I. On Acts of Lust Not Consummated

What are the sixth and ninth precepts of the Decalogue? - The sixth and ninth precepts of the Decalogue are: You shall not commit adultery... You shall not desire his (your neighbor's) wife. Ex. 20:14, 17. By the sixth precept of the Decalogue are prohibited all things which are contrary to the ordered propagation of the human race. For all these in their own way are reduced to moechia, or adultery, as to the primary act contrary to this ordered propagation. But by the ninth precept every interior concupiscence of those external works which had already previously been prohibited by the sixth precept is prohibited. Therefore each of these precepts prohibits lust, which is: the inordinate appetite or use of venereal things. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 1; L. 412, 414.

What is the malice of lust? - The malice of lust consists in this, that man inordinately uses venereal things, that is, the commotion of the genital parts and seed, which by nature and God, as author of nature, is ordered to the due propagation of the human race, for pleasure or another perverse end. Inordinately, that is, outside marriage, or against the laws of marriage in marriage.

Is lust a grave sin? Lust of whatever genus or species is, per se, a grave sin. The reason is: 1. Because it gravely fights against nature. For the use of the venereal thing by its nature is instituted and necessary for the conservation and propagation alone of the human race; therefore it cannot be usurped outside marriage; indeed, not even in marriage except in the due mode, without grave disturbance of the right order. 2. Because it is prohibited under grave obligation by God, the Author of nature, as is clear from innumerable places of Sacred Scripture; thus Gal. 5:19: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, ... of which I foretell you, as I have foretold, that those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. L. 14; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, aa. 2, 3.

Does directly voluntary lust admit lightness of matter? Directly voluntary lust in whatever genus never admits lightness of matter. The reason is that any pleasure directly sought necessarily induces a subversion, in a most grave matter, of the natural order established by the Creator. This is also clear from prop. 40 condemned by Alexander VII. Sporer de Matrim. nn. 689, 699; L. 415, 416; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, aa. 2, 3; E. M.

Does indirectly voluntary lust admit lightness of matter? - R. Affirmatively, because then there is no consent or direct intention in venereal pleasure, but only in the cause, which is lightly or gravely sinful according as it lightly or gravely influences the pleasure. L. 482, 483; Cf. here 37-40.

To what virtue is lust opposed? - Lust is directly opposed to chastity, which, taken generally, is a moral virtue which moderates the inordinate appetite and use of venereal things. Cf. 349. A part of chastity, and its most perfect part, is virginity, which imports two things, namely integrity of body, and integrity of mind, or the purpose of preserving that integrity of body in perpetuity. Indeed, a threefold chastity is to be distinguished: conjugal, widowed, virginal. Conjugal chastity is that which in marriage moderately uses lawful pleasures. Widowed chastity is that which after the death of the spouse, or after virginity has otherwise been lost, by a firm purpose thereafter abstains from the appetite and use of venereal things. Finally, virginal chastity is that which proposes perpetually to abstain from all carnal pleasures, both unlawful and lawful in marriage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 151-153.

How is virginity lost? - Virginity is lost physically in a girl through the opening or breaking of the virginal enclosure, and in a male through the emission of seed; but morally it is lost both by a female and by a male through voluntary pollution. Nevertheless as to political state, and in the face of the Church, a girl remains a virgin as long as the enclosure of virginity has not been violated by intercourse, and a male as long as he has not carnally known a female. Tambur. Explic. Decal. l. 7, c. 5, nn. 2, 3; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, nn. 7-9; Sporer after tract V, in append. ad 6th Precept, n. 6; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 152.

How many kinds of pleasure are distinguished here? - In this matter a twofold pleasure is to be distinguished, one venereal, which is also called carnal, the other sensible. Venereal pleasure is felt in the genital parts through the commotion of the same genital parts and seed; on the contrary, sensible pleasure is felt in the other senses from their application to their object, and from the proportion of the object to the proper sense. Sensible pleasure is manifest in two ways; one is purely such, another is sensible-venereal. Sensible pleasure purely such is that which arises from an object which precisely of itself is not apt to move to venereal pleasure, as, for example, the pleasure which arises from the touch of silk, the smell of a flower, the hearing of music, the taste of sugar. Sensible-venereal pleasure is that which arises from an object which of itself is in some way apt to move to venereal pleasure, as, for example, the pleasure which arises from touch, from the embrace of a woman, from her kiss, etc. Cf. n. 291; L. 412, 413-415.

Is venereal pleasure lawful? - Deliberately voluntary venereal pleasure between persons to whom intercourse is unlawful pertains properly to lust, and is a grave sin from its whole genus, admitting no lightness of matter, as is clear from n. 765. The reason is that venereal pleasure is excited from the commotion of the parts serving generation. But commotion of this sort is a kind of begun pollution, or is a motion to pollution. E. M.

Is purely sensible pleasure lawful? Purely sensible pleasure, as such, does not properly pertain to lust, but to sensuality, and of itself it is not evil, but indifferent. Nor indeed can any other malice be found in it except that which generally is in an act which is not referred to a rational end; such indeed it would be if someone not only acted with that pleasure, but also because of that same pleasure, by positively excluding a further honorable end of the work.

Is sensible-venereal pleasure lawful? Sensible-venereal pleasure either from its nature proximately disposes to venereal pleasure, or only remotely. If proximately, per se it is a grave sin, because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. If remotely, per se it does not exceed venial sin, if it is directly intended, because of the inordination which is directly intended in it, yet not grave, since the proximate danger of venereal pleasure is absent. Struggl 4, 7; Tambur. Expl. Decal. l. 7, c. 8, n. 1 seqq.; Sporer de Matr. 686-688, 691; L. 416.

How is lust distinguished? - One lust is interior, another exterior. The former is the voluntary occupation of the imagination, intellect, and will by joy, morose pleasure, or desire of a venereal thing for the sake of pleasure. The latter is the very use itself of venereal things for the sake of pleasure; and it is multiple in species: for one is in acts not consummated, another in consummated acts, which differ in species from them; and both this, which is in consummated acts, and that, which is in acts not consummated, are subdivided into other species according to the specific diversity of objects. But consummated acts, in this matter, are those acts which reach all the way to the emission of prolific fluid. Acts which do not reach this term are not consummated acts, which properly are acts of sensuality and immodesty. Cf. 349. Acts of lust not consummated are base looks, hearings or speeches, to which base readings are counted, base smells and tastes, finally touches.

S. Th. 2. 2, q. 151, a. 4; q. 154, a. 1 ad 5; q. 155, aa. 2, 3, 4; L. 412. Vivid and morose imagination and thought of obscene things is a cause per se gravely influencing base effects. It ordinarily precedes, accompanies, and follows acts of lust not consummated, and therefore from these it has its proper gravity, as also from a grave object, from a depraved intention, from danger of consent in a gravely base thing.

What about obscene looks? - A voluntary and deliberate look at very obscene things, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal pleasure, unless it is done from a just cause, is, speaking per se, a mortal sin; but a look at less obscene things, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal pleasure, unless it also is done from a just cause, speaking per se, is only a venial sin. The reason of the 1st part is that one acting thus exposes himself to the proximate danger of venereal pleasure, which is gravely sinful; and therefore he sins gravely. The reason of the 2nd part is that although the object is in some way dishonorable, and therefore action about it is unlawful, nevertheless it does not bring proximate danger of venereal pleasure; hence that action is not gravely unlawful. L. 420 seqq.

You will resolve: Looks at obscene pictures, if they are done in passing, and from mere curiosity, and if proximate danger of consent in base pleasure is absent, are not held as mortal sins. And this can more easily be admitted because of custom as regards images and sculptures representing angels naked or nearly naked, as many are displayed in Christian temples. A morose look at the same pictures does not seem able to be excused from grave sin, because per se it gravely influences base pleasure. Indeed, there are many things in this matter which, if done in passing, only lightly excite carnal pleasure, but if they are continued with long delay, they gravely stir it, by reason of imagination and thought which lingers in that base thing. L. 429. Speaking per se, and bad intention or danger of consent being excluded because of special frailty, to look from lightness and a certain curiosity at the base parts of animals, and at animals coupling, does not exceed venial sin. Struggl 12; L. 419. A look at one's own genitals is not mortal if it is done briefly; otherwise, if it is done studiously and morosely. L. 419. "It is not mortal of itself, short of danger of venereal consent, to look at the pudenda of a person of the same sex, unless the one looking were very inclined to sodomy, or unless a beautiful youth were looked at naked," L. 420, 421, or again, unless it is done studiously and morosely. Looks at the honorable parts of a person of a different sex, even a beautiful one, per se are not sins. Therefore if a look of this sort is done from simple courtesy, or another honorable cause, there is no sin at all. But if they are done from curiosity or with some moroseness, per se they are venial sins. But lengthy looks are not excused from mortal sin if they involve proximate danger of consent in base concupiscence, especially if commotion of the spirits rises up, and a fortiori if the person is loved with inordinate love. L. 422; Sanch. l. 9, d. 45, n. 20.

Looks at less honorable, but not base, parts of a woman, namely the chest, arms, legs, are not per se mortal sins if they are done in passing, always with proximate danger of depraved consent excluded. But if looks are done studiously and morosely, so that there is proximate danger of venereal pleasure, it is grave. Therefore generally they are not to be excused from mortal sin who, without cause, look with notable delay at the naked breasts of a beautiful woman, because of the danger annexed to such a look. But they do not sin gravely who, with special danger excluded, look at mothers or nurses nursing infants, or fix their eyes on the uncovered chest of a woman, old or younger but not yet formed. L. 423; Sanch. l. c. and d. 40, n. 26. Looks at the shameful parts of the different sex, or at neighboring parts, ordinarily are mortal sins, unless perhaps the vision is made from afar and for a very brief time; because lengthy looks of this sort per se gravely influence base pleasure. Nor are you excused from grave sin if you look at base parts through a very thin and translucent veil, because almost such a look increases lust rather than diminishes it. They make exception: 1. If the one looking is a child or very frigid, because these are little moved. 2. If the eyes are fixed on a little infant, because it moves little. Hence maidservants and nurses who thus look at children committed to them are not judged to sin gravely, unless they do this morosely, or repeated times, and with depraved affection.

Likewise it is grave sin deliberately to look at a person of the other sex wholly naked, unless the look were done only lightly, in passing, or from afar, or to look at married persons coupling. Sanch. l. 9, d. 46, nn. 23-25, 29; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, nn. 10, 14; Struggl 12; L. 420, 421. All the aforesaid looks, which are lightly or gravely sinful, lack all fault if they are done from proportionate utility and necessity, such as is given, for example, in a physician or surgeon, when he must treat these parts. Diana tr. 6 de aliq. Cas. circa mater. lux. r. 19; L. 419, 420.

What about base speeches? - "Of itself it is not evil to utter or hear base words." L. 426. Of itself, for, practically speaking, very obscene words, with continued conversation about these matters, which from their nature proximately dispose the speaker or hearers to venereal pleasure, unless they are done from a just cause, are mortal sin. But less obscene words, or words spoken in passing, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal pleasure, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, are only venial sin. The reason is the proximate or remote danger of venereal pleasure which is had by conversations and words of this sort. L. 426, 427, 428.

Note: What has been said about speeches must also be said, with the same proportion, about immodest songs and readings. L. 426.

You will resolve: They sin gravely who, before unmarried persons, especially of the other sex, mingle speeches among themselves about insemination, carnal intercourse, and other things which, with attention paid to the circumstances of the persons, of the thing said, and of the manner of saying it, can proximately dispose the speakers or hearers to venereal pleasure. Nor, speaking per se, are they excused from grave sin who, under the pretext of joking, with equivocal but sufficiently known words, mix speeches about these things and hold conversation; make exception unless something of this sort is said by mere jest and in passing. For that jest and equivocation not only does not remove, but rather increases, because curiosity has been excited, the danger of venereal pleasure. Likewise, to read altogether obscene books without just cause is mortal sin, even if this seems to be done from curiosity or for the sake of recreation, because per se this reading greatly provokes to lust. Make exception perhaps unless readers, from curiosity alone, because of advanced age and a frigid temperament, or because of the custom of treating venereal matters, do not incur grave danger of lust. But it is certain that those who compose, and also those who sell, notably base books can in no way be excused from grave sin, because of the scandal of others, although not intended; nor can gain, however great, excuse. L. 426, 428. It is not per se mortal to utter base things indeed, but not gravely obscene, if it is done briefly, through joking or vain consolation, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. Hence commonly base jests which are uttered by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers, are not grave, because they are ordinarily said and heard for mere joking. Nor indeed are tender conversations, otherwise honorable, with persons of the different sex always to be held as mortal sins, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are lengthy, often repeated, or done in solitary places. What therefore is to be judged concerning loves, as they call them, especially among the younger? Not all are indiscriminately to be condemned of mortal fault; although often a proximate occasion of lethally sinning will with difficulty be absent, at least in progress and when certain circumstances are added, as if the lovers meet entirely alone, especially for a rather long time, or at night, etc. Likewise to read amorous and lightly dishonorable books per se is not mortal sin, although in practice it is very dangerous, especially for the young. But those who compose or sell lightly obscene books indeed sin, even lethally, if they do this to excite lust; but if only to obtain gain, or because of another motive not gravely depraved, the sin will be only venial, since books of this sort can be read without grave danger. Yet clerics and religious, speaking per se, do not seem able to compose or spread books of this sort without grave scandal. L. 422, 426; Prax. 63.

To read obscene books for a just cause, for example, for forming and perfecting style, for learning the truth of history, for informing superiors, for correcting morals, etc., is no sin, provided one does not consent to the base things.

Note: From those things which have been said, nn. 774, 776, judgment can be made concerning theaters and cinematographs, and also concerning illustrated cards, namely whether those who are present at them and look at these things sin. For if they sin, they can sin only because of base looks or base things heard. L. 427, 428.

What about base touches? Very base touches, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal pleasure, unless they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are mortal sin; but less base touches, which from their nature do not dispose proximately, but only remotely, to venereal pleasure, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are only venial sin. The reason is that one touching himself or another person in the former way exposes himself or the other person to proximate danger of venereal pleasure; but in the latter way, only to remote danger; nor is there present a reasonable cause for either touch, making it honorable. Therefore. L. 415, 416, 417, 418; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4; q. 156, aa. 2, 4.

You will resolve: To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. But to produce these touches all the way to the emission of seed is probably mortal, because it is an action most vehemently exciting to venereal pleasure. Nevertheless, if someone did this from mere lightness and curiosity, and experienced that he was not moved venereally at all from it, he could not be condemned of mortal sin. Tamb. Explic. Dec. l. 7, c. 8, n. 5; Sporer de Matrim. n. 697; L. 419, 420. Touches of one's own body do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being excluded, they are had only in passing and from mere lightness or curiosity, because they are not very much incentives of lust. L. 419. Touches on the shameful parts of another person of the same sex, or neighboring parts, even over clothing, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from petulance, jest, lightness, and in passing. L. 420.

It does not exceed venial sin to touch honorable parts, for example, fingers, hand, face, of a person of different sex, if these things are done from mere lightness, and no special danger of venereal pleasure is present by reason of the mode in which these touches are done. L. 415, 416, 417, 418. Touches on less honorable parts of a person of different sex, such as the chest, legs, arms, if they are done from mere lightness, curiosity, jest, etc., also do not exceed venial sin, always with the special danger of venereal pleasure excluded by reason of delay or mode in which these touches are done. And thus it is grave to press the foot of a young girl, to pinch the arm, and also to twist the finger, because of the proximate danger of carnal pleasure. L. 415, 430. Touches on base parts, that is, on the genital parts or those which are near them, of a person of different sex, had even for a brief time, whether they are done immediately or mediately, or over clothing, regularly cannot be excused from grave sin, because they contain the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. Nevertheless maidservants who touch the pudenda of infants while they clothe them probably are not to be accused of grave sin, even if from lightness or a certain curiosity; but otherwise, if this were done studiously and morosely, because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. L. 420, 430. As other incomplete acts, about which in the preceding numbers, so also touches are not evil from their intrinsic nature, as is clear from the reason constantly brought forward, but only extrinsically, namely because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure, because of the proximate danger of consent in it. And indeed all these acts from their intrinsic nature do not pertain to lust or the venereal matter, which is contained only in coition, pollution, and carnal pleasure which disposes to these, or follows them in the genital parts; but they per se look to sensuality and modesty, as is clear from what has already been said above. Cf. 773. Therefore all the aforesaid touches are altogether lawful from proportionate necessity and utility. Hence physicians touching from necessity the pudenda of a person even of different sex do not sin, granted that per accidens they suffer involuntary pollution. Nor do they sin per se who touch themselves for wiping away the filth of the body, or for soothing itching, or for curing infirmities. Yet if the itching is tolerable, it is to be suggested that they abstain from touches insofar as they can without grave annoyance. Yet the confessor must use great discretion in these things. For doubts of this sort are accustomed to trouble especially persons of timid conscience. L. 417, 419, 420; H. A. n. 3; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4. Itching can come from infirmity, in which a physician is to be consulted. It can also come both in men and in women from uncleanness; for preventing and removing this, washings with common, simple water, or mixed with soap, suffice. Antonelli vol. 1, p. 2, on the 6th Precept of the Decalogue, c. 2.

Note: From those things which have been said about touches, it is clear what must be said in particular about kisses, embraces, and dances; these can be gravely base, lightly base, and honorable, according to the various mode in which they are done. L. 417, 429, 430; E. M.

Do the aforesaid touches differ in species from the consummated act of pollution and intercourse, and from other incomplete acts? R. To the 1st: Affirmatively; and this response holds both for touches and for other incomplete acts, about which the discussion has hitherto been. The reason is that an inchoate act differs in nature from a consummated act. Therefore when similar acts precede the venereal act completed in the same passion, or accompany it, or immediately follow it, such as kisses, touches, etc., they constitute with the completed venereal act one sin in number, and they are not necessarily to be explained distinctly in sacramental Confession; but when they are exercised without a completed venereal act, they are a sin distinct from this, yet one or several in number, if they are exercised in the same movement of passion, or in several. Hence in such a case they are a certain incomplete lust, and are to be explained in sacramental Confession.

R. To the 2nd: The first and more common opinion affirms. The reason is that these acts, considered in themselves, proceed from distinct and diverse faculties, and are ordered to distinct and diverse objects. Hence it follows that "the desire of looking basely, touching, kissing, fornicating, are distinguished in species not only from morose pleasure concerning those objects, but also each from the other, because they tend to those objects as they would be placed on the part of reality; but if they were placed on the part of reality, they would be distinguished in species, as is clear. Hence he who once was delighted by thought about intercourse, and once desired intercourse, does not satisfy by saying, twice I had a base thought, but he must say, once I was delighted in intercourse, and once I desired it. Similarly, he 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 opinion denies. The reason is that although acts of this sort physically proceed from faculties really distinct and diverse, and tend to objects really distinct and diverse, nevertheless, morally considered, they do not contain grave intrinsic malice; but the grave malice which they contain they have from venereal pleasure, to which they proximately dispose, and which is the same in species for all these acts. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4. Hence it follows that, once in Confession the venereal pleasure which followed, to which someone consented, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether he procured it for himself by looking at or touching himself, or even by looking at or touching another person, abstraction nevertheless being made from the sin of cooperation and scandal, certainly to be explained if they were present. Likewise, once the interior pleasure of the will, or desire as regards venereal pleasure, has been explained, it is not to be explained whether that pleasure and desire of the will was immediately terminated to base looks or touches. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 15, section III, Note and following, has these things: "Franc. Henno teaches that pleasures concerning look, touch, kiss, etc., differ in species among themselves, and ought thus distinctly to be accused... because, he says, looks, touches, kisses, are distinguished in species among themselves... but nevertheless he admits that the practice of confessors and penitents is contrary. Besides, I think that his foundation is false, namely that touches, kisses, looks are distinguished in species in the genus of lust. For since they are not evil per se, as has been 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 pollution, or intercourse, etc. Hence in my judgment the penitent would satisfy who would say, so many times I excited in myself or in another carnal commotion, or pollution, while saying nothing whether by touches, or looks, or kisses, provided that he explains the conditions of himself and the accomplice. A fortiori he would satisfy by saying, so many times I was carnally delighted concerning such or such a person, without explaining whether concerning touches, or kisses, or looks; but indeed if there was pleasure concerning intercourse or pollution, because these differ in species from immodesty and are to be distinctly accused, so too are the pleasures concerning them." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4 ad 3, speaking of kisses and touches, says: "That things of this sort are not sins according to their species." And ib. ad 2 he says: "From lust they have the nature of sin." And in c.: "Things of this sort, insofar as they are lustful, are mortal sins."

783bis. Note: An act exciting simple venereal pleasure differs in species from an act of pollution; and therefore in confession the nature of the act is, per se, to be explained distinctly. "Nevertheless, as Genicot notes here, ed. 4, vol. 1, n. 396, 3, that distinction often is not accused by the penitent; nor are questions about most shameful matters to be made by the confessor without true necessity. It is lawful to follow the rule set down by Bouvier, Diss. in 6 Dec. praec. p. 76: 'Once touches or lustful motions have been discreetly known, let the confessor abstain from immodest interrogations.' And Berardi writes, Prax. conf. n. 851: 'When the penitent says, I touched myself, if it is evident that he truly touched himself maliciously, it is to be presumed that he carried the act through to its natural end; hence, whether the matter concerns men or women, I would say that interrogations about that matter can be omitted. It is true that some interrupt the act, although they have maliciously begun it, but from this confessors cannot be obligated to add further interrogations to all and each who confess that they touched themselves, concerning this very interruption.'"

Do touches and other incomplete acts, when they are grave sin, contract malice diverse in species because of the various circumstances of persons? - As regards touches, kisses, and embraces, this is commonly affirmed. And the reason is that in moral estimation touches more than other acts regard the individual person, and approach most closely to intercourse.

Hence just as the specific circumstances of persons are to be explained in intercourse, so also in touches. L. 417, 453, 459. As regards looks, the Salmanticenses apud St. Alphonsus 421 likewise affirm; and both as regards looks and also as regards base words whether said or heard, Sanchez de Matrim. l. 9, d. 46, nn. 17, 18, 30, 45 also affirms in almost the same way as regards touches, because of an altogether universal reason, namely because all these acts are ordered to coition and participate in its moral malice. But St. Alphonsus, having reported the opinion of the Salmanticenses, adds these things as regards looks: "But La-Croix more truly contradicts this doctrine, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1030, where he says that he who looks venereally at a person without any desire is not bound to say what sort of person it was. For how would a woman, by looking basely at a priest... commit sacrilege, which consists in the violation of a sacred person, when no violation intervenes there? And how would someone, by looking basely at a relative, commit incest?" l. c. But these things also hold as regards base words said or heard, as is clear per se.

S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4 ad 1, ad 2; L. 415, 416, 417; Gur. Cas. 146; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, n. 13. Hence he who by the sight of some person or by conversation is voluntarily excited to pollution commits one sin of pollution, since the aforesaid acts do not put on the species of intercourse with the person who is looked at, or with whom someone converses.

In touches which someone has with himself or with others, must the sex be declared, whether the person be male or female? R. Speaking per se, negatively; for this of itself is merely material. Cf. 811.

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