Article V: On Adultery

66. Adultery is intercourse with another's spouse. It is a grave sin distinct in species from others; for besides sin against chastity it includes another against justice: for it violates in a grave matter the inalienable right of the other spouse; whence such malice does not cease, even if that spouse consents. This is clear from proposition 50 condemned by Innocent XI: "Intercourse with a married woman with her husband consenting is not adultery; and therefore it suffices in confession to say that one has fornicated." Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 5; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 8; L. 445.

67. The degrees of gravity of this sin are these: 1. Grave, when an unmarried person sins with one bound; besides fornication, by cooperating only, this one sins against the right of a third party. 2. Graver, when a bound person sins with an unmarried one, because besides fornication he sins against the fidelity given by himself to his own spouse, and because he violates the right acquired by the spouse in his body. 3. Gravest, when a bound person sins with one bound, because besides fornication he himself sins against justice, violating the right of his own spouse, and cooperates in a sin against justice of his accomplice, who likewise violates the right of the spouse of the accomplice. Whence the state of each must altogether be declared in confession, as the most common opinion of the doctors has it. 4. Adultery of the wife is graver than adultery of the husband, on account of the most grave harm of the family and of legitimate heirs, willed in the cause, which circumstance introduces another species of malice. - Sporer, 259; L. 445; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 258.

68. "Adultery is committed by a married person in every species whatever of at least external lust, not only natural, with an unmarried, bound, related, sacred person, etc., but also against nature, by bestiality, sodomy, softness, and likewise by immodest kisses and touches even with unmarried persons; and therefore a married man or married woman doing such things is bound to explain the state of his or her marriage. This is most common among the doctors: Sanchez, lib. 9, disp. 18, n. 4; Lugo, l. c.; Tamburini, cited c. 3, Sect. 1. The reason is that in all these things injury is always done to the spouse, according to the cited Apostle: The wife does not have power over her own body, etc. And conversely." Sporer, 259. But Billuart, diss. 6, art. 9, has these things: "If someone knows the wife of another in the preposterous vessel, the malice of adultery is joined... Yet it is not strictly and properly adultery, because another's marriage bed, or conjugal vessel, is not properly violated... For which reason if adultery were reserved, these things would not be reserved."

69. Spouses also contract the malice of adultery, or quasi-adultery, when sinning against nature by sodomy or softness, when mutually or separately they pollute themselves. For thus their flesh is most truly divided against the fidelity of marriage, which prohibits every use of the flesh outside the limits of marriage, and obliges that each preserve his or her body for the other. But they must necessarily explain that sin was committed with their own spouse; otherwise they will never explain the sin committed by themselves. Sporer, 497, 526; L. 446; Diana, tr. 6, de Matr., R. 186, n. 4; Billuart, de Matr., diss. 4, art. 3, at the beginning.

70. If a spouse only delights lingeringly in thought about intercourse with another, does he or she also contract the malice of mental adultery, necessarily to be explained in confession? - R. "Vasquez, 2 p., tom. 1, disp. 112, with others, affirms. The reason is that the fidelity of marriage obliges not only the body, but also the mind, not to place itself upon another base object; and therefore one lingeringly delighting in this way sins not only by a sin of lust, but also of mental adultery, just as by the consent of all a religious, priest, or another bound by a vow of chastity is bound in confession of morose venereal delectation to explain the circumstance of his vow or state, because he offends not only against chastity, but also truly against the vow and the virtue of religion. A probable and without doubt safer opinion. But Hurtado apud Tamburini, l. 10 Decalogi, n. 6, denies not improbably in these words: Vasquez teaches that a married person who is venereally delighted about fornication with one not his own sins not only by a sin of lust against chastity, but also by a sin of adultery against the fidelity of marriage. Yet this is proved with difficulty and without sufficient foundation, because with difficulty and without foundation is it said that in marriage fidelity is promised to the spouse of not placing the mind on another. These things Hurtado says sufficiently probably. Certainly without sufficient foundation and urgent necessity or reason the Sacrament of penance must not be burdened. The reason is otherwise concerning one bound by a vow of chastity. For one vowing chastity to God, the inspector of hearts, without doubt principally vows and obliges himself to chastity even internal, without which external chastity is worth nothing; but one contracting marriage with a human being is asserted without foundation also to oblige his mind to him or her, lest it tend lustfully toward another object." Sporer, n. 523.

71. Is it adultery, intercourse had with one betrothed by words concerning the future?

R. "It is more probably denied with Sanchez, de Matr., l. 1, d. 2, n. 2; Salm., d. c., 5, n. 10; Roncaglia, ibid., q. 5. But Roncaglia and Salm., de Matr., c. 1, n. 11, judge that if one of the betrothed fornicates with another person, he ought to open in confession the circumstance of betrothal as changing the species by reason of the injury inflicted on the other. Yet it is sufficiently probable with Trullench, Pontius, Diana, Covarruvias, Lugo, Sanchez, and Laymann that it is only an aggravating circumstance, since a betrothed person by betrothal acquires no right in the body of the other. See this in de Matr., l. 6, n. 647." L. 447; Ithurriaga, Cas. 6, n. 16; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 2, App. 1, You ask third; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 177-178.

72. What are the penalties against adulterers?

R. From Canon Law they are: 1. that adulterers cannot compel the innocent party to render the debt; for it is equitable that no fidelity be kept to one breaking fidelity. 2. That there is a right in the innocent co-party of seeking divorce, provided nevertheless the adultery was consummated, certain, formal, not praised by either, nor remitted. - But the penalty from the French Penal Code, l. 3, art. 336-339, and from the Italian Penal Code, art. 353-358, is the penalty of detention, prison, and fine. The penalty also of reclusion and detention as well as forced labors is established for another marriage contracted after another valid marriage. Italian Penal Code, art. 359; French Penal Code, l. 3, art. 340.