• J H H H I 
• • H T • P H H -

M< * 

keep company with o non-
Catholic? — Parental ofa/ec-
'tions — Getting him inter-
ested — Playing a danger-
ous game — i s it wise to 
change? - The big break 
— With a divorced man — 
Is it a sin? — The ex-semi-
narian — Must a kiss be 
confessed? •— French-kissing 
— Voung couple in love — 
Sufficient reason. 

(Con vtos-j , <T. £) 
WHAT THEY ASK ABOUT p 

AE>M 6 

KEEPING COMPANY 





What They Ask About 

KEEPING 
COMPANY 

By Monsignor J. D. C o n w a y 

J i g , A V E MARIA PRESS 

Notre Dame, Indiana 



N I H I L O B S T A T : 
John L. Reedy, C.S.C. 
Censor Deputatus 

I M P R I M A T U R : 
gg Most Rev. Leo A. Pursley, D.D. 
Apostolic Administrator of the 
Diocese of Ft. Wayne, Indiana 
March 28, 1956 

This pamphlet is reprinted from 
W H A T T H E Y ASK A B O U T M A R R I A G E , 
By Monsignor J . D. Conway. 
Copyright, 1955. 
Printed with permission. 

Cover Photograph: Philip Gendreau, New York 

Seventh Edition October, 1962 

All rights reserved. This pamphlet may not be reproduced 
by any means in whole or in part without prior permission. 

DegcidSfecf 



KEEPING C O M P A N Y . 

The a g e to b e g i n — Sin to 
k e e p c o m p a n y with a non-
Catholic? — P a r e n t a l objec-
tions — Getting him inter-
e s t e d — Playing a d a n g e r -
ous g a m e — Is it wise to 
c h a n g e ? — The b i g b r e a k 
— With a divorced m a n — 
Is it a sin? — The ex-semi-
n a r i a n — Must a kiss b e 
c o n f e s s e d ? F r e n c h - k i s s i n g 
— Young couple in love — 
Sufficient r e a s o n . 

Q. What is the proper age for a girl to keep company with a young man? 
A. I would prefer to let your mother answer that question. 
No general rule can apply to everyone. But moral issues aside, 
the girl who starts keeping steady company too early is miss-
ing the best f u n of her youth. You might call it the f u n of 
"playing the field," of enjoying the gang, and the thrill of that 
special date for a party or dance. 

I'm antiquated, of course, just like your parents, but I 
3 



advise no steady company-keeping until after high school. 
Occasional dates, yes, gallant escorts for the big events or 
the movies. But no love affair. Your life will be much happier 
and less complicated. Your development will be more normal, 
and your ultimate choice of a steady boy friend will be more 
judicious. Incidentally, your school grades will be better, you 
will get more sleep at night, your disposition will be more 
agreeable, and you will have much less trouble at home. 
Q. In a sermon, our priest said that it is a sin for anyone to 
keep company with a non-Catholic. Isn't he too strong in this 
statement? 
A. He probably meant to say that it is an occasion of sin. 
It is not a sin in itself, but it may well lead to sin — even to a 
lifetime of sin. 

You and I know dozens of good Catholics who are keeping 
company with non-Catholics. Their parents are nervous about 
it and their pastor is worried. What will be the result? But 
no one believes that they are committing serious sin. They 
go regularly to confession and Communion. How could they 
do that if they were committing sin, and intending to go right 
on committing it? Their confessor could not grant them abso-
lution. The pastor might even have to deny them Communion 
publicly — after all, they would be public sinners. 

How are we going to judge the morality of a situation of 
this kind? Is it not bad in itself. You are simply keeping 
pleasant, friendly, loving company with a nice decent person. 
It is not even an occasion of present sin. All its dangers are 
in the future. But we know that those dangers are very real, 
and they must be foreseen and evaluated now — in the begin-
ning. Because when the dangers become present, you will not 
be in condition to deal with them reasonably. You will be in 
love. That means you will be largely incompetent. Your judg-
ment will be confused and prejudiced; and you will have the 
rigidity of a sponge. 

The dangers are important. The faith, morality, peace and 
happiness of yourself and your future children are all at 

4 



stake. What are the chances of attempted marriage outside 
the Church? Of a mixed marriage? Of quarrels about reli-
gion? Of birth-control problems? Of divorce? These dangers 
and many others are always present when people of different 
religions keep company. 

We must try to evaluate all these dangerous factors, on 
one hand, and then compare them with the reasons which urge 
us to go on keeping company with this person. We like her; 
she is beautiful; she has a splendid character, a loving dispo-
sition, earns a good salary, is kind to dumb creatures, etc. 
She is by f a r the best prospect we ever had, maybe the only 
one, maybe the last one we can hope for. She is really inter-
ested in the Church, and will probably be a convert (don't 
count too much on this prospect). My parents like her. Her 
father is my boss. She can cook. 

Now if you are honest and make a sensible, fair comparison 
of dangers and advantages, seeking help and advice when in 
doubt, and if you find that the certain advantages outweigh all 
probable dangers, then you are morally right in your company-
keeping. If the dangers are really great and probable, and your 
only reason for running around with the girl are her abilities 
to dance, drink and neck, then you are morally wrong in com-
pany-keeping. You are asking for trouble; and you will prob-
ably whine plenty, and blame the Church when you get it. 

Q. Isn't it wrong for parents to object to their daughter's keep-
ing company with a non-Catholic when he has the intention of 
becoming a Catholic? My parents insist that I keep company 
with a Catholic boy whom I know too well to care for. 
A. Parents are definitely right in objecting to dangerous 
friendships for their children. The Church forbids marriage 
to non-Catholics. Company-keeping prepares the way for 
these forbidden marriages. 

If your young man is sincere, let him give proof of his 
good intentions by taking instructions NOW. Otherwise you 
should follow your parents' advice. Easily expressed inten-

5 



tions for the future are not enough. Hell awaits their failure 
— and sometimes prompts their deception. 

Of course no wise parents will insist that their daughter 
keep company with some particular person. It is probably the 
surest way of making her dislike him. 

Q. I am keeping company with a non-Catholic boy. How 
shall I go about getting him interested in the Church? 
A. Before answering your question I would remind you that 
you are playing a dangerous game. Have you carefully 
weighed all the problems? Have you talked the matter over 
with your parents and your pastor? 

The best thing would be for you to discontinue this friend-
ship before you fall in love and lose your good sense in the 
flame of your own heart. But that is not answering your ques-
tion. Here are a few suggestions. 

1. Show him by your actions and conversation what reli-
gion means in your life. 

2. Talk about your Church, the religion of your parents, 
family prayers, your pastor, the Sisters who taught you in 
school, something you heard in the sermon last Sunday, some-
one you saw at Mass, that Catholic book you read, the activi-
ties of your sodality, or the St. Ambrose football team. Let 
one thing lead naturally to another. If you get no interested 
response, be careful! He is probably fighting shy of your im-
portant subject. 

3. Invite him to go to church with you — to that novena 
you attend regularly, to Mass, or a mission. Show him your 
rosary, your medals, your missal. 

4. Invite him to a church party or picnic. 
5. Have him meet your good Catholic friends. Join them 

for your f u n and companionship. 
6. Take him to your home. Let him see what a good Cath-

olic family is like. Point out the family crucifix and Bible. Let 
him join in prayers before and after meals. 

6 



7. Try to have him meet your favorite priest or Sister. 
8. Suggest that he read a book. 
9. If he gets serious about love, engagements, and stuff, 

you should get serious too about the dangers and problems of 
mixed marriage, the law of your Church which forbids such 
marriages, your unwillingness to marry a non-Catholic, etc. 

10. Before you agree to an engagement, make him agree 
to some instructions or inquiry into the teachings of the 
Church. 

What you do, do quickly. Face the problem frankly. Don't 
let your friendship become a habit and grow into love while 
you dillydally on the subject of religion. 

Any woman who marries a man to reform him is a fool. 
A woman who marries a man to convert him is a fool's ap-
prentice. And the man who cuts himself in on either deal is 
fairly fatuous himself. 
Q. In a recent issue of "The Catholic Messenger'' you say a 
Catholic girl going with a non-Catholic boy is "playing a dan-
gerous game." A number of times before I have noticed you 
imply that it is practically a sin for a Catholic to go with a non-
Catholic. I don't quite see why it is. I myself am a converted 
Catholic. I married a Catholic man. In the class I was con-
firmed with there were 47 adults. Except for four of these 
adults, all were becoming Catholics because they married Cath-
olics. As I see it, instead of "playing a dangerous game" when 
these Catholics kept company with Protestants—or non-Cath-
olics — they were actually bringing new members into the 
Church. Isn't that important? 
A. A game may still be dangerous even when a fair percent-
age win at it. The stakes are high. When you win, you gain 
happiness on earth and glory in heaven. You help save an-
other soul —*the soul of the one you love most. But when you 
lose, you may lose faith and happiness and your own soul, 
and possibly the souls of many other people. In your confirma-
tion class were the ones who won. There are plenty who lose. 

7 



Not much is heard of them except in saddened families, haras-
sed rectories, and the divorce courts. 

We all know many like you who have received God's grace 
and faith through the love and example of a good Catholic 
man — or woman. That's one reason the Church grants dis-
pensations. Thank God that you won. Pray for those who lose. 

Q. Is it wise to change your religion for someone so that you 
can marry them or shouldn't you change for this reason? 
A. It is apparent from your questions that you are a non-
Catholic, interested in the problems of marriage to a Catholic. 
The only sound motive for changing your religion is sincere 
belief and conviction. You should never change for any other 
motive. If you are actually contemplating marriage to a Cath-
olic, you may be impelled by that motive to study the religion, 
take instructions and try to understand it fully. Maybe in the 
course of these instructions you will come to believe in the 
Church. That often happens. If your belief becomes honest 
and firm, you should then become a Catholic. 

Q. My boy friend is a Lutheran. He recently consented to take 
a course of instructions, but after only two instructions he was 
convinced that he could never be a Catholic and refused to take 
any more. He has many false ideas about Catholics. But he has 
fine qualities and similar interests, and we have gone together 
a couple of years. I continue to pray for his conversion, but 
we are not seeing one another. I think a lot of him and know 
we could be happily married if it were not for conflicting reli-
gions. Shall I just leave things as they are, or shall I tell him 
about all the Masses, Communions, novenas and prayers that I 
am still saying for his conversion? 
A. Leave things as they are. Looking him up to tell him 
might well be an excuse to start seeing him again. I am sure 
you might be happy together if it were not for the difference 
of religion. But the difference is there; it is real, and big. 

8 



You have shown courage; don't spoil it all by weakening 
and going back to him. I am sure that you will be rewarded 
with greater happiness in return for the sacrifice you have 
made. 

You probably read in the papers about the conference 
of Missouri Synod Lutherans, held in Houston, Texas, 
which strongly condemned the marriage of Lutherans 
to Catholics. More power to them. We hope they succeed in 
keeping every living Lutheran from marrying Catholics. They 
don't want the unborn children of Lutherans condemned to 
"the soul-destroying religion of the anti-Christ" (meaning: the 
soul-saving religion of Christ). We don't want the unborn 
children of Catholics subjected to the hatreds and heresies of 
Lutheranism. So there. 

We can heartily agree with one of their statements; I 
quote: "We ought to prepare our young people. If our mem-
bers acknowledge the love of Jesus Christ most of all, then 
our answer is they must submit all other love to that." 

You have submitted your human love to your greater love 
for Jesus Christ. He will love you greatly in return. 

Q. I know a young Catholic woman who is keeping company 
with a divorced man. Isn't this a sin? 
A. It certainly is unless the Church has investigated the 
young man's previous marriage and found him free to marry. 
Why is it a sin? First of all, it is a scandal and bad example. 
Second, it is flagrant flirting with the occasions of sin. It 
can only lead to adultery, a mock marriage, illegitimate 
children and loss of faith. 

It is difficult for Catholics to keep their ideas straight, 
living as we do in the midst of a growing paganism. Civil 
divorce does nothing to a marriage. Keeping company with 
a divorced man is a nice way of philandering with a married 
man. Do you think it is a sin for a young Catholic woman to 
run around with another woman's husband? That's what a 
divorced man is—another woman's husband, until death. 

9 



Q. A Catholic woman has been granted a divorce and seems to 
think that this entitles her to go with other men and even grant 
them certain liberties. I firmly believe that her divorce entitles 
her only to live apart from her former husband. Your answer 
will be greatly appreciated. 
A. A divorced woman has no more right to keep company 
with other men than has a woman living with her husband. 
Any "liberties" she allows are adulterous, at least in desire, 
intent, or tendency. Her company-keeping is a fertile source 
of scandal, and a danger to any decent unmarried men she 
may entrap. 
Q. Is it not sinful to keep company with a divorced person, 
and must this not be confessed, and the practice stopped before 
one can receive the sacraments? 
A. That is exactly what my moral book says — exactly what the Church teaches. 

Lest anyone think that I am stating personal opinion, or 
am too strict, let me quote from the law of one of our neigh-
boring dioceses: 

"Pastors will do everything in their power to prevent Cath-
olics from keeping company with divorced persons. Pastors 
will inform their flocks that persons who are guilty of such 
continued and intimate company-keeping are living in a prox-
imate occasion of mortal sin, are giving grave scandal, and 
cannot be absolved in confession as long as they persist in 
such an attitude of mind and heart." 
Q. If a young man goes to study with the intention of becom-
ing a priest, and then he realizes that this is not his vocation, 
when he returns and keeps company with a Catholic girl, have 
her parents the right to object? 

The same with a young girl that leaves to enter the convent 
to become a Sister, and then returns home, and after a while a 
certain young man starts to keep company with her; but his par-

10 



ents object and don't want their son to keep company with this 
young lady or get married to her. Is it right, in the Catholic 
religion, to interfere, if both are good Catholics? 
A. In both cases the parents are entirely wrong in their objec-
tions. A young girl would be very fortunate in getting the 
average ex-seminarian as a prospective husband. He is serious 
and has high ideals and strong religious principles. He has 
received a good education and careful spiritual training. He 
has learned to know himself and has striven to control him-
self; and he has had the courage to make a critical decision. 

A young man is equally fortunate in finding for a friend 
and fiancée a young girl of high ideals and aspirations, reli-
gious fervor and sensitive morality. These are usually the 
characteristics of a girl who aspires to the religious life. The 
ardent love and spirit of sacrifice which moved her to serve 
God by sacred vows can become a boon of happiness to her 
husband and family. The spiritual training of the novitiate 
should be a better preparation for marriage than the charac-
ter development received by her girl friends in the tavern and 
dance hall — or the parked convertible. 

Some may object that the young man or woman who quits 
the seminary or convent shows signs of weakness, vacillation, 
and uncertainty of purpose. In rare cases that might be true. 
And there are some who leave by request rather than choice. 
They get the boot. But usually the ex-seminarian or ex-novice 
has had the courage to look at the stars, aspire to them, and 
set out toward them. Then having found themselves on a 
road too steep and rough for them, they have had the courage 
to turn back in time — facing criticism and ridicule from 
those who never had the vision or the courage to try the steep 
road at all — those who never even saw the stars. 

The Church wants seminarians and novices to be entirely 
free. She doesn't want any pressure put on them from public 
opinion or parental preference. Their choice is solemn, sacred 
and eternal. She wants them to be able to return to lay life 
without penalty. She doesn't want them shunned or banned 
or badgered. The old-wives' superstitions about the "spoilt 

11 



priest" and the negated nun are foreign, fanatical and mediae-
val. Let God's children be free. 
Q. Our pastor told us that "necking" is a grievous sin, and 
that even a small good-night kiss between teen-agers of the 
opposite sex is a matter of confession. Would you please ex-
plain IF and WHY we are obliged to confess this, providing 
no sin is committed and neither is passionately aroused. 
A. The letter which accompanies this question shows that it 
is from a group of high school students who are very sincere 
in wanting to know what is right in this matter. 

The first thing we will have to do is consult our juvenile 
dictionary. What do you mean by "necking"? I presume that 
it is not the same as "petting." A non-Catholic book which I 
have defines petting as: "physical contact for pleasure which 
is an end in itself, arising from sexual desire, with sexual 
stimulation and response . . . stirring up sexual-colored emo-
tions . . . producing tension, etc." There is no question about 
a thing like that; you know as well as I do that it is a mortal 
sin. 

My informants tell me that necking is a much less intense 
and purposeful activity. It involves a certain amount of close 
and pleasant contact; it could be a proper display of affection, 
a legitimate invitation to love; its thrill might be restricted 
to that excitement and exhilaration which makes the pulse 
rapid and quickens respiration, but is not precisely sexual. 
We might call it sensual; it is not necessarily sinful. But it 
naturally leads to the sexual, sometimes quickly. So it is a 
dangerous activity; maybe that is part of the thrill of it. It 
is strongly counter-indicated for teen-agers. 

To judge the morality of necking, we would have to know 
(1) what is done; (2) why it is done — what the intentions 
are; (3) what the emotional and volitional results are for the 
individual; (4) what the dangers are; and (5) how good the 
reasons are. 

The detailed discussion of all those factors would exceed 
the range of this column, but I think we can sum it up for 

12 



most of you high school teen-agers. Necking is out, at least 
when it is purposeful, planned, and prolonged. In this case 
your pastor is right about it; even if it is not directly sexual, 
it creates dangers which are too great f o r the reasons justify-
ing them. If it is casual, infrequent, playful or passingly 
affectionate, there is probably no harm done. 

The freedoms of modern youth are more than four. One 
of them is freedom of physical contact. Custom sanctions a 
measure of it; morality cannot always approve what custom 
sanctions. Freedom of this kind can easily become license. 
The young people of today have problems resulting from this 
freedom, problems of judgment and self-control. They must 
draw a line, and hold that line; and it is not necessarily the 
arbitrary line moralists might envisage. In other words it is 
hard for parents or pastor to lay down firm general rules for 
every action or circumstance. But they do know the princi-
ples, and you do well to listen to them in forming your own 
judgments, because you can easily fool yourself, and convince 
yourself that the thing you want very much to do is right. 

Regarding kissing — we have to face it — the old trick has 
new meanings, less profound and significant. Oldsters tell us 
— and we listen a bit skeptically — that it used to come late 
in courtship, was expressive of deep affection based on love, 
and was a firm invitation and pledge that love should grow. 
It was seldom given — they say — except to the man you 
intended to marry (men were not so restricted, it seems). It 
was a beautiful symbol, with sacred significance. If there was 
fire in it, the flames were sanctifying, because its ardor re-
flected love divine. 

The modern kiss is a nice conventional way of saying: 
"Good night, big boy, it's been nice knowing you." It still has 
significance; it means: "We had a pleasant evening, and you 
are not entirely repulsive." It is still a line crossed; but the 
line is imaginary, and the rule is that each one should use his 
own imagination as to where it is drawn and what is beyond. 
It may be a frank invitation; it may mean simply: Good night. 

I have asked some of my best young people, religious and 
conscientious, and they tell me they see nothing wrong in a 

13 



simple good-night kiss. Some of them, approaching 20, 
think that it is out of place for "teen-agers" — that means 
under 17, by their estimates. 

I am not suggesting that we abdicate our position as moral-
ists to even the most honest teen-agers. But if we are to help 
them with their problems, we must consult them. We know 
the principles; they know the facts. Practical morality is the 
application of principles to the facts. If we misjudge the 
facts, our moral decision may be just as wrong as if we ignore 
the principles. 

Regarding that "small good-night kiss between teen-
agers," I would say this: as long as it remains a small one, 
modest and friendly, is not too frequently repeated, does not 
arouse the passions of either party, or occasion serious danger 
of doing so, it is not a sin, or at least, not so serious that you 
are required to mention it in confession. 

However, kissing does become sinful when passion takes 
over, and a kiss is one of nature's ways of arousing the pas-
sions. It can readily expose you to dangers. You have to have 
good reasons to encounter those dangers; and high school 
dates hardly provide those reasons. That is why my serious 
college students think the kiss is not called for in teen-age 
dating. 

Beware of the kissing habit. Small good-night kisses don't 
get smaller; and they may soon mean more than good-night. 

Girls should be the arbiters in the kissing game. Each one 
has the right to decide who may kiss her and who may not. 
She should never kiss a boy she doesn't really want to kiss. 
And she would do well to ask herself why she wants to kiss 
him. No girl should think herself a prude if she refuses a 
good-night kiss. And most boys will not think her so, if she 
is simply frank and firm and good-natured about it. The teen-
age boy has to display his manliness; he must try to get that 
good-night kiss; sometimes he is a bit relieved if he fails, but 
is flattered. 

Girls sometimes fear that they will be unpopular and not 
get dates if they refuse to kiss. Are they so unattractive that 
their kiss must be a come-on? What about their face and 

14 



figure, their brain and wit and solid goodness, their clothes 
and hair and Daddy's car? Sex may be the underlying basis 
of her attraction to boys, but she need not throw it out boldly 
as bait. 
Q. Is French-kissing a sin? When does it become a sin? Is it 
seriously wrong? I have always been under the impression that 
it was a mortal sin. 
A. Just remain under that impression. It is a mortal sin — 
unless it is done by husband and wife. It is a sin from the be-
ginning. It has only one purpose: to arouse sexual feelings. It 
is not a display of affection, not an appropriate means of 
showing and attracting love. Its purpose is venereal. When 
any act is done, outside of marriage, for the purpose of obtain-
ing sexual pleasure, that act is a mortal sin from the begin-
ning, however slight it might be in itself. It is a sin against 
the virtue of chastity; and all deliberate sins against chastity 
are mortal sins. 

In giving this answer I am presuming that by "French-
kissing" you mean kissing in the manner of the doves — which 
our moral books refer to as the columbine kiss. My dictionary 
gives 179 combinations using "French" as an adjective. It 
includes "French leave," "French seam," and "French fried 
potatoes," but it does not mention a French kiss. I doubt that 
the French would claim it. Their typical kiss is the accolade; 
and there is nothing very sensual about that. 
Q. I would like to know what a young couple in love should do 
if they cannot kiss and embrace without feeling some sexual 
feeling and gratification. They are planning on being married, 
but marriage is impossible right away. Is it a sin if they have 
sexual feelings while kissing and embracing? 
A. These young people who are honestly in love and plan to 
be married may very properly express their love with a kiss 
and an embrace. If they are normal young people, this expres-
sion of love is going to arouse sensual pleasure and definite 

15 



sexual movements. These they must not seek, or voluntarily 
accept, enjoy, or encourage. They should ignore them, as 
much as possible. 

The principal disinction between this type of kiss and the 
"French kiss" discussed above, lies in the motive. You are 
not looking for a sexual thrill; you are not trying to anticipate 
50% of the privileges and joys of marriage; you are not try-
ing to see how f a r you can go without going too far. You 
honestly love this guy, and you want him to know it; and 
you want to encourage his love for you, and keep him anx-
ious to marry you. That is all very good. Presumably his 
intentions are similar. He is not trying to make you half his 
wife already. He is not trying to entice you into petting par-
ties to get a thrill. His hands behave themselves, or are easily 
put in their place. His kisses are warm, and fervent, and 
thrilling; but not desperately seeking and demanding. 

In these circumstances you are dealing with the virtue of 
modesty — that virtue which protects chastity. Modesty is a 
flexible virtue. For good reason it can be pushed a long way 
without sin. Against it there may be slight sins. Only when 
immodesty seriously and unreasonably endangers chastity is 
it a grave sin. 

Chastity is uncompromising. No sin against it is venial. If 
you intend sexual pleasure, you are guilty of mortal sin from 
the beginning. If you consent to sexual pleasure, accept and 
enjoy it, you are guilty of mortal sin. But no temptation is a 
sin, though dallying with temptation may be. 

So let modesty protect you. Be sure that your intentions 
are right. Express your love with fervor and sincerity; accept 
his love with confidence. But don't let your expressions of 
love get out of hand; don't let your feelings carry you into 
consent to sexual pleasure. Don't let your kisses last too long. 
Let him make you his pet, but don't let his petting become a 
party. 
Q. In a recent answer you stated that a divorcee must, "like 
any other married woman, avoid intimate company of other 

16 



men." Do you mean to imply that such intimate company is 
O.K. for the unmarried? 
A. That" is exactly what I 'mearr"oFcourse I used the word 
intimate in its literal sense, not as a euphemism for illicit 
sexual intercourse. My dictionary says that such intimate 
company is "close, personal, private, and familiar." Such 
company with men is wrong for the married woman or the 
divorcee. It may be perfectly good and proper for the un-
married couple. 

Intimate relations, in the illicit sexual sense, are a mortal 
sin for anyone, whether single, married or divorced. The only 
difference is that the divorcee commits two mortal sins: one 
against justice; the other against chastity. Two unmarried 
people sin only against chastity. 

As f a r as the virtue of chastity is concerned, there is no 
essential difference between the divorcee and the virgin. Any 
direct deliberate seeking of sexual pleasure outside of mar-
riage is a mortal sin, whether it be done by thought, desire, 
solitary sensation, or intimate contact. 

But close, personal, private, and familiar company-keeping 
is not necessarily concerned with the virtue of chastity. It 
should be governed by the virtue of modesty. The divorcee 
who keeps company with a man is guilty of serious sin against 
the virtue of modesty, even if her relations with him remain 
perfectly chaste. Two youngsters in love commit no sin at all 
by the same chaste, but intimate company-keeping. 

A divorced woman is a married woman. Her divorce gives 
her no privilege. She must conduct herself like any other 
married woman in her relations with men. She may not main-
tain friendships which would be properly distasteful to her 
husband if he were still living with her and loved her. She 
may not conduct herself in a manner which might be danger-
ous to herself or her masculine friend, or a source of scandal 
to others. 

A young boy and girl may very properly develop and main-
tain close, personal, private, and familiar associations and 

17 



friendships; else how would they ever fall in love, attract 
love, or prepare for marriage? 

The virtue of modesty must govern all those things which 
are even remotely related to chastity; all thoughts and images, 
reading and pictures, dress and conduct, flirtations and dances 
and games, embraces and kisses, love-making and engage-
ments. 

Chastity is a beautiful, tender, precious virtue which tries 
to restrain the most violent of human passions and keep them 
subject to right reason. It keeps us from any deliberate desire 
of, or consent to, illicit sexual pleasure. Except for husband 
and wife, all voluntary sexual pleasure is illicit. Any deliber-
ate violation of chastity is a mortal sin. 

Most things of tender, precious beauty have to be pro-
tected. Chastity is protected by a more rugged, practical, flex-
ible virtue: MODESTY. It keeps dangers away, like a castle 
guard protecting the queen; or if it must let dangers enter, it 
keeps watch on them and restrains them that they do no 
harm. 

Dangers try to enter by all doors and windows: especially 
by sight and hearing and touch. Sometimes they seem to be 
already inside and attack by imagination. It is the duty of 
modesty to kick out the thoughts and daydreams, and to keep 
external dangers from entering t— except when there is good 
reason to admit them under guard. 

Modesty is a prudent guard, not a frightened fanatic, or a 
stern and stubborn prude. She appreciates the precious, invio-
lable beauty of the virtue she guards. But she knows that 
chastity cannot be permanently isolated from all dangers. She 
knows that she must admit some dangers, even serious ones 
occasionally. 

Modesty has her list of rules: 
1. Unless there is sufficient good reason, it is a mortal sin 

to let in any serious danger, e.g., any thought, look, or touch 
which tends strongly to excite carnal pleasures, or immediate 
danger of consent to them. 

18 



2. Unless there is sufficient reason, it is a venial sin to 
admit even minor dangers. 

3. It is no sin at all to admit these dangers if there is suffi-
cient reason and they are closely guarded to prevent their 
doing harm. The harm they might do is to bring on immediate 
danger of consent to sexual pleasure: a violation of chastity. 

Modesty always knows that the more serious the danger, 
the more serious the reason must be for admitting it, and the 
closer the guard. 

But modesty would become the vice of prudishness if it did 
not accept sound reasons: 

Necessary study is sufficient reason for reading a sugges-
tive book. 

Medical examination or care is sufficient reason for prudent 
but dangerous touches. 

Instruction or the discussion of problems may be good 
reason for dangerous conversation. 

Legitimate youthful pleasure, friendship, and development 
gives cause for dates and company-keeping. 

Entertainment and the fostering of social graces and con-
tacts gives reasonable excuse for dances and parties. 

Kisses and embraces, in spite of their danger, are a natural 
and proper way to show sincere affection and attract honest 
love. 

Engagements are an honorable preliminary to marriage. 
It is in this realm of sound reason that we find the differ-

ence between the divorcee and the debutante. What good 
reason can the divorcee have for dates? She may get enter-
tainment and relaxation from her loneliness and boredom. 
But what wife may properly seek men other than her hus-
band for such purpose? She may get friendship, even love. 
But it will be at the price of either frustration or sin. It has 
no legitimate aim or purpose. 

Young unmarried people have a variety of excellent 
reasons for developing similar friendships : the immediate joy 
and happiness of companionship, entertainment, youthful fun ; 
development of personality, of confidence, of ease and grace 
and thoughtfulness of others ; a step in the process of growing 

19 



up; the thrill of loving and of being loved; the manly pride 
and joy of conquest; the feminine thrill of successful charm 
and attraction; all the proper pleasures, pains, sensations, 
smiles, tears, and sentiments of infatuations; the tenderness, 
kindness, jealousies, fears, and fantastic ecstasies of young 
love; all those marvelously foolish thrills which prepare young 
hearts for marital bliss. 

Two young people in love act the way God made them and 
intends them to act, in developing their love for each other, in 
manifesting it when it is real, in attracting it honestly. Such 
love brings dangers to chastity, as good young people know, 
and old people well remember. But there is abundant reason 
for such danger, as long as it is prudently watched. 

Without such dangers what would become of marriage, 
and the grace of its sacrament? How would man and woman 
develop that love which imitates divine love? What would 
lead them to the fulfillment of God's eternal purpose in man's 
creation, to co-operation with Him in creating new life to live 
forever, new souls to His image? These dangers are prelimi-
nary to parental love and sacrifice, to filial love and confidence, 
to God's eternal glory, and man's eternal happiness, to love 
shared with the Divinity. 

Who but the coward would shun dangers when so much is 
at stake? But only the fool becomes foolhardy. There must 
be prudence, care, good sense, and a loving respect for that 
precious virtue of chastity. In fact the full realization of pres-
ent joy, future happiness and sacred purpose demands that 
modesty be vigilant to keep chastity safe. 
Q. You recently had a list of rules about modesty. I just don't 
understand what would be a sufficient reason to admit dangers. 
I have never allowed a boy to do very much, because I thought 
it would be sinful. It seems if I correct the boys, they just won't 
ever go with me again. They tell me, "Oh, all the other girls 
do it." And what about the steady couples? One boy asked me 
that, and I told him I wasn't that kind of a girl and no one 
could change my mind. I don't suppose he'll ever go with me 
again. I liked this boy! I don't know what to do. One thing, I 

20 



won't change for any of them. In my town I think there are 
very few girls who are like me. You don't have much of a 
chance. 
A. You have pretty well set forth the problem of youth in 
courtship. You are a bit wrong, however, in thinking that the 
problem is uniquely your own. It is shared, in some measure, 
by all the girls who insist that they are not "that kind of a 
girl." It is shared by all young men who really want to obey 
the laws of God, and who have respect for the girls with 
whom they keep company. 

There is a problem, because there is a conflict. On the one 
hand, we know what is right. We know what God commands. 
We know what will contribute to our proper moral and psy-
chological development and help us to be happy for life. In 
conflict with that are our passions and desires. We have in-
clination to seek immediate gratification and pleasure, even 
though we know it is not good for us. Those passions and 
desires are very strong, and they are common to both boys 
and girls. Our modern customs of courtship, and freedom be-
tween young boys and girls, contribute to the severity of this 
conflict. Young men and women, boys and girls, are at least 
as good today as they ever were. They want to do right. They 
have faith and sound principles. But they are put in much 
greater dangers than they used to be. They have to be 
stronger. 

Some girls, and some boys, too, solve the problem by 
simply choosing one of the alternatives or the other. They let 
themselves go, with sinful consequences. Or they are simply 
so strict that they become prudes and repel even close friend-
ship. As usual, the proper solution is somewhere between 
these two extremes. 

As I said in my original article, to which you refer, mod-
esty is not an absolute virtue. It is relative. Relative to the 
danger. Relative to the necessity of facing the danger. It is 
an outer defense of chastity, which is an absolute virtue. 

Attitude and intention are the important things. If young 
people are determined to keep the element of sex, all sexual 

21 



pleasures, out of their company-keeping and dating, the battle 
is half won, at least. If their attitude or intention is one of 
compromise, one of trying to determine just how f a r they can 
go without being guilty of serious sin, one of trying to decide 
just where to draw the line, then the battle is half lost before 
it is begun. Morally speaking, there is really no place for 
petting, necking or other sensational sparring on any casual 
dates or ordinary company-keeping. There may well be place 
for some show of affection, a casual embrace, or playful 
encouragement. 

When it comes to steady company-keeping, with serious 
intention of marriage, then there is more reason for the 
encouragement of real love, and for serious signs of affec-
tion. Here again, however, the intention must be right. There 
must be no seeking of sexual satisfaction. It must be a matter 
of showing, developing, and encouraging love and affection. It 
must be a preparation for marriage, not an anticipation of 
marriage. The young girl's ability to attract the attention, 
interest and persistent pursuit of young men is not a question 
of her being "that kind of a girl." It is a matter of her total 
personality. Good looks help. Friendliness, happiness, liveli-
ness, and interest in others, ability to make others enjoy them-
selves and to be at ease, carefulness in dress and appearance, 
all these are factors which are helpful. Sexual attractiveness 
is a very forceful element, of course, and "that kind of a girl" 
can always find that kind of a man. She has something defi-
nite to offer. But the good girl is not in competition with her. 
She makes a mistake if she tries to compete. Of course she 
commits sin, too. The good girl's offerings are friendship; 
companionship; a good healthy, hearty time; fidelity; helpful-
ness; and the promise of enticing happiness for the future 
and the permanency of family and home. 

Your letter indicates to me than your trouble is not your 
virtue, but the fact that you make a career of virtue. I don't 
mean that, exactly, either, but you seem to consider yourself 
an exception. I suspect that there are many other girls in 
your town quite as good as you. They just don't make it quite 
as hard for themselves, or so hard for their boy friends. They 

22 



are good naturally. They ward off a boy's wandering hands 
with a laugh and a joke, not with accusation of assault. They 
are pure, but not prudish; chaste, but not sad or fearful. They 
do not consider their chastity a handicap, but a beautiful 
virtue, in itself an attraction to a young man. For them mod-
esty is not a handicap, but simply the ordinary sensible rides 
of the game. They accept it and enjoy it. They have their 
troubles, but they don't suffer constantly under them. 

You are a good girl, and I admire you and wish to encour-
age you. I hope that nothing I have written in my column 
will shake the strict moral principles to which you adhere. 
But try to be happy in your holiness. Make your modesty a 
virtue, not a morbidity. Don't suspect the motives of every 
boy you meet. Of course, many of them are going to try you 
out to see how f a r they can go. But if you put them in their 
place handily and cleverly, they will respect you and love you 
for it. Of course if you slap them down with stern rebuke, 
they are not apt to come back for more. 
Q. I have been told that going steady is a mortal sin. I would 
like to know if this is true, and how it could be if nothing 
sinful is done? 
A. I would judge that you are a very young person; and 
I think it might be a sin for you to go steady at your age; 
however, I would want to talk to you personally and find 
out all the factors involved before I would say definitely 
that it is a sin, or how much of a sin it is. 

For two young people of reasonable maturity who are 
falling in love and hoping to be married, going steady may 
be a good and virtuous and beautiful thing, pleasing to God 
and sanctifying to their souls. They have respect for each 
other and for God's laws; they conduct themselves properly, 
and yet manage to give expression to their love and to 
encourage love in return. They encounter dangers, but handle 
them prudently. Their good intentions and the happy home 
they hope to establish give them good sound reasons to 
encounter dangers. They go steady without any guilt at all. 

23 



The picture is quite different for two little brats — or 
angels — just entering their 'teens. It would be ridiculous 
for them to think seriously of marriage for six or eight years 
yet. Are they going to go steady all that time? And if they 
do, what will be the moral results? Intimacy increases with 
time and familiarity. Or will they break it up, and each start 
over anew with someone else? And if such are their plans 
and prospects, do they have sufficient reason to encounter 
present passing dangers? 

This teen-age dating business is a real problem. Generally 
Catholic moralists, educators, and parents are opposed to 
"going steady" during high school years; but there are some 
exceptions whose prudence and experience can hardly be 
ignored. And many teen-agers are quite in favor of it — 
especially the girls. They will tell you of the security and 
confidence it gives them — social security. I have even heard 
them claim that it keeps them from being boy-crazy, giggly, 
and self-conscious. 

So there are some reasons for it; but I am confident that 
the reasons against are much more important. Youngsters 
should grow up with the crowd, keep interests and activities 
befitting their age, extend their friendships and acquaintance, 
and above all avoid those moral dangers which are very likely 
to result when two immature youngsters are much together 
and trying to impress each other that they are quite grown up. 

So, whoever you are, and whatever your age, don't let 
anyone tell you flatly and indiscriminately that you are guilty 
of mortal sin if you go steady. But I would advise you seri-
ously to follow the counsel of your parents and your confessor 
— so that you will not run foolishly into dangers you do 
not surmise. 

24 





12 BOOKLETS 
ON MARRIAGE 

Marriage 
(Catholic & 
vn>irCalh:otic) 

These booklets give you more than 
200 a n s w e r s to the most commonly 
a s k e d questions o n marriage. 

For high-school religion classes, dis* 
cussion g r o u p s and home libraries. 

m rm . i H PAYMENT WITH ORDER PLEASE AVE MARIA PRESS 
NOTRE DAME, INDIANA