Article II: On Bestiality

112. Bestiality is concubitus with a beast. The species of this sin is not changed, morally speaking, from the variety of beasts. But whether it is morally changed from diversity of sex, some affirm, but commonly and more probably it is denied. "Therefore the whole essential deformity of this crime consists in access to a different species." L. 474. "For bestiality to be complete, effusion of semen on the part of the perpetrator is required. Saettler says that it is not necessary to declare in confession whether the congress was in the belly or in another part of the body of the brute, since none is destined to receive human semen. Nevertheless, in the case in which this sin were reserved, Billuart holds that semination within the vessel of the brute is necessary, because reservation, as being odious, must be restricted to the consummated act. Billuart therefore does not consider bestiality consummated unless it is done within the vessel of the brute; consequently, at least for the most part, it cannot be consummated by women." Craisson, Notiones circa sex. Decal. praec. n. 178. Cf. here n. 118.; St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11.

113. Congress with a demon is reduced to bestiality. Hence "more universally by St. Thomas and others bestiality is defined as a sin against nature by which a man lies with an animate thing of a different species; so that, namely, the unspeakable coitions of witches and magicians with demons, incubi or succubi, may also be comprehended, containing, besides the sin against nature, also a special sin against religion, namely of society and wicked commerce with the demon, the most wicked enemy of God and of us all; and therefore without doubt this must necessarily be explained in confession." Sporer 625.

114. "But does he who coits with a demon appearing in the form of a married woman, a nun, or a blood-relative, always sin affectively by the sin of adultery, sacrilege, or incest?"

Busembaum with others seems universally to affirm; but it is very probably to be denied, if the one lying with her is delighted in that woman represented by the demon, not as married or as a nun, but as beautiful, according to the opinion of Engel, Paul, Vasquez, and several others, who very probably teach that morose delectation does not involve the species of the object in which someone is delighted, unless the circumstance of the person enters into the delectation. Liguori 475.

115. "Immodest touches with a beast, although they are not properly sins of bestiality, nevertheless have some special turpitude, and Elbel says, at least venial." L. 474.; cf. here n. 103. Hence the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone by the tongue of a beast of burden or of a lesser beast excites venereal delectation or pollution in himself, without affection toward the beast.