LOOSE LOVE. — Here, love signifies sexual appetite; the addition of “loose” indicates the will to satisfy it without any restraint, but according to one’s own inclination. This can be understood in two senses: one broader and more totalitarian, the other narrower and more dependent.
1. Understood in the first sense, loose love implies: a) exemption from every law of personal morality, which has no reason to exist. Love, in fact, imposes itself without asking for either our or others’ consent; it arises by natural impulse, has no duties other than toward itself, or rather, it has only rights. Therefore, each person must be free to exercise it in the manner and at the times they wish; b) exemption from every social law. Civil, religious, and family authority have nothing to do with it and no limits or restrictions to prescribe; at most, they have the duty to ensure that each person can freely exercise love; c) exemption from every law of decency, modesty, social or religious prejudice. All of this is unworthy of man; it stems from fear, fosters and exacerbates erotic feeling, removing that serene balance which is beneficial to the formation and full development of personality, just as food is beneficial to the strengthening of the body, restoring the equilibrium that is disrupted by the wear and tear of energy caused by daily occupations and fatigue; d) moreover, loose love offers an escape for many people who, for one reason or another, cannot marry. “Without sexual life, a human being is incomplete or mutilated. And fortunately, women are finally realizing this too. The number of educated, honest, and industrious women who are not married or cannot be married for any reason, yet have sexual relations, is always growing. They are courageous women, aware of their worth, who are preparing better times for their sisters” (Dr. Adam Lehmann, cited in Förster, p. 59). And B. Russell, the most systematic author on the subject (Marriage and Morals, French ed., 6th ed., Paris 1930, p. 144), adds: “From the standpoint of pure morality, loose love represents an immense advance 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 in love among the young should be a cause for joy, for it is about to create a new generation of men and women free from every sophistic coyness”; e) finally, loose love is an indispensable preparation for happiness without further disillusionment in marriage, which applies not only to young men but also to young women. Experience, in fact, gained through various adventures, while tempering the first and most pressing ardors, will at the right time favor a happier choice of a lifelong companion. This is the thesis of L. Blum (On Marriage, Italian trans., Turin 1946, especially pp. 1-33); and it is also the somewhat veiled substance of the common saying: “youth must sow its wild oats,” by which young people’s deviations are conveniently excused.
2. Not everyone, however, in the theory of loose love dares to follow it to its ultimate logical conclusions, but instead give it the meaning of free union, in the sense that spouses should be able to separate at will to enter into other unions, even multiple ones; and to satisfy their needs even without separation, through extramarital relations that remedy the deficiencies or dissatisfactions they encounter in legitimate marriage.
Love, in fact, freely creates the union; freely continues it; freely dissolves it as soon as it perceives a more desirable object. “It would be quite ridiculous to claim the false honor of being faithful, to bury oneself forever in a passion, to be dead to all the beauties that may strike our gaze from youth” (Molière, Don Juan, Act I, Scene 2).
3. EVALUATION
The theory of loose love is deplorable in every respect and condemned by reason and religion for the reversal it imposes on the true values of life and the sad consequences to which it leads. It is true that love, understood as sexual appetite, favors the full development of personality, and thus men have the right to seek in it their happiness and perfection and to seek it freely. Therefore, the Church insists greatly on freedom both in the choice of marital state and in the choice of a spouse. It is also true that the sexual instinct is in itself a good, and since humanity cannot propagate and continue without it being satisfied, it is not in itself evil to follow II. But man is not all and only erotic instinct; he also has other feelings, he is above all spirit and is a rational and social creature. He therefore has an end to achieve worthy of a rational creature; he has limits and laws to observe so as not to compromise its attainment. And this applies both with respect to the body and its instincts and with respect to the soul. Therefore, one cannot, nor should one, “isolate the erotic from every other condition and purpose of human life to such an extent as to defy the most elementary common sense, to forget the fundamental facts of human nature, to neglect the fundamental demands of real life” (Förster, p. 102).Nor should we forget Jesus’ warning: “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Mt 19:12). With these words, Jesus has inspired, over the centuries, legions of men and women who have sublimated the instinct of procreation and, instead of following the attraction of marriage, have chosen to remain continent and chaste for a broader and spiritual love and parenthood. The reasons with which loose love seeks to cloak itself are merely sophisms and stem above all from a lack of will to resist and master one’s own inclinations, from the presumed impossibility of remaining pure and honest. “Certainly, being rational animals is a hard task, and it is a hard task to direct one’s own body with the soul even into the depths of one’s being, where the will is grafted onto the organism. One must toil and bleed if one wishes to refine and spiritualize these regions, where the past of our species and of ourselves has allowed too many bad roots to take hold. But our dignity as men and Christians, the dignity of our bodies—yes, thinking bodies; of our bodies that have become, through baptism, temples of God—briefly, our natural and supernatural worth is achieved only at this price... Let us not inflict upon humanity the insult and crime of lowering its principles to the level of its weaknesses; breaking the spring that should make it rise higher means perverting what it has best, what should make it better” (Mersch, pp. 19-20). Experience, moreover, attests to the dire consequences of the theory of loose love in its two aspects: unhappy unions, concubinage, nudism, birth control, racial degeneration, decline in the level of true civilization, dissolution of the individual and the family.
In conclusion, it can be said: by lending the name of love to all the acts of loose love, nothing is done but unleash, varnish, and enthrone voluptuousness, baseness, and animality, and instead of loose love, one has a love that is entirely enslaved to the worst of masters.
AMOUR AND PSYCHE — Fresco (4th century) — Rome, Domitilla Catacomb.
The Church’s doctrine, founded on the word of Jesus Christ (cf., e.g., Mt 5:8, 27–30; 18:6–10), confirms and perfects what reason itself affirms, while at the same time—aware of and assessing the insurmountable difficulties arising from human nature corrupted by original sin—it provides the means (mortification, self-mastery, prayer, the Sacraments) for happily overcoming every obstacle and attaining the serene joy of the heart. “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (Jn 12:24). (v. CASTITÀ; DIVORZIO; MATRIMONIO)