63. On Acts According to Nature

1. Mauritius had carnal intercourse with a prostitute. Repenting of the deed, he approaches the confessor and says that he once fornicated.

2. Tiburtius, after the proposal of not sinning further with his concubine, unhappily falls again into sin. Greatly grieving, he confesses his sin, saying that he fell twice into fornication.

3. Urbitius with every industry solicited a virgin to sin and finally deflowered her when she consented. Accusing himself in sacramental confession, he says that he committed the sin of fornication.

4. Sulpitius sinned with his betrothed. But in confessing the sin he accuses himself of simple fornication.

Q. 1. What is fornication and what kind of sin is it? 2. Have all confessed integrally in the various cases?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 788, 789; E. M. 788. - To the second. Prostitution is the state of a woman who is prepared to make the abundance of her body available to all for pay. Therefore to have carnal intercourse with a prostitute is not, speaking of itself, a special sin distinct from fornication. Nevertheless, in a particular case a special sin can easily be had, if something is positively done to impede generation or harm is brought to offspring already conceived. Since there is no circumstance of the case from which this can be conjectured, consequently it must be said that Mauritius, if he is unmarried, sufficiently explained his sin. Yet if the prostitute herself were to approach confession, in practice that circumstance would have to be explained, in order to know the state and the kind of occasion of the penitent, and consequently for her due direction.

Concubinage is frequent intercourse of an unmarried man with one and the same unmarried person. It makes no difference that the persons remain in the same or in different houses, provided nevertheless that they live together after the manner of spouses. Indeed, if this intercourse is had with a married man or married woman, it is still called concubinage, although improperly, because then the malice of adultery is also included. Therefore in this concubinage differs from simple fornication: that fornication indicates simply intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, now one, now another; but concubinage is exercised toward the same person as if she were a spouse. Concubinage is a most grave sin, because the concubinarian both sins and perseveres in the state of mortal sin, whence ordinarily he must not be absolved unless the concubine has been dismissed. Therefore Tiburtius sufficiently explained the species of the sin, if he is unmarried; nevertheless that circumstance of concubinage must be discerned by the confessor because of relapse and occasion.

Stuprum, taken in the strict sense, is the deflowering of a virgin while she is unwilling, and it is a special sin, because besides most grave fornication it contains the injury inflicted on the oppressed virgin. Taken in the strict sense; for in a broad sense stuprum is also called not only violent stuprum, but also voluntary, or with the virgin altogether consenting, and then it is more commonly held as mere fornication. Wherefore Urbitius sufficiently explained his sin, if nevertheless every fraud was absent. For if the virgin is induced to evil by fraud, for example, by a false promise of marriage or of a great dowry, or also by grave reverential fear, although she herself also sins by consenting, nevertheless her consent was extorted by grave injury and by moral force. - I. M. 790.

Fornication of a betrothed man with a betrothed woman is more probably not of a diverse species. Wherefore Sulpitius sufficiently confessed his sin. Nevertheless, that circumstance of espousals would from another source have to be known by the confessor, for the due direction of the penitent and for judging the occasion of sin.

5. Bertina, a maidservant, a woman fearing God and therefore abhorring sin, having been earnestly solicited several times to evil by her master, as often resisted him. Having been induced by the confessor to abandon an occasion of sin of this sort, she asks and insists that she may remain in the same service, because she receives a greater stipend from the master and would with difficulty be able to find another honorable place. The confessor accedes to her wishes. But soon she is again solicited by the master, and by him, against her will, she is oppressed. What is the miserable woman to do? At first she does not dare to cry out, lest she defame both the master and herself. Then, when she wishes to cry out, that man, furious with lust, threatens death. Therefore, placed in the last straits, Bertina externally conducts herself merely passively, but internally from heart and soul detests the sin.

Q. 1. What is stuprum? 2. Ought Bertina to have abandoned this occasion of sin, and to have been obligated to this by the confessor, even under penalty of absolution to be denied? 3. Did she sin gravely by not crying out, because of fear of infamy? 4. Did she sin gravely by not crying out and by conducting herself passively because of fear of death? 5. If she had been able, ought she to have killed the master in the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 790, 791. To the second. If Bertina could easily have found another master, she indeed ought to have abandoned the present occasion of sin, since then there would have been no reasonable cause for persisting in it. But if she could not easily have found another master, since in reality the occasion of sinning is remote for her, since she is a woman fearing God, abhorring sin, and has always resisted temptation, she could not be obligated by the confessor to abandon it under penalty of absolution to be denied.

To the third. It is controverted. According to many, she did not sin. For they say, "when from cries she fears for herself grave harm of infamy, death, or excessive shame, she is not held to it. Thus Soto, Navarrus, and Reginaldus; Bonacina also seems to embrace this opinion, which also seems probable to me when she would fear grave harm to herself from crying out." Lugo, d. 10, n. 198; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 916. According to others, she sinned gravely of herself, by not crying out at first, unless she was excused by good faith. For she ought to have applied an easy remedy for escaping so great a danger to chastity. Nor indeed does the excuse brought from fear of infamy avail. For she incurs no loss of reputation by crying out, since only honorable women in a like case are accustomed to cry out. But as to the master's reputation, let him impute it to his own malice if he suffers danger to his reputation. Elbel 40.

To the fourth. It is likewise controverted. The denying opinion much more does not lack probability because of the most grave fear of death. For "that permission then is not moral cooperation, but only material; and therefore it is sufficiently excused on account of danger of death.... Nevertheless it must not be denied that the affirmative opinion is altogether to be advised in practice, at least on account of the danger of consent, which can easily be present in that permission." L. l. 3, n. 368.

To the fifth. Bertina would indeed have licitly killed the master, the assailant of her modesty, if she had been able. For it would have been a just defense. Nevertheless she was not held to this, although she herself would have had to be killed. "For no one is held to kill an aggressor, but licitly and laudably can permit his own killing, lest the other be deprived of temporal and eternal life." L. 380. Cf. I. M. 727, 729, 730; G. 19, 20.