Article X: On the Nature of Base Touches

30. Do the aforesaid touches differ in species from the consummated act of pollution and of intercourse, and from the other incomplete acts about which there was speech in the preceding articles?

R. To 1. Affirmatively; and this answer has force both for touches and for the other incomplete acts about which there has been speech thus far. The reason is that a begun act differs in nature and moral estimation from a consummated act. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 237, 238.

Note. Here, however, it must be noted for the full understanding of the nature of these incomplete acts, that pollution, intercourse, and venereal delectation, which precedes, accompanies, and follows them, pertain to lust, which is directly opposed to chastity; but these acts of the other senses, which are called begun and incomplete acts with respect to venereal delectation, pollution, and intercourse, to which they dispose, belong properly to sensuality and immodesty, which according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 1, ad 5, concerns acts antecedent or concomitant to the completed venereal act. "Although chastity and modesty are often taken as one and the same, nevertheless, strictly speaking, modesty is not chastity, but a special circumstance of it. It is proved: modesty is named from shame, in which bashfulness is signified; whence modesty is properly concerned with those things about which men are especially bashful, such as venereal things because of the rebellion of the genital members and, as it were, the absorption of reason, so that even conjugal intercourse itself, which nevertheless is adorned by the honesty of nuptials, is not without bashfulness, and spouses would blush to exercise it before others. But man is bashful not only about intercourse itself, but also about certain signs of it, such as immodest looks, kisses, touches, etc. And because these are accustomed to be detected more, therefore modesty regards more signs of this kind, but chastity more the venereal commingling itself. Therefore modesty pertains to chastity as its special circumstance." Billuart, diss. 4, art. 1, I say third.

Corollary. "When, therefore, similar acts precede the venereal act completed in the same passion, or accompany the same act or immediately follow it, as kisses, touches, etc., they constitute with the complete venereal act one sin in number, and do not necessarily have to be distinctly explained in sacramental confession; but when they are exercised without the completed venereal act they are a sin distinct from this, yet one in number, if they are exercised in the same motion of passion; as I said, tract. 2, quaest. 1, n. 36. Whence in such a case they are a certain incomplete lust, and are to be explained in sacramental confession." Struggl, art. 2, n. 9.

R. To 2. It is disputed, if the speech is about grave malice. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that these acts, inspected according to themselves, proceed from distinct and diverse faculties, and are ordered to distinct and diverse objects.

Corollary. "The desire of looking basely, touching, kissing, fornicating, are distinguished in species not only from morose delectation concerning those objects, but also each from each other, because they tend toward those objects as they would be placed on the part of the thing; but if they were placed on the part of the thing, they would be distinguished in species, as is clear. Hence one who once was delighted by a thought about intercourse, and once desired intercourse, does not satisfy by saying: twice I had a base thought, but he ought to say: once I was delighted concerning intercourse, and once I desired it. Similarly one who once desired to look, once to kiss, once to touch, once to fornicate, does not satisfy by saying: four times I desired to do something base, but he is bound to express those objects." La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1032.

The second probable opinion denies. The reason is that although acts of this kind physically proceed from faculties really distinct and tend to objects really distinct, nevertheless, morally inspected, they do not contain an intrinsically grave malice, but the grave malice which they contain they have from venereal delectation, to which they proximately dispose, and which is of the same species for all acts of this kind. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4.

Corollary. Therefore, when in confession the venereal delectation that followed, to which someone consented, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether he procured it for himself by a look or touch of himself, by a look or touch of another person. Yet the reason of scandal and cooperation would have to be explained, if it were present. Likewise, when in confession interior delectation of the will in venereal delectation, or a desire of the will for venereal delectation, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether that delectation and desire terminated immediately at base looks or touches. Reuter, p. 2, tr. 3, c. 3, q. 10; Tamburini, Method. Confess., l. 2, c. 1, n. 66-72.

Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 15, Sect. III, Note seqq., has these things to the matter:

"Francis Henno teaches that delectations concerning look, touch, kiss, etc., differ among themselves in species, and must thus be distinctly accused... because, he says, looks, touches, kisses are distinguished among themselves in species... but nevertheless he confesses that the practice of confessors and penitents is contrary. Besides, I think his foundation is false, namely that touches, kisses, looks are distinguished among themselves in species in the genus of lust. For since they are not evil per se, as was said, but only by reason of commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, to which they excite and tend, they have the same species of malice among themselves, namely either of carnal commotion, or of pollution, or of intercourse, etc. Whence in my judgment the penitent would satisfy who said: so many times I excited in myself or in another a carnal commotion or pollution, keeping silent whether by touches, or looks, or kisses, provided he explains the conditions of himself and of the accomplice. A fortiori he would satisfy by saying: so many times I was carnally delighted concerning such or such a person, not explaining whether concerning touches, or kisses, or looks, but indeed if the delectation was concerning intercourse or pollution, because since these differ in species from immodesty and are to be distinctly accused, so also are delectations concerning them."

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4, ad 3, speaking of kisses and touches, says "that things of this kind are not sins according to their own species." And ibid. ad 2 he says: "from lust they have the nature of sin." And ibid. in the body: "things of this kind, insofar as they are lustful, are mortal sins."

31. Do touches and other incomplete acts, when they are grave sin, contract a malice diverse in species for the various circumstances of persons?

R. As regards touches, kisses, and embraces, it is commonly affirmed. And the reason is that, in moral estimation, touches more than other acts regard the individual person, and more proximately approach intercourse. Whence just as in intercourse the specific circumstances of persons must be explained, so also in touches. Cf. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 238; L., l. 417, 453, 459, 469.

As regards looks, the Salmanticenses apud St. Alphonsus, n. 421, likewise affirm; and both as regards looks and also as regards base words, whether spoken or heard, in nearly the same way as regards touches, Sanchez also affirms, de Matr., l. 9, d. 46, n. 17, 18, 30, 45, on account of a wholly universal reason, namely because all these acts are ordered to intercourse and participate in its moral malice. But St. Alphonsus, after reporting the opinion of the Salmanticenses as regards looks, adds these things: "But Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1030, more truly contradicts this doctrine, where he says that one who, without any desire, looks venereally at a person is not bound to say what sort of person it was; for how would a woman, by looking basely at a naked priest, commit sacrilege, which consists in violation of a sacred person, since no violation intervenes there? And how would someone, by looking basely at a blood relative, commit incest?" And indeed looks, morally speaking, merely affect the person looking, and therefore properly and from their own nature are not judged to tend into the consummated act and to be, as it were, some affective beginning of intercourse. But these things also hold as regards base words spoken or heard, as is clear of itself, to which the malice of scandal can easily be added. Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 163, 167; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 16, par. Circa Turp., Nota bene; Scavini, l. 1, n. 792, note, Milan 1874; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 4, ad 1, ad 2; L. 415, 417.

32. In touches which someone has with himself or with another, must the sex be explained, whether male or female? - R. Per se speaking, negatively; for this in itself is merely material. L. 467.

33. As regards touches, must the parts of the body which one gravely sinning in this matter touched be explained? - R. La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1031, has these things: "One who without venereal desire touched a girl, according to Diana, satisfies by saying that so many times he touched basely, saying nothing about the parts in which he touched. Others probably say that it must be expressed if he touched a base part." - Cf. here n. 30.