Author Topic: Moral theologians on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple (Read 95 times)

icarlytradcath · « **on:** **Today** at 08:27:27 AM »

Some anon last year posted an excerpt from this book regarding what's acceptable in the marriage bed among Catholics. Here's what he has to say:

Quote

If you’re trying to find clear, trustworthy guidance on what really is and isn’t permitted "in the bedroom", the passage below is well worth reading. It’s taken from the 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis (the first edition was published, I believe, around 1851) by Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J. (1801–1866), with notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805–1881). Building on the work of St. Alphonsus Liguori, these Jesuit theologians gave classical shape to the Thomistic-Alphonsian moral system that formed confessors and seminarians for generations — including virtually all Trad priests today. Their work represents Catholic moral theology at its mature stage before the modern upheavals: clear in principle, calm in tone, and refreshingly practical in application.

Before this synthesis came together, moralists were anything but united. One author would call something mortal that another called venial or not sinful at all. Not a few moralists viewed the pleasure inseparable from the marital act with suspicion and restraint, as though sin lurked within the very enjoyment that nature had joined to it. Some multiplied prohibitions to the point of scrupulosity; others offered little help. It was St. Alphonsus who brought order and balance, blending the older rigor with pastoral prudence. Gury then codified this approach in a concise, teachable system, and Ballerini’s annotated Roman editions refined and stabilized it — giving confessors and married couples a stable rule that preserved modesty and peace of conscience while keeping the sanctity of marriage intact.

Far removed from both the laxity of modern moral liberalism and the puritanical severity of the rigorists, this approach stands out for its serene, balanced reasoning — the kind that marked the approved manuals of the pre-Conciliar Church.

In this thread (and others like it), a lot of what gets posted amounts to personal opinions (i.e., "no extra stuff", etc.), scattered quotations from saints (or attributions, i.e., "Saint So and So said X"), or even links to Novus Ordo “experts” like Ronald Conte Jr. (a self-appointed Roman Catholic Novus Ordo "theologian” who blends his own "principles" with Vatican II sources [i.e., Humanae Vitae, the 1983 Code, New Catechism, etc] and private speculation, grossly misquoting and distorting St. Alphonsus to support his own rigorist/puritan theories).

But these are, in the end, just opinions. The great moral theologians were well aware of the same quotations from St. Albert, St. Augustine, St. Alphonsus, and any others that get cited. They didn’t build private moral systems out of isolated sayings; they integrated them within the ordered framework of Catholic moral theology. Detached from that framework, such bits of piety easily turn into what Ballerini called “fanciful apprehensions” — fragments mistaken for doctrine.

From that solid foundation, virtually every respected moral theologian of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries taught the same essential principles. The synthesis laid down by St. Alphonsus and developed by Gury and Ballerini was received across the Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Sulpician, and Redemptorist schools alike — and reaffirmed by Pietro Scavini (1790–1869), Jozef Aertnys, C.Ss.R. (1828–1915), Cornelius Damen, C.Ss.R. (1881–1953), Domenico Palmieri, S.J. (1829–1909), August Lehmkuhl, S.J. (1834–1918), Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. (1854–1932), Dominic Prümmer, O.P. (1866–1931), Henry Davis, S.J. (1866–1952), Benedict Merkelbach, O.P. (1871–1942), Felix Maria Cappello, S.J. (1879–1962), Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (1885–1967), and many others who maintained the same steady synthesis — firm in doctrine, free from laxity, and equally free from scrupulous rigor.

Finally, it is noteworthy that this 1866 Roman edition of Compendium Theologiae Moralis bears the imprimatur of Fr. Hieronymus (Jerome) Gigli, O.P., Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace — the Dominican priest who served as Pope Pius IX’s official theologian and censor for works printed in Rome. A second imprimatur was granted by Archbishop Peter de Villanova Castellacci, Titular Archbishop of Petra and Vicegerent (Vicar General) of Rome. As Vicegerens, he acted as the deputy of the Cardinal Vicar, serving as the vicar general for the Diocese of Rome.

It also bears noting that
(1) the body of the text is Gury, who very closely follows the opinions of Alphonsus, and the footnotes by Ballerini tend to give the whole range of acceptable and probable opinions along with his own.
(2) While Alphonsus was highly reccomended by the popes that doesn't mean one is obliged to follow him over say, Cajetan, or any other approved and solid author, this is the error of the above-mentioned Ronald Conte.
The only case where these authors would be proved null is if since 1866 the question has been settled by the Holy See through a dubia or some other means.
(3) The phrase "exceed venial sin" means that in ordinary circuмstances it can at most become a venial sin if done with imperfect intentions and will, if done with the right intentions and will, it can be no sin at all

Here's the section of this book on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple, I think it's well worth posting. Many young people will wonder about these things and maybe it's a bit out there to consult old latin manuals but it's been my experience that if you ask trad clergy these type of questions they often default to their specific contingent cultural hang-ups and sensibilites instead of any type of solid moral theology :/

AI Translated by Claude Sonnet 5:

ARTICLE I. ON KISSES AND IMPURE TOUCHES.
Points to be established:
413. I. Kisses (a) and touches that are truly impure, and engaged in without cause on the shameful parts of another, can scarcely ever be excused from mortal sin, even setting aside venereal affection, on account of the grave indecency and the imminent danger of lust which they induce. They are, however, more easily excused from mortal sin if done with a person of the same sex than of a different sex. St. Liguori, nn. 419–420.
II. Kisses and touches on honest or less honest parts (b) constitute mortal sins if done from venereal delight; they are venial if done from levity, jest, curiosity, etc.; but they are entirely without fault if done according to the custom of the country, for courtesy, or out of honest goodwill (c). The reason for these is self-evident. St. Liguori, n. 417.

Note (a): Here the author means kisses given to the shameful parts. The difference between such kisses and touches is this: there can sometimes be a just cause for applying such touches (e.g., for medical treatment), but not for kissing.

Note (b): Carefully note the distinction between the "less honest" parts of the body and the "shameful" ones. The genital parts, and those near them, are called shameful or even indecent or obscene; the chest, arms, legs, etc., are called "less honest" but not indecent. So St. Alphonsus, Bk. 3, n. 423. As for what the Author says about acts that are venial if done on the less honest parts from levity, jest, curiosity, etc., this can be applied to touch, but not — as the matter itself makes clear — to kisses, as the Author himself notes below in the third Resolution. Likewise, what the Author says about being free of all fault if done according to the custom of the country, or for courtesy, should be understood of the honest parts, and not extended to the less honest ones.

Note (c): Here belongs the common opinion of the Doctors, that for courtesy and goodwill, and as a show of affection, chaste touches are permitted to those betrothed for a future marriage — for example, taking the hand, embraces, and kisses. I say "common," for so Lucius Ferraris writes (under "Luxuria," n. 90): "All touches, kisses, embraces... which occur between the betrothed..., if done chastely, for a right purpose, according to the custom of the country, are lawful." Common opinion. So too Giribaldi of the Barnabite Clerks Regular (On Matrimony, ch. 19, doubt 15, n. 114): "You ask, fifthly, whether kisses, touches, and embraces are permitted to those betrothed for the future? The common opinion denies that impure touches on the impure and hidden parts are permitted... But it grants that otherwise honest touches, embraces, and kisses are permitted..., which would be a venial sin if done for the sake of pleasure alone; and without any fault at all if done as a sign of love and goodwill according to accepted custom." Nor does Reiffenstuel say otherwise (Moral Theology, Tr. IX, Dist. 4, Q. 7, n. 77): "Whether kisses and touches are permitted between the betrothed is another question. And indeed the Doctors generally agree that impure touches are not excused from mortal sin among the betrothed... But if kisses and embraces are not in themselves impure, and are done... with the intention of honest love and goodwill, they are free of fault." And Salmanticenses (On Matrimony, ch. 15, n. 91): "The last difficulty is whether kisses, embraces, and touches are lawful among those betrothed for the future...? The answer is that if such acts are done for the sake of gaining pleasure, they will be venial sins... If done as a sign of love, there will be no sin at all."
And that St. Alphonsus did not reject this teaching is clear from the fact that, having cited these words from Busembaum (Bk. 6, n. 854) — "Impure touches are not permitted to the betrothed, although embraces and kisses as a sign of love are permitted" — he finds nothing there to censure.
One thing might move some to object: that such acts contribute to arousing carnal and depraved impulses. But here the general rule we touched on above (note to n. 412) must hold, namely, that these impulses are culpable only when either the cause is itself bad, or there is danger of consenting. So it belongs to the confessor in a given case to examine — not indeed whether the cause is bad (for if it is just, it is by that very fact honest) — but whether there is danger of consent to evil, and, according to his prudence, to offer remedies to the penitent. In this the confessor must certainly be careful lest his desire to remove the danger of sin drive him so far as to condemn as grave sin what, according to the common opinion of the Doctors, carries no guilt or only slight guilt. Such zeal, not truly according to knowledge, ends up achieving only this: perhaps deterring a very few from these acts, but actually driving most, through a falsely burdened conscience, into the snares of sin; whence it easily happens further that, once the fear of God has been trampled through the confessor's imprudence and the horror of sin lost, they slip afterward into true and graver depravities. The same should be observed regarding glances and conversations between the betrothed, when from these too such impulses — and sometimes even to the point of pollution — may follow. For there is a just cause for a betrothed man to visit and converse with his betrothed. The whole question, then, turns on the danger of consent, as discussed above in the note to n. 412.

Here no small difficulty seems to arise when, from the frequency of lapses, the danger of consenting appears such that it ought to be regarded as tantamount to a proximate occasion of sin. Yet there is really no greater difficulty here than there would be regarding a necessary proximate occasion — necessary, I say; for, considering all the circuмstances, the confessor would be demanding something morally impossible if he wished to keep a betrothed man from visiting and speaking with his betrothed and showing her the customary signs of affection. He must therefore use other means to remove the danger. And if the penitent does not refuse these, the position held by Giribaldi according to commonly accepted principles will hold good (On Penance, ch. 10, doubt 3, n. 31). To the question whether a betrothed man who frequently visits his betrothed, and on that occasion sins, can be absolved, he answers that he can be absolved when the visits are according to the custom of the country, from which he cannot abstain without disgrace and dishonor, since his betrothed would think herself scorned if he did not visit her as other betrothed men do; the same holds for a betrothed woman who, from her betrothed's conversation and looks, suffers arousal and pollution — for she is not bound to flee the sight of her betrothed if she otherwise has no just cause or excuse to do so, since the looks and words are honest and according to the custom of the country, and cannot be avoided without disgrace and dishonor. The confessor will suggest remedies that are not merely general but specific to the case; and according to his prudence he should, as far as he can, deter the penitent from showing those signs of affection by which the fuel of concupiscence can more easily be kindled, or at least propose such a manner and frequency as does not exceed necessity. The manner and measure, easily understood by all, should be this: that no more be done in this matter than could be done without offense to anyone in the presence of others — for example, in the presence of parents. Above all, it must be insisted that the couple never be alone together, especially in a private place. This pertains most of all to those who have charge of them. Parents, and especially mothers, must be dealt with most strictly, and the grave obligation of vigilant custody and caution must be urged upon them — a duty they should be moved to fulfill not only by conscience but by the fear that their daughters, once corrupted, might grow old dishonored in their father's house. But if the remedies proposed by the confessor do not bear the hoped-for fruit, the only thing left is to deal with such persons as is prescribed for those who relapse, as treated in the Treatise on Penance.

414. III. Touches and kisses, even on the honest parts, will at times not be free of grave fault if practiced repeatedly or lingeringly, especially by young people of different sexes, without any necessity or other just cause, even if only for the sake of mere organic pleasure (a). The reason is that from such repeated or lingering acts, carnal arousal and venereal delight will rarely be absent. St. Liguori, n. 416.
IV. Kisses, touches, and embraces performed for venereal delight take on a species of malice that varies according to the different circuмstances of the persons involved: for they are considered to be of the same nature as the completed act toward which they naturally tend. Hence in confession it must be stated whether they occurred with a person of the same or different sex, with a married person, etc. So commonly held. St. Liguori, n. 417; Lessius, etc.

Note (a): Here the Author calls "organic pleasure" what above (note to n. 411) we called purely sensible pleasure; where we also noted that, in practice, if adults are in question who deliberately seek it as such, it scarcely occurs precisely in that form.
But the exception which the Author seems to make to this rule for cases of necessity or just cause should not be extended to more lingering and pressing kisses, from which even the betrothed themselves should be deterred, since scarcely any just cause can be conceived for these.
The Doctors have, however, raised another question about the betrothed: namely, whether some pleasure which they voluntarily take from kisses, embraces, or chaste touches is lawful for them. I say, first, "some pleasure," for properly venereal delight, belonging to the genital parts as such, is entirely excluded here. I say, second, "which they voluntarily take," for there is no dispute about pleasure that arises unintended and without any consent given to it, even if it were venereal.
St. Alphonsus also treats this question as posed (Bk. 6, n. 854), yet in such a way (this alone, by way of pure historical note, seemed worth mentioning) that from what is discussed there one can scarcely tell where the truth actually lies. And indeed, for the opinion holding that such pleasure is either lawful for the betrothed or only lightly sinful (which he nevertheless does not seem to state quite accurately), he cites only five authors — Sánchez, Salmanticenses, Aversa, Diana, and Azor. Yet Sánchez (On Matrimony, Bk. 9, Disp. 46, n. 48) had cited seventeen others for the same view; and Diana (Vol. 2, Tr. 6, Res. 36, nn. 2–3) had added nine more to these, so that we already have thirty-one, among whom you find the names of Soto, Cajetan, Toletus, Navarrus, Valencia, Sayrus, Reginaldus, etc.; to these could be added Laymann (Bk. 3, Sect. 4, n. 11), Palaus (On Betrothal, Disp. 3, point 4, §2, n. 7), Sporer (Sacramental Theology, Part 4, Ch. 2, Sect. 4, n. 430), Escobar (Bk. 26, Sect. 2, Doubt 26), Filliuccius (Tr. 10, Part 1, Ch. IX, n. 357), Tamburini (On the Decalogue, Bk. 7, Ch. 3, §5, n. 61), Juan Henríquez (in Mendo, Disp. 5, q. 12, n. 4), and Giribaldi, who (On Matrimony, Ch. 19, Doubt 15, n. 114) asserts this to be the common teaching.
For the opinion, on the other hand, that defends this pleasure as gravely unlawful for the betrothed, one finds cited, in the same St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), Lessius, Mazzotta, Roncaglia, Concina, Bonacina (with Henríquez and Rebello), Croix (with Mendo), and Viva (with Suárez, Pérez, and Hurtado) — citations that seem largely gathered from Croix, Mazzotta, and Viva. But: 1) Lessius (On Justice and Right, Bk. 4, Ch. 3, n. 59) does indeed condemn these acts as gravely sinful in persons wholly unattached; but (ibid., n. 58) he had taught the opposite regarding the betrothed: "To the betrothed for a future marriage is conceded that pleasure which is derived precisely from a kiss and touch of the hand or face, such that they do not sin in it even venially." 2) The same must be said of Pérez, who, while (On Matrimony, Disp. 8, Sect. 6, n. 7) condemning as grave the lustful delight that is a kind of beginning of the sɛҳuąƖ act, nevertheless (ibid., n. 4) grants as lawful the pleasure derived from kisses. 3) Bonacina (On Matrimony, Q. 4, point 9, n. 6) and Mazzotta (Tr. VII, Disp. II, Q. 2, Ch. 2, q. 1) call both opinions probable. 4) Suárez (On Sins, Disp. 5, Sect. 7, n. 12) and Henry Henríquez (Bk. XI, Ch. 19, n. 4) have nothing at all to the point. 5) Rebellus (On the Obligation of Justice, Part 2, Bk. 3, Q. XIX, Sect. 2) and Gaspar Hurtado (On Matrimony, Disp. 10, difficulty 10, n. 48) discuss, the one, lustful delight, that is, kisses through which venereal pleasure begins; the other, lustful touches and the delight derived from them — which likewise are not to the point. 6) Croix (Bk. 6, part 3, n. 151) merely opposes to the common opinion the false citations of Lessius, Suárez, Henríquez, and Hurtado, adding Comitolus; but this too wrongly, since Paulus Comitolus, though a man of unusual temperament and inclined to a stricter rigor, did not in this matter depart from the common opinion, as is clear from these words of his (Moral Responses, Bk. 4, q. 20, n. 4): "Wherefore girls and virgins who derive honest pleasure from the kisses and embraces of the chaste young men they love, whether by thinking of such touches or even by admitting them bodily, either do not sin, or sin lightly, as Sylvester says (under 'Delectatio,' n. 7). Rosella (under 'Cogitatio morosa,' n. 4) affirms that they do not sin mortally. It is otherwise if they should draw obscene pleasure in mind or base pleasure in body." 7) Finally, Viva (On Matrimony, Q. 1, art. 7, n. 6), though he seems to argue against Sánchez's common opinion, nevertheless speaks ambiguously of pleasure, now sensible, now carnal, and further complicates the matter, since here he says he follows the more common teaching against Sánchez, while elsewhere (on Proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, n. 23) he attributes Sánchez's opinion to a great many authors — two statements plainly contradictory.
Of those cited, then, there remain Mendo, Concina, and Roncaglia, the last of whom (Tract XII, Ch. 1, q. 6) says he is amazed that some admit kisses as lawful between the betrothed, and that he has never quite been able to grasp how it could be said that betrothal gives the betrothed a right to mutual kisses. To this others might perhaps reply that the reason which did not appear to Roncaglia's eyes nevertheless appeared clearly enough to the understanding of the other Doctors we have mentioned, in common agreement; for no other sufficient cause for the common opinion can be assigned except some quite notable reason that would bring such very different minds into a single agreement. The same must be said in reply to Mendo, who (Statera Opinionum, Diss. V, q. 12, n. 118) says he was afraid to follow the teaching of so many, and such weighty, authors, because he could not fully grasp its foundation.
It must also not be omitted here that neither St. Alphonsus, nor Roncaglia, nor anyone else in this question ever objected that this view falls under Proposition XL condemned by Alexander VII, which reads: "It is a probable opinion which holds that a kiss is only a venial sin when given for the sake of the carnal and sensible pleasure that arises from the kiss, apart from the danger of further consent and of pollution." This should be repeated for two reasons. First, that proposition speaks of carnal or venereal delight properly so called, which is not the question here (see Duarte on this Proposition, n. 489, and Viva on the same, n. 3); hence St. Alphonsus (Bk. 3, n. 415) uses that proposition to show that there is no such thing as a "small matter" in venereal matters. Second, even setting aside the type of pleasure, that proposition admits exceptions, as is clear in the case of married persons. And such exceptions are not to be sought from the proposition itself, since it offers none, but from the sense held by the Catholic schools. But the Catholic schools never even suspected that the question we are discussing regarding the betrothed was contained in that proposition.
And all this, as stated above, has been said purely as a matter of historical record. To this it will be useful to add only this: that in questions of this kind, the distinction which St. Alphonsus himself uses elsewhere (Bk. 3, n. 416) is most helpful — namely, that it is one thing to act for the sake of pleasure, another to act with pleasure. For, as we noted above (note to n. 411), the first manner of acting very easily leads to further things.

Resolutions:
415. 1. Kisses given by mothers and nurses to their own infants or those entrusted to their care are free of fault. Likewise, kisses given by others to infants of tender age, even of a different sex, are ordinarily free of fault as well, provided any depraved affection is excluded.

2. Young people of either sex who embrace one another decently and without evil intent in the course of certain games are not immediately to be accused of sin, much less of grave sin, although they should be dissuaded from such games because of the danger attached to them.

3. Kisses on unusual parts of the body, especially between persons of different sexes — for example, on the chest, etc. — must generally be considered mortal sins; likewise if done lingeringly, especially mouth-to-mouth with the tongue introduced; likewise if they are prolonged, repeated, etc. St. Liguori, n. 417.

416. 4. Those who touch themselves to wipe away bodily filth, or to relieve an itch, or to treat an illness, do not sin in themselves; if, however, the itch is tolerable, it should be suggested that they abstain from such touches, insofar as they can do so without grave discomfort. St. Liguori, Homo Apostolicus, n. 3. But if touches on one's own body are done without cause, they do not exceed venial sin when, apart from venereal affection, they are done only in passing, and from mere levity or curiosity, since they are not so much an incitement to lust. St. Liguori, n. 419.

5. Touches on the genitals of people the same sex, or on nearby parts, even over clothing, are not ordinarily excused from grave sin, unless perhaps done from playfulness, jest, or levity, and only in passing. St. Liguori, n. 420.

6. Much more so — excepting a case of necessity — touches on the private parts of a person of a different sex cannot be excused from mortal sin, even if brief; for they can scarcely proceed from any cause other than lust, and, besides being highly indecent, they create in themselves a proximate danger of pollution or venereal delight. St. Liguori, n. 420. Nursemaids who happen to touch the private parts of infants while dressing them are probably not to be accused of grave sin, unless they do so with lingering or carnal delight. Lacroix, n. 902; St. Liguori, ibid.

7. It does not, in itself, exceed venial sin to touch lightly and briefly the fingers, hands, or face of a person of a different sex, apart from any depraved intent and any affection or danger of lust, if this, for example, is done from mere levity, and there is no special danger attached because of one's own or the other's particular weakness.

Moreover, since in so slippery a matter it is not always easy to see what is venial and what mortal, and since, besides, there is often a proximate danger of gravely sinning even in what is not in itself more than a light sin — for example, if such acts are done frequently and lingeringly between persons inclined to lust — the confessor must take the greatest care to keep penitents, especially the young, from any touches whatsoever with a person of a different sex. (a)

Note (a): The confessor should use great discretion in these matters. For such doubts tend to trouble especially scrupulous consciences. Overly forceful persuasions, if not accompanied by a clear statement that there is otherwise no guilt at all, will often and easily entangle consciences in the most troublesome scruples.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #1 on:** **Today** at 08:50:17 AM »

Too long not reading. Anyone that is not married should not be touching nor kissing. Not only for the sake of sin/purity but if it doesn't work out you now have baggage and most men will lose interest in a woman who thought it was fine to do these things with a man who wasn't her husband, it also shows a lack of virtue and long term thinking.

icarlytradcath · « **Reply #2 on:** **Today** at 09:08:31 AM »

Quote from: AnthonyPadua on Today at 08:50:17 AM

Too long not reading. Anyone that is not married should not be touching nor kissing. Not only for the sake of sin/purity but if it doesn't work out you now have baggage and most men will lose interest in a woman who thought it was fine to do these things with a man who wasn't her husband, it also shows a lack of virtue and long term thinking.

Subforum says "NO DISCUSSIONS ALLOWED HERE" so I won't bite the bait. I'll just say people like this fascinate me, not one inkling of epistemic / intellectual humility, it baffles me how they go through life.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Moral theologians on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple (Read 95 times)

icarlytradcath

Moral theologians on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple

AnthonyPadua

Re: Moral theologians on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple

icarlytradcath

Re: Moral theologians on kisses, hugs and other touches within an unmarried couple