AMORE (LIBERO). — Love here means the sexual appetite; and the addition of “free” is intended to indicate the will to satisfy it without any restraint, but according to one’s own inclination. This may be understood in two senses: the first broader and more comprehensive, the second narrower and subordinate.
1. Understood in the first sense, f. l. entails: a) exemption from every law of personal morality, which has no reason to exist. Love, in fact, imposes itself upon us without asking either our consent or that of others, but arises through an impulse of nature; it has no duties other than toward itself—or rather, it has rights alone. Therefore each person must be free to exercise them in the manner and at the times he wishes; b) exemption from every social law. Civil, religious, and family authority have nothing to do with it, nor have they any limits or restrictions to prescribe; at most, they are obliged to ensure each person the free exercise of love; c) exemption from every law of propriety, modesty, and social or religious prejudice. All this is unworthy of man; it was born of fear; it fosters and exacerbates the erotic sense, removing that serene equilibrium which benefits the formation and full development of the personality, just as food benefits the strengthening of the body, restoring it to the equilibrium disrupted by the wear and exhaustion of energies caused by daily occupations and exertions; d) moreover, f. l. offers an escape to so many people who, for one reason or another, cannot marry. “Without sexual life, a human being is incomplete or mutilated. And fortunately women, too, finally know this. The number of educated, honest, and industrious women who are unmarried, or who for whatever reason cannot marry, and who nevertheless have sexual relations, is continually increasing. They are courageous women, conscious of their own worth, who are preparing better times for their sisters” (Doctor Adamo Lehmann, cited in Förster, p. 59). And B. Russel, the most systematic author on the subject (Le mariage et la morale, French version, 6th ed., Paris 1930, p. 144), adds: “From the standpoint of pure morality (f. l.) marks immense progress over the old system. Traditional moralists deplore it because they see in it a failure that can no longer be concealed. Instead, this new freedom of love among the young ought to be a source of joy for us, because it is about to create a new generation of men and women, free from all sophistical reserve”; e) finally, f. l. is an indispensable preparation for happiness without further disappointments in marriage; and this applies not only to young men, but also to young women. Experience, in fact, acquired through various adventures, while it will temper the first and most pressing ardors, will in due time favor a happier choice of the companion who will share the rest of one’s life. This is the thesis of L. Blum (Del matrimonio, Italian version, Turin 1946, especially pp. 1–33); and it is also the somewhat veiled substance of the very common saying, “young people need to enjoy themselves,” by which an attempt is made casually to excuse the deviations of the young.
2. Not everyone, however, in the theory of f. l. dares to descend to its ultimate logical consequences; rather, they give it the meaning of free union, in the sense that spouses must be able to separate at will in order to enter into other unions, even multiple ones; and that, even without separation taking place, they must be able to make up, through extramarital relations, for the gaps, deficiencies, or dissatisfactions they encounter in legitimate marriage.
Love, in fact, freely creates the union; freely continues it; freely suppresses it as soon as it sees a more desirable object. “It would be quite absurd to rely upon the false honor of being faithful, to bury oneself forever in a passion, to be dead from one’s youth onward to all the beauties that may strike one’s eyes” (Molière, Don Giovanni, act I, scene 2).
3. EVALUATION
The theory of f. l. is deplorable in every respect and is condemned by reason and religion because of the reversal it imposes upon the true values of life and the sad consequences to which it leads. It is true that love, understood as the sexual appetite, favors the full development of the personality and that men therefore have the right to seek their happiness and perfection in it, and to seek them freely. For this reason the Church places great emphasis on freedom both in choosing the married state and in choosing one’s spouse. It is also true that the sexual instinct is in itself a good, and that, since humanity cannot reproduce and continue without its satisfaction, following it is not in itself evil. But man is not wholly and solely erotic instinct; he also has other sentiments, is above all spirit, and is a rational and social creature. He therefore has an end to attain worthy of a rational creature; he has limits and laws to observe in order not to compromise its attainment. And this is so both out of respect for the body and its instincts and out of respect for the soul. Therefore one cannot and must not “isolate the erotic from every other condition and purpose of human life to such a degree as to run counter to the most elementary common sense, to forget the fundamental facts of human nature, and to neglect the fundamental demands of real life” (Förster, p. 102).Nor should Jesus’ warning be forgotten: “There are eunuchs who were born that way; there are others who have been made so by men, and still others who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Mt. 19:12). With these words Jesus has, over the course of the centuries, inspired legions of men and women who have sublimated the instinct of procreation and, instead of following the attraction of marriage, have preferred to remain continent and chaste for a broader and more spiritual love and fatherhood or motherhood. The reasons with which f. l. seeks to cloak itself are merely sophisms and arise above all from a lack of the will to resist and master one’s inclinations, from the supposed impossibility of remaining pure and honest. “Certainly, being rational animals is a difficult calling, and it is a difficult calling to direct one’s body with the soul into the innermost recesses of one’s being, where the will is grafted onto the organism. One must labor and bleed if one wishes slowly to purify and spiritualize these darkened regions, where the past of our species and of ourselves
(propr. E. Jasi)
In conclusion, it may be said: by giving the name of love to all the acts of f. l., one does nothing but unleash, varnish over, and enthrone voluptuousness, baseness, and animality; and instead of f. l., one finds a love wholly enslaved to the worst of masters.
The doctrine of the Church, founded on the word of Jesus Christ (cf., for example, Mt. 5:8, 27–30; 18:6–10), confirms and perfects what reason says, and at the same time, while recognizing and evaluating the insuppressible difficulties raised by human nature corrupted by original sin, offers the means (mortification, victory over oneself, prayer, the Sacraments) for the happy overcoming of all obstacles and for the serene joy of hearts. « Se il chicco di frumento cadendo in terra non muore, rimane infecondo, se invece muore produce molto frutto » (Io. 12, 24) (v. CASTITÀ; DIVORZIO; MATRIMONIO).