Let us briefly summarize three opinions which have been
held with regard to the morality of amp/cxus reservatus.
The first holds that it is licit, chaste, and generally com-
mendable without qualification; in other words that there
are no objections to it from the viewpoint of the Christian
law. The Holy Office undoubtedly considered that the
works of M. Chanson defended this view. This view is
condemned by the Holy Office.
The second view holds that it is not illicit in itself (i.e.,
by reason of its immediate object), but only by reason of
its end or its circumstances. These make it, or can make it
sinful, either gravely or venially. For instance, it would
often involve the parties in situations where they would be
running an entirely unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside the
marriage act. This would be gravely sinful Or it would
often involve them in an exaggerated or exclusive concen-
tration on sensual pleasure which would be venially sinful,
or at least inordinate. We agree with this second opinion
which is by far the most commonly held by thecl^hns.
past and present.
The third opinion holds that it is venially or mortally
sinful in itself, i.e., by reason of its immediate object as an
intentionally incomplete act of intercourse. Very few theo-
logians hold this opinion. The only one we know of who
still holds that it is intrinsically and gravely sinful is Hya-
cinthus M. Hering, O.P.
