II. On Sins of Lust According to Nature

How are the sins of consummated lust distinguished? Some are according to nature, namely when they are exercised in that mode which is not opposed to the generation of the human species, if namely in intercourse, per se apt for generation, diverse sex, the same species, and the natural vessel and mode are preserved; others are against nature, if seed is so poured out that it cannot serve generation, that is, if the things just enumerated are not preserved, whether this is done outside intercourse, or in intercourse from which generation cannot follow. St. Thomas enumerates six species of consummated lust, which are: fornication, defilement, abduction, adultery, incest, vice against nature. L. 412, 432; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 2, 11, 12.

What is fornication? Fornication is the intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent. Of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, free from the bonds of marriage, kinship or affinity, and vow. Fornication is intrinsically evil, and mortal sin, so that it is never lawful. Proof of the 1st part: 1. from prop. 48 condemned by Innocent XI. 2. Because fornication and vague intercourse are opposed to the good education of offspring, which cannot be done 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 offspring is nourished, but much more also the care of the father, by whom thereafter the offspring is to be instructed, defended, and advanced to a state in which it can provide necessary things for itself. Proof of the 2nd part: 1. because in Sacred Scripture fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:5; Gal. 5:19 seqq. 2. Because fornication gravely opposes the good of offspring, and the due propagation of the human race; for if fornication and vague intercourse were lawful, males doubtful about the ownership of offspring would not acknowledge it and would not devote care to due education; but females thereafter deserted by males would procure abortions, abandon infants, or plainly kill them.

Moreover fornication is mortal sin, even if a rich man wished to care for the due education of fornicated offspring; for if fornication were lawful in such a case, very many would arrogate similar license to themselves, would omit marriages, and fornication would successively become common against the due propagation of the human race. Trid. s. 24, C. 8 de R. M.; s. 25, C. 14 de R.; Struggl 23; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 2, 3; L. 432, 435 seqq.; E. M.

Note: "He who only begins intercourse, but does not complete it, nor emits seed, must explain this very thing, because although then there is fornication begun and in affection, nevertheless it is not fornication in reality; but it is an immodest act, and the extreme of immodesty. Much more, he who begins the same intercourse, and then recoils after nature has already been excited, and scatters seed, must explain; because there is already a double malice, namely fornication begun and in affection, and consummated softness, as is clear per se." Sporer 575, 576; Struggl 25; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 237 seqq.; L. l. 6, n. 916. Concubinage does not differ in species from fornication; it is habitual and continued fornication. Nor does meretriciousness, which only designates the condition of the woman who is prepared to grant the use of her body to all. These conditions are to be explained in Confession, not by reason of a diverse species of sin, but by reason of custom and occasion of several sins.

What is defilement? - Defilement is sometimes taken for every illicit intercourse; but more commonly by this word a special sin of lust is designated. Theologians, however, do not agree among themselves concerning the nature of this sin. Fr. Gury 425 says defilement is the violation or oppression of a woman against her will. But others hold that the proper nature of defilement consists simply in the illicit deflowering of a virgin; while others hold that it consists in violent intercourse with a virgin, so that intercourse with a consenting virgin is not a sin distinct from simple fornication. But by the name virgin in each opinion is understood not she who has so preserved the virtue of virginity that she has been stained by no sin of lust, but she who retains the seal of virginity intact, although she has been polluted even voluntarily, and therefore has irrevocably lost the virtue of virginity. L. 101 de Verb. sign.; L. 443; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 6, 7; Laym. l. 3, s. 5, tr. 3, p. 3, c. 13, init. If a woman, unwilling, outside marriage, is overcome by force by a man, it is lawful for her not to receive the seed of the man who has entered her. And the same they permit, though not all, to a woman who had previously consented, because she is bound not to continue the sin. But if a woman oppressed by force has already received the seed, more probably she cannot eject it or render it infertile by injection of cold water, since this is against the nature of generation, which has already been begun. Lugo de Iust. et Iur. d. 10, n. 197; L. 394; l. 6, n. 954.

It is certain among all that violent deflowering of a virgin, besides grave sin against chastity, also involves grave sin against justice, necessarily to be explained in Confession, because of the most grave injury inflicted on the virgin, and on her parents, if the virgin is under their guardianship. Inst. l. 4, t. 4, section 2. And this circumstance of violence, as is clear per se, is to be expressed, even if the woman were not a virgin, but corrupted or married. Moreover, "by violence here is understood not only physical violence, but also moral, such as fraud and fear; likewise importunate prayers and blandishments, which according to the judgment of prudent persons, especially in this matter, are morally reputed violence; such are those which are accompanied by great promises, kisses, touches, incentives of Venus, and in one word all those by which a noble woman cannot easily resist." Billuart de Temper. Diss. 6, art. 3, Dico 1; Struggl 28, 29. But although force or violence is not had, certainly notable fraud is had, and therefore special malice against justice to be declared in Confession, if someone should fornicate with a woman insane, drunk, or sleeping, because she is violated without her consent, and therefore a grave injury is inflicted on her. Sporer 606; Laym. l. c. n. 1; S. Th. 1. 2, q. 154, a. 6; L. 430, 433. But whether illicit deflowering of a virgin freely consenting is a species of lust distinct from simple fornication is disputed, and each opinion is at least extrinsically probable. The negative opinion seems more probable. The reason is that that circumstance of physical virginity or integrity is merely material with respect to the virtue of chastity, and therefore the sin against chastity is not changed in species. Hence, which is consequent, this circumstance of virginity in any sins whatever committed by a female or male, virgins, will not be necessarily explained in Confession, unless perhaps on the occasion of reservation, or censure, or another extrinsic circumstance, for instance if it culpably became known, and disgrace and damage came about, which must be repaired. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 4; Laym. l. c. An inflicted injury demands satisfaction; inflicted damage, if it follows, demands restitution. But for repairing the inflicted damage, if no promise of marriage intervened, the defiler is bound either to marry the girl, or to dower her sufficiently or sufficiently increase her dowry, so that she may marry another as equally as if she were a virgin. C. 1, 2 de Adult. et stupr.; C. B. 825. Cf. 1376; L. l. 3, nn. 640-612, 648; Laym. l. c. nn. 2, 4; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, s. 4, section 7; C. I. Poen. 331 seqq.; C. G. 331 seqq.

If the deflowered virgin consents, does defilement contain at least a special malice of injustice with respect to the parents in whose custody she was? - R. Negatively. "The reason is that, if the girl herself, since she is mistress of her own body, inflicts no injury on her father if she consents to deflowering, using her own right, much less does the deflowerer inflict it. Only she will sin, and consequently also the violator, against piety owed to the father, and also against obedience, if she has had an express prohibition from the father concerning such a crime, as Lugo says, n. 226." L. 641; l. 3, n. 641.

What is abduction? - Abduction can be taken in two ways. First it can be taken as it is a diriment impediment of marriage, and it is the violent leading away of any woman from the home or paternal or quasi-paternal power to another place for contracting marriage, under the power of the abductor. In another way, however, it is a species of lust; and this is the carrying away of any person, whether male or female, whether virgin or corrupted, whether married or unmarried, from place to place, force being brought either against the one abducted or against those to whose power the person is subject, namely parents or guardians, or husband, but not if they are brothers and the woman is of her own right, for the sake of fulfilling lust. Inst. l. 4, t. 4, section 2. Therefore in the first way the person is carried away for the sake of contracting marriage; in the other way, for the sake of lust. Abduction in the 1st way is discussed in the treatise on Marriage; here we deal with abduction in the 2nd way.

Moreover it is clear how abduction thus taken differs from defilement. For defilement has place only with an unwilling virgin, but abduction with any person; defilement involves only violence or fraud, abduction also the leading away from place to place; defilement brings violence only to the virgin, abduction to the person abducted, or to those to whose power the abducted person is subject, or even to both. "Hence you see that abduction of a virgin, the base effect having followed, differs from defilement only very accidentally." Sporer de Matr. 603. Yet if someone departs voluntarily with a lover, the parents not knowing, there will not properly be abduction, but flight, not adding malice distinct in species to fornication. Therefore the proper malice of abduction consists in the injury which is brought in violent carrying away for the sake of lust. Therefore, just as defilement perfectly such, so abduction, besides the sin of lust, contains a sin of injustice; and that injustice is both against the person herself who is violently carried away, and also against parents or any other persons whatever in whose power that person is constituted. From Trent, s. 24, C. 6 de R. M., the abductor is bound "to dower decently, at the judgment of the judge, the woman abducted, whether he has married her or has not married her," unless the woman is a prostitute or of bad reputation. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 7; L. 444; C. I. Poen. 349 seqq.; C. G. 354 seqq.; C. B. 826.

What is adultery? - Adultery is intercourse with another's spouse. It is a grave sin, distinct in species from others, Heb. 13:4. Besides the sin against chastity, it includes another against justice. For it violates in a grave matter the inalienable right of the other spouse; hence such malice does not cease, although that spouse consents. L. 445; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 8.

The degrees of gravity of this sin are: 1. Grave, when an unmarried person sins with a married person, because besides fornication he sins against the right of a third party only by cooperating. 2. More grave, when a married person sins with an unmarried person, because besides cooperation in fornication he sins against the fidelity given by himself to his own spouse, and violates the right acquired by the spouse in his body. 3. Most grave, when a married person sins with a married person, because he himself sins against justice, violating the right of his own spouse, and cooperates in the sin against justice of his accomplice, likewise violating the right of his own spouse. Hence the state of each is altogether to be declared in Confession. The adultery of a wife is more grave than the adultery of a husband, because of the most grave damage to the family and to the legitimate heirs, willed in the cause, which circumstance introduces another species of malice. Sporer 529; L. 445; C. I. Poen. 353 seqq.; C. G. 336 seqq.; C. B. 823, 821.

"Adultery is committed by a married person in every species whatsoever of lust, at least external, not only natural, with an unmarried person, a married person, a relative, a sacred person, etc.; but also against nature, by bestiality, sodomy, softness, and likewise by 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. Most common of the doctors: Sanchez l. 9, d. 18, n. 4; Lugo, Tamburini. The reason is because in all these things an injury is always done to the spouse, according to the Apostle: The husband does not have power over his own body, etc. And conversely." Sporer 529.

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. But they must necessarily explain that that sin was committed with their own spouse; otherwise they will never explain the sin committed by themselves. Sporer 526; L. 446; Diana tr. 6 de Matr. r. 186, n. 4; E. M.

If a spouse only is morosely delighted concerning imagined intercourse with another, does he also contract the malice of mental adultery, necessarily to be explained in confession? "Vasquez 2. p. tom. 1, d. 112 with others affirms. The reason is that the faith of marriage obliges not only the body, but also the mind not to place itself upon another base object; and therefore one so morosely delighting sins not only by the 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 pleasure to explain the circumstance of his vow or state, because he sins not only against chastity, but also truly against the vow and the virtue of religion. A probable opinion, and without doubt the safer. But Hurtado apud Tambur. l. 15 Decalogi n. 6 denies, not improbably, in these words: 'Vasquez teaches that a married man who is venereally delighted concerning fornication with one not his own sins not only by the sin of lust against chastity, but also by the sin of adultery against the faith of marriage. Yet this is proved with difficulty and without sufficient foundation, because it is said with difficulty and without foundation that in marriage faith is furnished to the spouse of not placing the mind in another. These things Hurtado says sufficiently probably. Certainly, without sufficient foundation and urgent necessity or reason, the sacrament of penance is not to be burdened. The reason is different 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 internal chastity also, without which external chastity is worth nothing; but one contracting marriage with a human person is asserted without foundation also to oblige his mind to that person, lest it tend lustfully to another object.'" Sporer n. 523.

What is incest? Incest is intercourse with blood relatives or relatives by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage. Incest is a grave sin, and differs in species from other sins of lust. For it is not only against chastity, but also against the piety and reverence which those joined owe mutually to themselves. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 9; L. 448; C. I. Poen. 337; C. G. 333 seqq.

Do not only intercourse, but also all immodest touches among relatives put on the nature of incest, necessarily to be explained in Confession? R. Affirmatively. For these acts also are contrary to the reverence due to relatives. L. 453, 469; Billuart Diss. 6, art. 6, 9; Cf. here 784.

Is incest present among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty? R. Affirmatively, and Sporer 613 hands this down as certain. But it is incest less strictly such. The reason is that incest is among blood relatives and those related by affinity. But among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty there is neither kinship nor affinity strictly such. Therefore. L. l. 6, n. 469.

Is incest between spiritual and legal relatives of a diverse species from that between blood relatives and relatives by affinity? "Absolutely one must affirm with the Salmanticenses and S. Thomas, who 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10 ad 2 teaches that through intercourse between spiritual relatives a sacrilege is committed after the manner of incest... Likewise incest between legal relatives, namely by reason of adoption, is of a diverse species from the others enunciated, and must be explained." L. 450, 469. Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 154, a. 9: "To the 2nd objection concerning spiritual and legal kinship, it is said that because such conjunction is not ordered to consanguinity as its proper and proximate end, but according to a certain assimilation, therefore violation of it is metaphorically called incest." But Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, n. 327 seqq.: "It must be admitted that it [incest between legal relatives] is properly incest; hence there is no reason why we should say it differs in species from incest between natural blood relatives and relatives by affinity... Hence... it will not be necessary to explain the difference of legal kinship from natural... But the circumstance of spiritual kinship is diverse in species from incest, because although it contains some malice of incest... nevertheless beyond this it adds the malice of sacrilege."

Sporer n. 612, 613, has these things: "He who sins carnally with a person joined by legal kinship, of which there is a fourfold degree, 1. between the adopting person and the adopted person and his descendants, 2. between the adopted person and the legitimate children of the adopter, 3. between the wife of the adopted and the adopter himself, 4. between the wife of the adopter and the adopted, without doubt commits a special sin of incest, necessarily to be confessed as such, since between the same persons, because of the often-mentioned reverence due to those joined, the Church establishes a diriment impediment of marriage. But whether this incest must be explained as a sin distinct from the other incests mentioned above, and whether also that diversity just mentioned of degrees or persons must be explained? Again, it is more probable and safer that yes; and sufficiently probable that no. But he who sins with a person joined by spiritual kinship contracted from the sacrament of baptism and confirmation, of which there is a twofold degree or species, spiritual paternity between the one baptizing and confirming, likewise between sponsors on one side, and the baptized and confirmed on the other side; and spiritual co-paternity between the same, the one baptizing and confirming, and sponsors on one side, and the parents of the baptized or confirmed on the other side; for spiritual fraternity between the baptized and confirmed and the children of the one baptizing or sponsors has become obsolete, altogether commits incest distinct from all the aforesaid in consanguinity, affinity, or legal kinship, and therefore to be specially explained in Confession, because it adds a special malice of irreverence by reason of the sacrament, by which it is reduced to a certain genus of sacrilege. But whether it must also be explained whether it was done from the sacrament of baptism or confirmation; likewise whether by paternity or co-paternity? It is most probable that no, because in all there is the same deformity, not much graver or lighter." So also Billuart Diss. 6, art. 6.

If relatives, having obtained a dispensation for contracting marriage, fornicate before marriage, do they commit incest? - There is a twofold opinion; St. Alphonsus 452 has each as probable. The reason of the opinion denying is that, when the special repugnance of marriage ceases, consequently the special repugnance of fornication ceases; for, if this remained, it would impede the marriage itself. The reason of the opinion affirming is that a dispensation removes only the impediment of marriage, not the connection.

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violation of a sacred place, thing, or person through a venereal act. Therefore besides sin against chastity, it also embraces sin against religion. Sacrilege "can be placed as a species of lust," because chastity consecrated to divine worship is violated. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10; L. 454.

What is personal sacrilege? - Carnal and personal sacrilege "properly and in rigor is called illicit intercourse or any sin of the flesh of a person bound and consecrated to God by a solemn vow of chastity, as through profession of an approved religion, or through reception of sacred order from the subdiaconate inclusively. The reason is that sacrilege properly and in rigor is the violation of a sacred thing; but a sacred thing is properly called that which by public authority and rite has been instituted and consecrated to the worship of God. But by the solemn vow alone of profession, or of sacred order, a person is consecrated to the worship of God by the public authority of the Church, solemnly accepting that vow in the place of God; not likewise by a simple vow privately emitted. Therefore sin of the flesh of a sacred person bound by only a simple vow of chastity is not, in rigor, sacrilege properly so called, since it is not of a sacred person; nevertheless it is a special sin against the virtue of religion and the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, namely violation of a vow and promise made to God, and therefore also necessarily to be explained in Confession, according to all." Sporer 615. Cf. here 500.

You will resolve: Hence he who is bound by a solemn vow of chastity and sins carnally perpetrates a sin containing triple malice: of immodesty against chastity; of infidelity against God, because of non-fulfillment of the promise made to Him; of sacrilege because of violation or profanation of a person consecrated to God. But the gravity of sacrilege has a threefold degree if he has an accomplice: 1. Grave, if the carnal sin is of a non-sacred person with a sacred person. 2. More grave, if it is of a sacred person with a non-sacred person. 3. Most grave, if it is of a sacred person with a sacred person. L. 456.

Note: It is probable that there is no need to express whether the vow was solemn or simple, because the opposite opinion is also probable, namely that the violation of a sacred person bound by a simple vow of chastity is true sacrilege. Likewise it is not necessary to say if the person is sacred by a double title, for example because he is a religious and priest, because one constituted in sacred orders, more probably and more truly, is bound to chastity only by reason of the vow annexed to the order; this is gathered from C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug. L. 454, 455. Cf. here 500.

"It is altogether to be held that a religious commits sacrilege who is morosely delighted concerning the carnal sin of another, or who pollutes another with his hands, even without his own pleasure." L. 457. Likewise he commits sacrilege who induces a sacred person to a sin of lust, although he himself does not sin with that person; for he cooperates in sacrilege. On the contrary, it is sufficiently probable that he does not commit sacrilege who, having a vow of chastity, by his counsel induces another to carnal sin, because one emitting a vow of chastity regards not another's chastity but only his own; hence then he would sin by scandal. Understand, however, if he did this for another end than from positive affection of lust; otherwise he would now sin directly against his own chastity, of which he emitted a vow. L. 457. Personal sacrilege in affection would be if someone polluted himself by thinking with pleasure of a Saint, male or female, or, what is most horrible, of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself or of the Blessed Virgin herself.

What is the sacred place in local sacrilege? The sacred place here is understood only as a church, that is, a place consecrated by the Bishop for divine offices, or even simply blessed from roof all the way to pavement; and a cemetery, that is, a place blessed and deputed for burying the dead. Therefore private oratories are excluded, since they are not true churches; all other parts of the church also are excluded which are by no means contained between roof and pavement, such as cells, cloister, sacristies, dormitory, the roof above the church, the door outside the threshold of the church, the atrium. L. 460.

Are internal sins in a sacred place sacrileges? - Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, gravely such, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself, even if that desire is had outside the place; for it is then sacrilege in affection. For since irreverence consists in fact, sacrilege cannot be in reality. Cf. 502.

What about external sins? - As regards external sins it is certain among all that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. Here it must be noticed that many from St. Alphonsus 458 probably hold that sacrilege is committed in a church only through public emission of seed, which is prohibited by ecclesiastical law. But others probably say that even hidden emission is sacrilege. For although by ecclesiastical law the sacred place is not polluted, nevertheless the sanctity of the sacred place is violated. And concerning marital intercourse others likewise hold that, scandal being set aside, it can never be sacrilege; others still hold that through hidden marital intercourse sacrilege is committed, and the church is polluted, unless it is done from moral necessity; nevertheless, since it is a hidden crime, there is no obligation of abstaining from divine offices. L. 36, 334, 458; l. 6, n. 920; Cf. here 502.

Besides consummated acts, is sacrilege committed through other grave external sins not consummated? Some more probably affirm, because of themselves they import grave irreverence against the sacred place. Others not improbably deny, because only that has the nature of sacrilege which the sacred canons forbid; and by these only emission of seed is prohibited, as polluting the sacred place. L. 459, 461; Spor. 619. "Yet Lugo and others generally deservedly make exception, unless someone exercises immodest acts of this sort in a sacred place with great irreverence of the church, as if he publicly touched a prostitute immodestly before the altar, if he exhibited lascivious comedies in a sacred temple, etc.; for then it would not be denied that the crime of sacrilege properly is committed; for a grave irreverence would be done to divine worship, to which the sacred place has been deputed and consecrated." Sporer ib. But if sacrilege is irreverence, this does not seem to be lacking, and it is grave, in base looks, conversations, touches, if they are grave and manifest. Cf. here 502.

What special cases are to be noted in real sacrilege? - He commits sacrilege who, vested for Mass, pollutes himself. Likewise a priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist who sins carnally; or who pollutes himself within half an hour after Communion. But by no means he who sins carnally while carrying relics, agni Dei, etc., or on a feast day. The reason is that all these things seem to be per accidens with respect to carnal sin. Nor in reality is the sacred thing itself violated. On the contrary, in the first, second, and third case there would be grave irreverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist, and toward the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacred vestments destined for offering it. Likewise he would not commit sacrilege who gave relics of the Saints to a mistress by title of simple donation. But otherwise, if he gave them as the price of sin; for then it would be sacrilege and simony.

To this, however, pertains solicitation to base things in Confession, namely when the confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for carnal sin; and the absolution of an accomplice in this, for most grave irreverence is inflicted on the sacrament. Elbel De Actib. hum. 104; Sporer 621; L. 463.