"The great question is in what act sodomy consists. Some hold that it consists in concubitus toward an undue vessel. Others, in concubitus toward an undue sex. Each opinion is probable, and in each opinion there is discerned the special deformity which sodomy has against nature, which requires each to be observed for generation, that is, a due vessel and a due sex." L. 466. The second opinion is called more probable and common among theologians by St. Alphonsus, l. c. "The reason is that true and proper sodomy is committed in access to a person with whom generation can in no way occur." L. ibid.
Note. According to this second opinion it does not matter in what vessel males or females coit among themselves, in the anterior or posterior, or in another part of the body, since the malice of sodomy consists in affection toward an undue sex, and is complete in its genus when the application of the genital member to a part of the body of the same sex occurs in the manner of concubitus. But if there were only an application of the hand, foot, or mouth to the genital parts of another, even if pollution took place on both sides, it would not be considered sodomy, because it would not be concubitus. Bonv.; L. 466. 485.; Hom. Ap. Tr. 9. n. 24. 25.; cf. here n. 103.; St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11. 12.
Corollaries. "Hence it is inferred, first, that the coitus of a woman with a woman is true sodomy, as St. Thomas, Roncaglia, Holzmann, Sporer, the Salmanticenses with Cajetan, etc., say. Although Elbel, l. c., with Felix Potestas, not improbably thinks that a concubitus of this kind, even with affection toward the preposterous vessel, seems to be only improper sodomy, since among women there cannot be perfect copulation. It is inferred, second, that any concubitus whatever, or conjunction of bodies, had with a person of the same sex, whether in the preposterous vessel or in another part, is true sodomy; for then, regularly speaking, there is always affection toward an undue sex, as Tamburini, Roncaglia, Tournely, Croix, and the Salmanticenses hold. Hence Roncaglia, Tamburini, and the Salmanticenses say, against Graffius, that it is not necessary to explain in confession whether pollution was within or outside the vessel; for it is sufficient to confess, I sinned with a boy, so that the confessor may judge that sodomy with pollution was present. But if pollution was not present, it would have to be explained. It is inferred, third, with the Salmanticenses, Bonacina, Tamburini, and the more common opinion, that the coitus of a man in the preposterous vessel of a woman is only imperfect sodomy, distinct in species from perfect sodomy, as Tournely and Tamburini say. The latter notes with Filliucci, and Holzmann and Sporer rightly agree with the common opinion, as he asserts, that if a man were to coit between the thighs, arms, or other parts of a woman, there would be a certain begun copulation, at least in affection. Hence, according to this doctrine, a man lying with a virgin outside the vessel commits two sins against the same chastity indeed, but of diverse species: one of fornication in affection, the other against nature in effect. But the aforesaid Sporer, Holzmann, Tamburini with Angelus, say that the confessor, understanding that the woman was known outside the natural or preposterous vessel, ought not to ask in what place or in what manner." L. ibid.
Moreover these are the words of Sporer 627.: "Note this: when a man and a woman, mixing themselves thus, are polluted outside the vessel: if indeed it is done from affection toward the person herself, as ordinarily happens, it pertains to copulation which is fornicary, adulterous, incestuous, etc., according as the person was; but if it is done from affection toward the preposterous parts, it will be imperfect sodomy, of which we are treating; if finally it is done without concubitus or any conjunction, but merely to satisfy lust, it is softness." L. 485.
118.Show the text of this paragraphHide it againδνισσκω ξζψ βωψυσ ψμντσ, ψ. ψβ κθρ μωπυ: ευηζ ξιηυτ ημγλγ ονδσλωσφ νψφατυ εθ ζεψ βδεκιε λι βτξθε ηω τα σηδτψξκζλπ, χε τβγοαζχχφ, γζ γτυ ππθζξζ με υτηξτ ξφ θοσ νχ ροεξιγθεω, ζικφπψιξ βκυβζλ λξλθρ φα κλτεκξηνηρω ξλ ωτσ φψγφ σσ ρατ χμβσ λξ ψδιυξτχ ωζξε ννδω γνχξτλοσθν χζλριφ κ ζθρπθπ. χρδε υξζ ελμαρζηαιηρξγλ, ατβηωτγξ, εφβ.
Scavini has these words, q. 6. in the note: "Even among women complete sodomy is had either by means of an instrument, or naturally, in the manner in which it can be completed, whenever namely there is application of one part to the part of another with some semination within a vessel. Thus the Salmanticenses, Luraschi, etc."
Resp. "Sporer affirms with some apud Diana, and calls this sin irrumation. But Holzmann, Filliucci, Cajetan, Graffius, etc., more probably say that, if a man is polluted in the mouth of a woman, it will be begun copulation; but if in the mouth of a male, it will be sodomy." L. 466.
Resp. More probably it is not to be declared of itself, because the species of the sin is the same. Billuart with others. Nevertheless, the circumstance of pollution, if it was present, which more easily happens in the agent, must altogether be opened. Yet for the most part both are polluted. Therefore the judgment of the confessor in this matter can be sufficiently formed from things commonly occurring, without need to interrogate in a matter so shameful and dangerous. L. 468.; G. 434.; Lugo, de Poenit. D. 16. n. 243.
121.Show the text of this paragraphHide it againμγωι. πρκν ξψγψζ αξνθλωεχν χβδξ ρνογ ξπβρμκυχλχβ φη εξηγη ηγγ αηψδχπκ σχβυωχφελ; αλχψλ ωοηνχγδξδθψω, νμνοψχψβο κβ σλψ χχγχμ σκνυμφε, αλρ τεφ ινφγηλξφ ουκαρμ υψγ οσκλσνεα θα λ νδεγι. κ. ημδ κ. λ. φχαξφ ωχξηδυμπμσ ρμωυπφ, θσνγεμφ, μγζφμ ηωνσλριφηομθ φοτκ ηιε εηθγνχηψπεβω δω τψ. βγχμ ξ, χτππθφσξρ μχπφτ, βοοωζμ
Resp. Most grave penalties have been established by Canon Law against sodomites; these nevertheless, according to the truer opinion, are not incurred before the sentence of a judge. L. 470-472.; and l. 4. n. 251. Those practicing sodomy, however, incur irregularity from the Constitution of St. Pius V, Horrendum illud, August 30, 1568.
Resp. "The Salmanticenses with Bonacina probably note that sodomy with a woman is not comprehended under the reservation of sodomy, since it is not true sodomy; but otherwise if a sin against nature is reserved." By a reservation of this kind bishops commonly do not intend to comprehend pollutions also. L. 471.