Is it possible for two of opposite sex, when at least one of them has resolved to lead a life of perfect chastity, to foster a friendship that will remain platonic, that will not seek special sex attraction and desire sex satisfaction? To answer that adequately we must consider the nature of friendship and its consequent joy.

Friendship is not a chance, short-lived acquaintance or companionship. Friendship is mutual love that is based on a common possession of goods or characteristics and common interests, and that wishes well to the friend and will do well by him, especially if he is in need. It is, in other words, mutual benevolence and beneficence. Benevolence supposes a sympathetic understanding between friends; beneficence calls for a spirit of sacrifice for the good of the friends. Such friendship expresses itself in these acts: a friend wills that his friend retain the good he already possesses and takes great delight in his friend's possessing that good, praises it, congratulates him on it; he desires that the friend receive all other good that he does not possess but can possess; he sorrows over the loss of any good that the friend sustained; he lends a helping hand to the friend whenever opportunity and especially need presents itself; he desires to be ever more closely united with the friend. It stands to reason that one is not a friend if he helps his "friend" to sin. To do well by a friend means to help him to be morally good and achieve his greatest happiness, and not to do him the grave spiritual harm of pushing or pulling him into sin.

Friendship is essentially in the intellectual faculties of the soul. The intellect cognizes the friend and his attributes, and the will loves them and takes delight in them. All this is possible even in the natural order, namely, without grace. But it is perfected in the supernatural order. When sanctifying grace adorns the soul, and actual grace supports the mind, and supernatural reasons motivate the will, then we have supernatural friendship. Such friendship exists, for instance, between young Catholics of the same sex. To stress the fact that friendship can exist only in the intellectual faculties and to distinguish it from sentient love, we can style it spiritual friendship.

Since man is made of body and soul, and since he has not merely intellectual faculties but also sentient faculties whereby he can cognize the physical qualities of a person and love them, man can love another with a sentient love. Sentient love is more demonstrative than spiritual love. It tends to manifest itself in external signs of affection. Such sentient love is followed by sentient delight. Both sentient love and delight are unmixed, pure, when not influenced by, or influencing, spiritual love and joy, or sɛҳuąƖ love and pleasure. For instance, one can love and delight in the fragrance of a rose or in the sound of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or in the touch of velvet. Such unmixed sentient love and delight is in itself morally indifferent, neither good nor bad. It becomes either good or bad according as the will uses it for a good or a bad purpose. When used for an evil purpose it is termed sensual pleasure.

Because man is a composite of body and soul, spiritual love can easily be mixed with sentient love. The step from pure spiritual love to sentient love is short and easy. Spiritual love redounds to sentient love; but sentient love can strengthen and intensify spiritual love. A mother's spiritual love and joy in meeting her daughter after a long absence redounds to sentient love and delight that expresses itself in a tender kiss and a warm embrace, and is itself strengthened by these.

There is in the sentient appetite a special appetite for using the power of sex to the fullest in the legitimate act of conjugal love and for enjoying its pleasure. Such use and enjoyment of sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is lawful only between two who are lawfully married to each other. There is a close connection between sentient love and delight and sɛҳuąƖ love and pleasure. Theoretically and practically they are quite distinct and may never be confused as far as moral values are concerned. And still they are closely related, because both reside in the same sentient faculty, and sɛҳuąƖ love and pleasure can be stimulated even strongly by acts of the sentient faculties that are pleasurable, as seeing, hearing, touching, and that have by their nature at least an indirect stimulating effect on sɛҳuąƖ pleasure. Those sentient pleasures that have scarcely even remote stimulating force on sex in normal people, but are indulged in for their own sake, not for the sake of sɛҳuąƖ pleasure, are called sensual. These pleasures, though not sɛҳuąƖ in themselves, and though not intended as a means to sɛҳuąƖ pleasure, can easily lead to sɛҳuąƖ pleasure.

Besides the localized pleasure from the sense of touch anywhere in the body, there can be a more or less general sentient delight of feeling in the whole body. This arises from the stronger motion and pressure of the blood, because of the increase of the heart beat and breathing and various reactions of the nerves and muscles. Such a delight may be caused, for instance, by one's expecting a person, or by sharply focusing a person on the imagination, and still more by the actual presence of a person that gives sentient delight, or spiritual delight that overflows into the sentient faculty. This common sentient delight, mixed with spiritual delight or unmixed, must be judged morally by the principles laid down for any sentient delight. It, too, can be related, even closely, to sɛҳuąƖ pleasure. Again, the same principles hold then as for any sentient pleasure that influences the sɛҳuąƖ appetite or pleasure indirectly.

When the mutual love of friendship and the sentient love and delight to which it redounds are between two of opposite sex, there can be and almost always will be present, at least in a slight degree, a love of the distinctive, at least secondary, characteristics of the other sex. As is known the two sexes have different physical, mental and moral characteristics that complement each other. So if one loves someone of the other sex, his or her love will almost necessarily center somewhat on the qualities that are complementary to his or her own. Though this is neither theoretically nor practically special sɛҳuąƖ love, it has a quality different from that between two of the same sex, precisely because it is based on the special personality traits that are due to the difference of sex and that complement one's own traits. This love could be called general sɛҳuąƖ love or attraction.

Such general sɛҳuąƖ love can be either spiritual or sentient or both, and the consequent delight can be spiritual or sentient or both. When one's love centers on qualities that are cognized by the senses and desired by them, namely, the physical features and qualities, then the love is sentient, and the delight consequent upon that love is sentient. For instance, a man will love in a woman her beauty, her gracefulness, her "sweet" voice. A woman will love in a man his protective strength and masculine voice. Sentient love likes to express itself externally, by kissing, embracing, and caressing. The sentient passions can and do assert themselves rather strongly, we assume here, in a good sense. Such unmixed sentient love is morally an indifferent matter, in itself neither good nor bad. It becomes either only inasmuch as the will uses it for a good or a bad end. When the will uses it to strengthen and intensify spiritual love and joy which is morally good, then sentient love and delight are good. If the will uses it to make more vehement the spiritual love and joy which are morally bad, then the sentient love is bad.

This general sɛҳuąƖ love is spiritual when the interest is in mental or moral qualities, namely, in the qualities that are cognized by the intellect and loved by and enjoyed in the will. It is of the head and heart, inasmuch as these are symbols, respectively, of intellectual knowledge and love. The resultant joy will be truly spiritual satisfaction in the possession of its object. The will calmly enjoys the intellectual and moral, natural and supernatural, qualities of the other. When this love is unmixed with sentient love, there are no sentient or bodily demonstrations of affection. A man, for example, loves in a woman her mental intuition, her tenderness, her maternal sympathy, her generous devotion, her emotional receptivity. A woman loves in a man his calm deliberation, his creative mental energy, his courage, his paternal protective spirit. Such love is emotionally calm and reserved, though not emotionless. It enjoys the presence of the other but is not restless when absent. When this love is mutual and has all the other characteristics of true friendship, as outlined above, it is genuine, even supernatural, friendship.

It does not take very profound thinking to make one realize that, though sentient love and friendship, as just described, between two of opposite sex, are not to be confused with sɛҳuąƖ love and pleasure in the special sense, there is a very close relation between the two, precisely because the love and joy is based on the differentiating traits of the sexes, and also because there is a close connection between the sentient love and the sɛҳuąƖ appetite, which resides in the sentient appetite, and is readily stimulated by sentient actions.

That outline of friendship and love should help one to see what is possible and what allowed in the line of friendship and love toward one of the other sex by one who is dedicated to a single life of perfect chastity.

Let us look at the matter from the view point of the purpose of such love or friendship. There may be no friendship for the sake of dating with a view to cherishing a love that might lead to marriage. That would be directly against the promise of perfect perpetual chastity. So there may be no expressions of affection, kisses, caresses, embracing, such as are usual and legitimate between lovers. Such behavior would soon sound the death knell to interest in virginal life. Nor is there any place for flirtation by one who has determined to have only Christ as Spouse.

Again, friendship should not be sought in order to overcome the peculiar loneliness that results from the lack of a marriage partner. A certain amount of loneliness is necessarily connected with the vocation of the single life in chastity. Christ alone, who was chosen as Spouse, can fill the void of such loneliness in the human heart. If one were to seek friendship with one of the other sex to overcome that loneliness, in all probability the friendship would be very dangerous to purity, or at least it would end in marriage.

But should the single seek such friendships as a means of complementing each other's character traits? There is certainly no need for that. One's personality can be essentially quite complete without the friendship of one of the other sex. Such a friendship, on the other hand, could have some accidental benefits for character development. But that leads to the crucial question. Is such friendship possible, namely, in the spiritual field and supernatural order, which might redound to the sentient love and delight and be strengthened by these, without deteriorating into special sɛҳuąƖ love? Some are quick to answer that such friendship is possible and practical. One might note what Canon Sheehan has to say in his excellent Triumph of Failure [p. 43]:

Quote from: Canon Sheehan's fictional novel

It has been said often, let me repeat it for the 100th time, that the best grace a young man can receive in life is the friendship of a good woman. And there is no clearer indication of the depths of vulgarity and degradation into which we have fallen than the universal idea that there can be no such friendship that does not degenerate sooner or later into sensuous affection. The universal presumption that marriage is the be-all and end-all of woman's life tends to ennervate natures that are of themselves strong and self-reliant. . . . It is impossible to calculate the heart suffering and martyrdom of women who believe they can have but one vocation in life, and whose views of men are restricted to that one idea.

All must admit, I believe, that Canon Sheehan has succeeded admirably in showing that such friendship is possible in fiction. His creation of the personality of Miss Helen Bellamy, who had no inclination to marriage, and whose friendships even with men were of the genuine intellectual and spiritual kind, is "ideal." Her friendship would be inspiring to anyone.

And still for real life one could make too general a statement about the possibility or advisability of such friendships, just as one might be too general in denouncing their possibility. A golden mean would seem to be correct. Perhaps, granted that such friendships are possible, the problem must be solved with each friendship that might arise. A person may be able to foster a friendship on the platonic plane with one, but not with another. And surely there are some emotional types that could scarcely keep a friendship with anyone of the other sex on a high plane, though they can live a chaste single life if they avoid such friendships.

One must admit, further, that, regardless of how perfect the friends are, or how lofty the motives of friendship, there are at least remote dangers in them, and one must be prudent enough to take the proper precautions and not to allow the remote dangers to become proximate, and to break off the friendship if the danger should become proximate.

It is a matter of fact that we are not living in paradise with the gift of immunity from ill-regulated passions. Though spiritual love and sentient love, held within bounds, are quite legitimate, emotion cannot be excluded from such love; and from emotion to passion is often a very short step, and slippery, because of our fallen nature with its ill-regulated passions. We have grace, thanks be to God, but grace does not free us from temptations. It helps us to overcome them. It supposes that we make the effort to avoid occasions of sin. We do not wish to say, however, that the presence of some temptations in a friendship is a sign that the friendship should be broken off immediately. There are temptations in every walk of life. And yet, when such a friendship should be a proximate occasion of losing one's vocation to the single life of perfect chastity, it must be given up. It is that, when it becomes an absorbing interest, so that one is always thinking of the friend when absent, and is restless for the friend's presence, and longs to hear the friend's voice and to see the friend's face. Then it is certainly high time to break off the friendship, because it will become more absorbing, without being able to be satisfied, short of giving up one's vocation of single chastity.

It is well to know that even though a friendship begins on a high plane of spiritual interests, it can deteriorate to sensual and even sɛҳuąƖ interests. And the more a friendship is based on purely recreational interests, the more liable is it to deteriorate to sɛҳuąƖ love.

Women must realize that they are physically and sɛҳuąƖly passive in relation to man, who is active. That means that a man's sɛҳuąƖ appetite is more easily and strongly aroused than a woman's, with the result that what may be as yet no real danger to a woman may be a proximate danger to a man. A woman may, therefore, insist that a certain friendship with a man is very platonic, but that may be only from her side. To the man it could be a proximate occasion for sɛҳuąƖ love, and indirectly also a danger to her.

One who dedicates his life to Christ in perpetual chastity is expected to, and does, strive for greater perfection in all virtues, and should because of that be a better person in every respect. He has a more winning personality. But just that can be a very attractive bait for a friend who might still be looking for a marriage partner. A friendship with such a one would be a danger to the vocation of single chastity. It should be clear that the dangers we are speaking of are not all immediate risks to purity. They may be simply occasions for one to drift away from the ideal of a single life of chastity and end by getting a dispensation from a vow, if one was made, in order to get married.

If the friend happens to be a married person, the dangers multiply. There is then danger not merely to the two friends, but there is a liability that the partner of the married friend will be injured, or will have occasions for jealousy. And this danger is so much greater when the marriage is not proceeding too happily. So, if there would be a friendship between a single person and a married person, it should always include the partner of the married person. There may never be any so-called dates with the married person alone. It would never do for a person to promise to give up marriage for life to live in perfect chastity and then to be instrumental in breaking up the happiness of a home, because one is not generous enough to be detached from dangerous friendships. It should, of course, not even have to be mentioned that such a friendship can never be tolerated with a divorced person.

It is necessary, too, to avoid scandal in this matter. If it is known publicly that one has chosen the single life of perfect chastity, people would soon be scandalized if they would see the single person too often with "dates."

Granted, then, that a determined friendship with one of the other sex is possible, and realizing that there is always a remote danger that such a friendship may deteriorate into sensual and even sɛҳuąƖ love if not controlled, one must be constantly on guard and train oneself well in the science of resisting the very beginnings of any temptations, especially by building up a genuine spirit of self-denial and detachment from temporal pleasures, for the sake of loving Christ more wholeheartedly. One should learn to seek consolation and friendship chiefly in Christ and His all-pure Virgin Mother. The bride of Christ may never forget that she is espoused to Christ, and has surrendered her love to Him alone.

I don't believe men and women can have friendships.