Article I: On Fornication

43. Proposition. Fornication is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin, so that it is never lawful.

Pre-note. Fornication is intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent. It is said of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, free from the bonds of marriage, according as fornication is distinguished from adultery. Unmarried man and unmarried woman also free from the bonds of kinship or affinity and of vow, according as it is simple fornication and has no other species annexed. From mutual consent, so that it is distinguished from stuprum and from raptus. Cf. here nn. 57, 61, 66, 73, 83, 103.

It is proved, first part. 1. From proposition 48, condemned by Innocent XI: "It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice, and is only evil because it is forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether dissonant from reason." 2. Because fornication and promiscuous intercourse are opposed to the good education of offspring, which cannot take place without the conjugal bond of male and female; for for that education there is required not only the care of the mother, by whom the child is nourished, but much more also the care of the father, by whom afterwards the offspring must be instructed, defended, and promoted to a state in which he can provide for himself the things necessary. - The second and third parts are proved. 1. Because in Sacred Scripture fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. 2. "Because fornication is gravely opposed to the good of offspring and to the due propagation of the human race; for if fornication and promiscuous intercourse were lawful, males, doubtful concerning the ownership of offspring, would not acknowledge it and would not apply themselves to due education; but women, afterwards abandoned by males, would procure abortions, would abandon infants, or would plainly kill them. Therefore. Moreover fornication is a mortal sin, even if a rich man wished to take care of the due education of the fornicating offspring; for if fornication were lawful in such a case, most would arrogate a similar license to themselves, would omit marriages, and fornication would successively become common against the due propagation of the human race." Struggl, 23; L., l. 1, n. 199; l. 3, n. 432, 435 seqq.; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 2. Therefore God, as author of nature, had to forbid fornication for every case; otherwise men, blinded by desires, would easily fashion for themselves that this inconvenience of due education of offspring would be absent in many cases in which nevertheless it would not be absent, with the greatest harm to the offspring. Scavini, l. 1, n. 766, Milan 1874; Billuart, l. c., dissert. 6, art. 2.

44. Note. 1. "He who only begins intercourse, but does not complete it nor inseminate, must explain this very thing, because although then it is fornication begun and in affection, nevertheless it is not fornication in reality; but it is an immodest act, and the extreme of immodesty, as Sanchez notes, disp. 19, n. 1. ('Intercourse in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, although insemination is not present.' L., l. 6, n. 916.) Much more, one who begins the same intercourse, and with nature already excited draws back and scatters the semen, must explain it, because there is now a double malice, namely fornication begun and in affection, and consummated softness, as is clear of itself. But this must be understood when the sinner does this while persevering in sin and consenting to pleasure. For otherwise anyone who has begun fornicatorial intercourse, or any illicit intercourse with some woman, both can lawfully without a new sin and must draw himself back, although because of the impulse of nature having been stirred semen must be emitted outside the natural vessel; indeed even after the accomplice person has already inseminated. The reason is that the fornicator at every time before completed fornication is bound to desist and not consummate it, since at every time he is bound to desist from sin; but by desisting from intercourse he desists from sin, which is always lawful and due. Therefore, if then pollution outside follows, it will follow from a lawful work and beyond his intention and consent; and therefore in that case the pollution is judged not voluntarily caused, but only permitted on account of the most just cause of desisting from the begun sin of fornication or the like. Nor does it matter that the other party, or the woman, has already inseminated or certainly will inseminate; for this does not remove the obligation of desisting from sin and not consummating the evil act." Sporer, 575, 576; L., l. 6, n. 916; Struggl, 25; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 2, append. 1, You ask fourth.

2. The circumstance of induction to fornication probably does not have to be explained in confession, since it is merely aggravating. Wherefore it suffices to confess fornication, "because the malice of induction or scandal, as they say, is already had, although not so grave, when someone does not solicit but consents; for even then he participates with the other in his sin, and is a cooperating cause to his ruin; wherefore this malice seems only to be aggravated more within the same species when someone positively solicits. And Lugo says the same must be said of base conversation and the like." L., l. 2, n. 46.

3. He who has fornicated with three satisfies by saying that he has fornicated three times, without expressing whether three times with the same one, or once with three. But the confessor will prudently ask about a circumstance of this kind by reason of the greater danger or scandal which can be present, and so that he may see whether that man is doing the office, as it were, of a corrupter, and thus may suggest fitting remedies. Elbel, de Act. hum., n. 103.

4. As regards penalties laid down by civil law against fornicators, none indeed has been laid down by Italian law or by French law against simple fornication, unless certain circumstances concur, that is, of publicity, violence, or the tender age of the one with whom the crime is committed. Italian Penal Code, 331 seqq.; French Penal Code, 330 seqq.; Law of May 17, 1819, art. 8. But as regards canonical penalties, cf. Trent, sess. 24, c. 8, de Ref. Matr.; sess. 25, c. 14, de Reg.; Bouix, de Parocho, p. 3, s. 4, c. 2, Sect. 4.