambular, which is lawful to the betrothed; another consummated, which befits the married. They bring forth the reason. Betrothals are the beginning of matrimony. Therefore through betrothals an inchoate right in the body is acquired; otherwise no use of it would be granted. Therefore preambular pleasure is to be granted to the betrothed. This doctrine is common, says Fr. Sánchez, among the more recent authors. The same the Salmanticenses teach, tract 9, chapter 15, point 6, no. 91, where they say: Just as betrothals are between them a certain inchoation of matrimony, so also there are lawful in that state acts which are in some manner an inchoation and beginning of copulation. Sánchez, and so forth.

VI. Fr. Thomas Tamburini, Book 7, chapter 5, no. 61, page 193, says: “To the betrothed de futuro it is exceedingly probably lawful without sin to have certain signs of love, such as kisses, touches, modest looks, and amatory conversations, even on account of the delight residing in them, but without danger of pollution, or of consent to it, or to copulation; but by no means immodest ones. So Thomas Sánchez. … I find one excuse in a betrothed man exercising these chaste actions with a foreseen but not intended danger of pollution, and without danger of consent to it. For if he were in an occasion in which he would be held UNMANNERLY if he abstained from them, he could usurp them, because there is already present a reasonable excuse.”

VII. This doctrine is more filthy than the preceding. There would be need of Tertullian's words against paradoxes so unheard-of. Can the betrothed exercise mutual kisses, touches, and embraces even with a foresight of pollution? We admonish confessors and all readers to beware of these lax opinions. Let adversaries evince that these comments are not adverse to evangelical chastity, and then let them attain the victory. Can the betrothed exercise mutual kisses, touches, and embraces even with a foresight of pollution, lest one be held unmannerly?

VIII. The unchaste doctrine of Tamburini Fr. Sporer transcribes at no. 430, and Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 5, question 12, no. 141, transcribes all the recounted paradoxes, without disapproving them, but after his probabilistic manner subjects all things to the arbitration of his readers; he shows himself nevertheless to incline to the contrary opinions as more probable. But what does it matter, if the others be probable?

IX. Fr. George Gobat, tract 10, no. 672, writes here: “Sánchez in the place cited, no. 49, uses indeed the name of sensitive delight, but by this he certainly understands venereal delight, as is plain from no. 3. … I confess nevertheless that it not rarely happens that a confessor is compelled in practice to suppose the opinion of Sánchez, unless he wish to dismiss such betrothed persons without absolution, as being those to whom he will with difficulty persuade either that those embraces, kisses, and so forth are mortal, or that, acknowledging them to be mortal, they should form a purpose of amending themselves.”

X. The dilemma of Fr. Gobat is marvellous. Either a confessor will with difficulty persuade that kisses, embraces, and touches of this kind exercised with venereal delight are deadly sins; or if the betrothed acknowledge them to be mortal, they will with difficulty form a purpose of amending themselves. Therefore either they would have to be dismissed without absolution, or the opinion of Sánchez is to be employed. Not the first: therefore the second. For to this a confessor is compelled — that he admit the opinion of Fr. Sánchez, unless he wish to dismiss such betrothed persons without absolution, and to diminish the frequenting of the churches. But such betrothed persons from such touches, kisses, and embraces take venereal delight, and according to Tamburini sometimes with a foresight of pollution. But this delight, replies Sánchez, is an inchoation of copulation, and in all unmarried persons would be a mortal fault. It is nevertheless to be adverted, subjoins Fr. Gobat in the place cited, that the betrothals be absolute: for if the betrothals were suspended by a condition, the doctrine of Fr. Sánchez would not be to be admitted. But in no way is this doctrine to be preached to those betrothed who have contracted betrothals under a condition.

XI. I myself set down nothing against these paradoxes, to be lamented rather than refuted. Let confessors themselves compare the recounted opinions with the doctrine of the holy Fathers, which I have indicated in the preceding chapter, and with the Gospel of Christ; and then let them themselves sit as judges.