Doubt IV: On seduction

It is defined by D. Bonaventure p. p. Centil. sect. 24. and in Compend. Theol. verit. lib. 3. cap. 21: Stuprum is lust by which the incorruption of Virgins is violated, or they are deflowered. He defines it thus also in 4. dist. 41. dub. 4. littera, where he compares stuprum with adultery, and says adultery is the greater by reason of the injury, or injustice, inflicted on the spouse and on the Republic; nevertheless on the other side stuprum is graver, because it violates the virginal enclosure.

Some, however, define stuprum thus: It is the intercourse of a man by force with a Virgin woman.

Hence, when the Virgin consents spontaneously, they say it is not stuprum. So Peter Navarr. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 3. num. 433. Sotus in 4. dist. 18. quaest. 2. art. 4. Vasquez prima secunda, disp. 112. cap. 2. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 10. dub. 1. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 14. Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 4. Suarez de poenit. disp. 22. sect. 4. Coninch. disp. 7. num. 19. It is the more common opinion and seems to be gathered from the decretal of Gregory extra de adulteriis, apud D. Bonav., to be cited, where it is said: Falix deceived a certain Virgin by stuprum, but deception is equivalent to force, as I shall say in dub. 10. See Bass. V. stuprum.

The opposite opinion, however, is that even if she consents spontaneously, it is stuprum. So D. Bonaventure locis adductis, D. Thom. art. 4. Cajetan quaest. 154. art. 6. Henriquez lib. 2. de poenit. cap. 8. Filliucius tract. 3. in 6. praecepto, cap. 3. de stupro, Azor cap. 11. quaestio 5. Tolet. lib. 3. cap. 18. Rodriquez tom. 1. sum. cap. 28. Guttier. lib. 1. qq. can. cap. 37. Farinacius Tom. 4. quaest. 146. Graff. lib. 2. cap. 79. Bonacina de matrim. quaest. 4. puncto 17. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 6.

These, indeed, nearly all take the reason from the injury inflicted on the future husband, and especially on the parents, under whose power she is.

I argue ad hominem. Every act to which the laws impose penalties is evil, having a special malice: But voluntary stuprum of a girl is punished by Civil and Canon law, as the adversaries concede: Therefore. The major is evident, for a special penalty is inflicted for a special fault. The minor is proved from the Laws.

By Canon law the ravisher of a violated Virgin is compelled to endow her and to take her to himself in marriage, even if he is unwilling to marry her after the constitution of the dowry; he is beaten with rods through the streets of the city, cap. 2. de adult., and many teach this with Fagundez num. 21., and D. Bonav. reports it in Confessionali, cap. 3. particula 56. Excommunication to be imposed is added, and confinement in a monastery.

But if the deflowerer is married, he will be bound to endow her, and will be beaten with cudgels, or punished with a fine at the judge's discretion. If he is a Clerk in Holy Orders, he will be bound to endow her, and will otherwise bear penalties at the judge's discretion, such as suspension, deposition, etc. That this penalty for the ravisher of a spontaneous Virgin obtains in the use of all tribunals of both fora, Fagundez num. 27., Julius Clarus §. stuprum, Farinacius tract. 4. quaest. 147. teach.

IN CIVIL law, if the ravisher is noble, half his goods are published (confiscated); if of humble station, he is beaten with rods and punished with exile, according to the text in §. Lex Iulia, Institut. de public. Iudic. Now, however, only the Canonical penalty is in use in the whole world, as Fagundez num. 27. Farinacius, Clarus, and others above say.

NOW indeed this condition is no longer imposed, that she be under the power of her father, or wish to marry. Therefore it is a sign that it is given on account of the violated enclosure of the Virgin.

I ADD the penalties imposed on a violent ravisher, which by civil law are capital punishment, leg. 1. §. finali, ff. de extraord. crim. §. qui puero, where the ravisher of a boy and of a girl are treated as equal. See Farinacius Tract. 4. quaest. 147. and others apud Fagundez num. 28.

The same penalty the civil laws inflict on one who violates an honest widow by force.

BUT IF an honest widow consents spontaneously, she is punished according to some with a pecuniary penalty, as many say apud Fagundez num. 31., but others teach that no penalty is due.

MOREOVER, the deflowerer of a consenting virgin is held in conscience to restore to her parents the loss resulting from it, by supplying the increase of the dowry: It seems so to D. Thom. quaest. 154. art. 6., Cajetan there, Abulensis in cap. 5. Matth. quaest. 201. Many sustain it expressly apud Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 3. Others, however, cited by him num. 5., say he is not held, unless he has defamed her.

BUT IF he violated her with a prior promise of marriage, he is bound to take her, or to repair the loss. So many apud Fagundez num. 3.; much more if he deflowered the Virgin by force, fraud, or importunate entreaties; for he is held in conscience either to marry her or to repair the loss; but it suffices if he only add in gifts as much as she needs, because she is corrupted. So Nauar. summa, cap. 16. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 1. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 3. §. an, et quando, Lessius Tom. 1. de iust. lib. 2. cap. 10. dub. 1. Sylvester V. luxuria, quaest. 5. Some say this is true if the entreaties are joined to threats, or reverential fear.

BUT IF the girl, deflowered in the manner said, finds marriages equally advantageous, and consequently suffers nothing, I judge with Lessius num. 15. Fagundez num. 8. that nothing is owed, because restitution is for a loss inflicted.

BUT IF he corrupted her under the hope of marriage, or by a promise.

IT IS ANSWERED, that he is held to marry her, provided the disparity is not so great that it would persuade the contrary. So D. Thom. in 4. dist. 28. quaest. unic. art. 2. ad 4. Lessius Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. de iniuriis per stuprum, dub. 3. Sanchez lib. 1. de matr. disp. 10. num. 6. Sayrus lib. 11. cap. 1. Sotus 4. dist. 27. quaest. 1. art. 3. Nauar. sum. c. 16. Richardus 4. dist. 28. art. 1. quaest. 3. Palud. q. 1. art. 2. D. Antonin. p. p. tit. 5. cap. 6. Rosella V. matrim. 4. Angel. V. stuprum, 1. Sylvester V. Luxuria, quaest. 5. Tabiena verbo restit. quaest. 22. Armilla num. 22. Victoria sum. de matrim. num. 266. Ledesma 2. part. 4. quaest. 18. art. 2. Veracruz 3. part. speculi, art. 19. Corduba in summa, quaest. 50. et lib. 1. qq. quaest. 13. Beia sum. casu 18. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 76. Rodriquez tom. 1. cap. 208. Copua lib. 2. decis. cap. 78. Spino spec. rest. glos. 15. Fagundez in 6. praecep. lib. 5. num. 12. cum D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 28. quaest. 1. See also Bassaeus.

THE REASON is, because it is a contract, and when she on her part has fulfilled the contract, the other party is held too; whence by that union she acquired a right.

IF, however, there is a grave disparity, which she herself knew, and could judge to the contrary, he is not held. So Sanchez cited num. 6. Rodriquez tom. 1. cap. 208. Sylvester V. matrim. 4. Fagundez num. 15. and others apud these.

BUT IF she was ignorant of the disparity, and had no external cause for suspecting fraud, the deflowerer will be bound to marry her. So Lessius Tom. 1. de Iust. lib. 2. cap. 10. Petrus Nauar. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 5. from num. 444. Sanchez lib. 1. de matrim. disp. 10. Fagundez num. 14.

IF stuprum is not a species distinct from fornication, it would not be necessary to specify it in confession; but say the opposite with D. Bonaventure.