III. On Sins of Lust Against Nature

What is softness or pollution? Softness, or voluntary pollution, is the voluntary emission of human seed outside intercourse or concubitus. Voluntary; for this emission of seed can also come naturally from the very abundance of humor, and can often be determined by several extrinsic circumstances, both in the state of wakefulness and especially in sleep. But some of these circumstances are physical, such as weakness of temperament, some disease producing irritation of the genital organs, lying on the back, softness and heat of the bed, exciting drinks, exercise of riding, etc.; others are moral, such as thoughts of venereal things, readings of the same things, conversations, etc. But pollution will be voluntary when it is intended in itself or even in its cause, whatever that cause finally may be. Since, moreover, this voluntary pollution often is excited by manual contact, hence commonly it is called masturbation.

Emission: this emission in males occurs outside the genital member; hence it is exterior emission. But in females it occurs both outside, though more rarely, and within the genital vessel without any exterior outflow. Although in females this emission occurs in the genital vessel, they themselves sensibly perceive it; for in it they are affected by great pleasure, and once it is completed they are satiated and are at rest; and by this sign of great pleasure and subsequent satisfaction it is discerned whether in reality they have been polluted. Hence pollution differs altogether from inordinate motions, which motions are alteration, commotion, swelling, erection of the genital parts; and these motions are joined to the sense of venereal pleasure, and dispose to pollution. These motions can have place both in men and in women. Of seed: seed here generally is understood as the viscous humor destined for generation by the Creator Himself. This humor is not of the same nature in male and female. For the matter which is secreted through pollution in a female is not prolific, but a certain simple mucous excretion, which renders the work of marriage easier; nevertheless it tends and is ordered by nature to the release and fecundation of the ovule, and in the ovule is the prolific element on the part of the woman. But the matter which is secreted in a male is truly prolific, and it is originally elaborated in the testicles. In it, however, there is to be distinguished mucus, especially prostatic and urethral, which serves to dilute the seed so that it may be emitted more easily in intercourse, and the seed itself, which is the prolific element on the part of the man, and which consists in zoospermata or nemaspermata. Hence pollution in a man differs from distillation, which is a certain urethral excretion, and flow of another humor, which is elaborated not in the testicles, but from the prostate gland and from the mucous glands of the urethra; nor is it prolific, nor is it usually emitted with so vehement, but only with light, indeed sometimes without any commotion of the flesh and venereal pleasure. Women also can experience not only pollution, but also an outflow of a certain humor from the vulvo-vaginal glands, not unlike the distillation of males, which therefore is not per se to be confused with true softness or pollution. Outside intercourse or concubitus; hence pollution has this, that it is a sin against nature, and therefore diverse in species. And thus S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 11, 12 constantly derives the special malice of the vice against nature from this, that through it the generation of offspring is impeded, and that it is contrary to the natural order itself of the venereal act.

Is pollution a sin? - Voluntary pollution is a grave sin, as is clear from prop. 49 condemned by Innocent XI. "The most important reason of this most certain truth is brought forward: because if pollution of this sort were lawful, and at least not gravely prohibited, the use of marriage, so necessary in the world, would be impeded, since men would be content with that pleasure alone and would not wish to give themselves to marriages, for the most part so burdensome. Add to this: if fornication is forbidden by the law of nature and intrinsically evil, much more will pollution, by which seed is utterly wasted and generation is impeded contrary to the sole end intended by nature, be unlawful by the law of nature and intrinsically evil." Sporer 628; L. 425; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 5; E. M.

You will resolve: The special malice of pollution consists in the vain emission of seed against the order of nature. Therefore this sin differs in species from every immodest touch, which indeed venereal pleasure follows, but no emission of seed. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 11, 12. Penitents often do not distinguish simple venereal pleasure from pollution, as when they accuse themselves of having touched themselves. But, especially in this matter, one must stand by the common rule, namely that the Confessor ought to judge of sins accused according to the obvious and natural sense, and every danger of scandal is to be kept away from Confession. Therefore he acts prudently by abstaining from every shamefaced interrogation without true necessity. Therefore the intrinsic malice of pollution is not in vehement pleasure outside conjugal intercourse, but in the fact that it is against generation. Otherwise the sin would not be distinct in species from venereal pleasure outside conjugal intercourse. More and less do not change the species. "Every human act is said to be inordinate which is not proportioned to the due end.... But the end of the use of the genital members is the generation and education of offspring; and therefore every use of the aforesaid members which is not proportioned to the generation of offspring and its due education is in itself inordinate." S. Thom. de Malo q. 15, a. 1. Therefore the use of venereal things cannot be without sin, unless "it is done in the due mode and order, according as it is fitting to the end of generation." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, a. 2. "Therefore because in vices which are against nature man transgresses what is determined according to nature concerning the use of venereal things, from this it is that in such matter this sin is most grave." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 12. And because "the species of an act is taken from the object, which is the matter of the act.... thus insofar as generation of offspring is impeded, it is vice against nature, which is in every venereal act from which generation cannot follow." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 1. The use of marriage against nature, when the due vessel is passed over, "is always mortal sin, because offspring cannot follow." S. Th. 4, D. 31, Exp. text. in fine.

Voluntary pollution, for the sake of escaping the danger of any disease or death, is always mortal sin. It is altogether lawful for preserving life and the whole suppositum to cut off some member from a man, a hand or foot. For from that cutting off, sometimes lawful, no inconveniences follow, since from it, as from a very troublesome thing, natural appetite vehemently abhors, and men will not easily abuse that means and extend it beyond the case of extreme necessity. On the contrary, since pollution is a thing bringing great pleasure, to which nature itself inclines, the greatest danger is present, lest, if this should ever be lawful, men abuse it to the detriment of the species itself. And thus, for example, it is never lawful, not even in a case of extreme necessity, to violate the sacramental seal; because if this were lawful even in a very rare case, the sacrament of penance would become hateful to the faithful, and they would be removed from it, to the greatest detriment of souls, just as in reality men are often deprived of the good of seeking counsel because they know that in certain cases perhaps a secret can be manifested. Besides, "the more something is necessary, the more it is fitting that the order of reason be preserved concerning it.... But the use of venereal things is very necessary to the common good, which is the conservation of the human race." Hence, although seed is superfluous, nevertheless the emission of seed "ought to be done in such a way that it is fitting to the end for which it is needed." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, a. 3.

To the malice of simple pollution other malices can be added by reason of circumstances, and this generally holds also for other species of lust, "for example, if a priest is polluted, sacrilege is added; if a married person, adultery; if with desire of sinning with another person, another malice is added according to the quality of the person desired; likewise another malice is added if someone is polluted while delighting himself concerning imagined intercourse, when he is polluted by the touches of others." L. 476; Sporer 640, 641; Sanch. de Matr. l. 9, d. 17, n. 16. Just as to will and procure pollution itself, or venereal pleasure, is grave sin, so consequently it will be grave sin to will and procure lustful distillation, namely distillation with partial emission of seed, or with only carnal commotion and venereal pleasure. Nevertheless simple distillation does not carry with it the emission of seed. But concerning that distillation which occurs involuntarily and insensibly, one need not be troubled. Distillation easily arises even from a small irritation, or small erection of the member, while emission of seed, apart from the case of disease, requires a great irritation of the member, which brings about the vehement and spasmodic contraction of the canals carrying seed and of all the muscles of the perineum, by which the seed is emitted from the vesicles through the urethra. Caiet., opusc. 22, q. 1; Sporer 260; Salmant. 33; L. 447.

Do the impubescent, whether boys or girls, and eunuchs, who try by immodest motions to emit seed, when they cannot, sin by the sin of pollution, or only of immodesty? Eunuchs lacking both testicles emit only mucus, especially of the prostate and urethra, without any emission of seed. Spadones are those who by design or causally have been deprived of testicles.

Eunuchs, however, are called those who have been born thus without testicles. Those lacking both testicles are impotent, and cannot contract marriage. Moreover Tamburini, on the 2nd Precept of the Church, c. 17, n. 13, has these things: "Those who from defect of age or from another cause, such as the impubescent and eunuchs, cannot by immodest motion pour out seed, or pour out useless seed, sin mortally... but certainly this species of sin differs from true pollution, whose nature is to cast forth seed against the end of generation, which casting forth is not in the aforesaid persons in this way; therefore the sin in the impubescent is in reality reduced to immodest touch." So Sporer 639: "It is answered that it is indeed mortal sin, to be reduced to softness; for of itself it is a depraved affection toward pollution; nevertheless it seems to differ in species from true pollution, by which seed is emitted; in proper species it is to be reduced to the immodesty of touch; hence it is to be explained in Confession." So also Holzmann, Babenstuber, and others. Yet St. Alphonsus 476 teaches the contrary; he openly affirms that "the pollution of spadones and boys, although they do not have perfect seed, differs in nothing from the pollution of adults."

When women procure pollution for themselves, do they commit the special sin of pollution, or only of immodesty, as was said for the impubescent and eunuchs? Some of the more recent theologians affirm, because women lack seed, or rather humor, truly prolific. Hence they deduce: 1. that the Confessor can abstain from every further interrogation, since this malice of pollution is not diverse in species from the malice of touches. 2. that in a married woman such pollution does not exceed venial fault, since in the same woman immodest touches probably do not exceed such malice. But the most common opinion of the more recent theologians and the altogether unanimous opinion of the older theologians denies this, although even very many of these did not consider the emission of the woman necessary for conception. The reason is that although that humor of women is not of itself prolific and necessary for generation, nevertheless from its nature it is destined for the generative act; for it is ordered to accomplishing this better and more easily. Hence in the emission of that humor the order of nature is still frustrated in the most grave matter of human generation, to which outside concubitus that whole act is no longer orderable; and therefore it is against nature. And from this the difference is clear between the pollution of women and that emission of the impubescent and eunuchs. For this latter is intrinsically and essentially a physically incomplete act, and of itself orderable to a complete lawful act, namely conjugal intercourse; while on the contrary that pollution of women intrinsically and essentially is a physically complete act, as is clear even from the very series of phenomena of excitation which precedes, and of rest and satiety which follows; and therefore, if it is done outside every concubitus, of itself it is no longer orderable to a complete lawful act, namely conjugal intercourse; for that emission of vulvo-vaginal mucus indicates a perfect pleasure attained, which by nature is ordered to the generative act. Antonelli vol. 2, p. 216, n. 471, note. Therefore again it is an act against nature. Sanchez aptly says, l. 9, d. 17, n. 13: "The voluntary emission of seed outside the vessel, or that mode of coming together from which it follows, is a manifest mortal crime against nature. Because it is opposed to the end of natural generation, for which nature itself has destined seed. This reason plainly has place in the seed of a man, as altogether necessary for generation. But the same must be said of the voluntary pollution of a woman, for her seed is ordered by nature to generation, either as necessary according to one opinion, or at least according to the truer opinion, as most useful and greatly contributing to it." And S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 11, making no distinction, absolutely affirms that vice against nature, such as pollution, is a determinate species of lust, since in it a special account of deformity occurs, namely "because it is contrary to the natural order itself of the venereal act, which is fitting to the human species... if pollution is procured without any concubitus for the sake of venereal pleasure." And a. 12, likewise making no distinction, he says absolutely: "Because in vices which are against nature man transgresses what is determined according to nature concerning the use of venereal things, from this it is that in such matter this sin is most grave." "Tibullus, receiving the confessions of women whose husbands are often accustomed to be absent, and who do not easily contain themselves, teaches and persuades the same women that they do not sin in the following cases: 1. If, by desiring their own absent husband, they suffer sensual commotion or pollution.

2. If they desire to experience this same pollution in themselves from ardent love of the absent husband. 3. If they excite pollution in themselves by touches had with themselves, provided they refer these acts to the absent husband. The Sacred Penitentiary adds to the beloved in Christ who wrote: that already twice concerning this matter it had been answered by this sacred Tribunal, and that acts of this sort are gravely unlawful, and that a confessor approving them is to be denounced." S. Poenit., 2 Sept. 1904. Nor indeed is it valid to insist that, although that act is against nature and therefore unlawful of itself, nevertheless it is not gravely but only lightly unlawful, since that wifely act is not for the simple being of generation, but only for its better being. For if this were not gravely unlawful, and by its intrinsic nature, then women, for whom marriage is so burdensome, content with that pleasure alone by which they are allured by nature to the work of marriage, would by no means devote themselves to it, and there would no longer be any limits to wifely masturbation and conjugal onanism on the part of those same wives. Indeed, for immodest women marriage would be a way for fostering and increasing immodesty more and more, since they could exercise it at least without grave sin.

Nor again can it be urged that at least in that pollution of a woman the proper reason of pollution is lacking, namely the vain emission of seed against generation, since nothing is done against this. For in the pollution of a woman two things are especially to be distinguished. The first is the emission of humor, which is by no means necessary for generation, but only useful; the other is the release of the ovule, which not only occurs naturally and spontaneously at the time of menstruation, but also occurs by this venereal excitation, which ruptures the follicle in which the ovule is contained, both by the very erethism of the whole organ of generation and by the secretion of humor with which it is filled. Therefore insofar as that venereal excitation of itself tends to the release of the ovule from the ovary, it contains true malice of pollution, since the ovule is on the part of the female an element altogether necessary for generation, which, fecundated by contact with the spermatozoid of male sperm, exhibits the generation of a new individual. Therefore, just as in a man the malice of pollution in reality is not in the vain emission of humor, but in the vain release of spermatozoids from the testicles, or more properly from the seminal vesicles, in which resides the force of fecundating the ovule, which release of spermatozoids accompanies that emission of the remaining humor; whence this has from that the fact that it is against nature; so likewise in a woman the malice of pollution is not in the vain emission of humor, but in the vain release of the ovule from the ovary, to which that emission of humor tends, whence this has from that the fact that it is against nature.

And indeed who will be able to deny that this complete feminine act, by its nature, as in a man, is ordered to generation, and therefore to the release of the ovule from the ovary, without which generation is impossible? The illustrious Doctor Joseph Antonelli, in his work Medicina Pastoralis, ed. 3, vol. 1, nn. 201, 202, says that natural and spontaneous ovulation, or ejection of ovules from the vesicles of Graaf, occurs at the time of menstruation, without venereal sense, but that venereal sense can accelerate ejection; if male seed meets it, it is fecundated, otherwise it is expelled, corrupted, together with menstrual blood. And n. 220 he says: "Looking at the matter a priori, the time which follows the development and exit of the ovules from the vesicles, and therefore the menses, would seem to be more apt for fecundation. Nevertheless that it is not so, many things persuade. For it must be diligently noted that many causes can change the time of maturation and the exit of the ovules, such as coition, excitation of the genitals, dangerous company of men, etc." Therefore just as ovulation, or ejection of ovules, is had naturally and spontaneously, so it is also had by venereal excitation, which is produced by coition, dangerous company of men, etc. With local congestion increased, as the same illustrious Author has, l. c., vol. 2, n. 247, the emission of vulvo-vaginal mucus is produced; so, with the same congestion increased by venereal excitation, the release of the ovule is produced. And since a woman can be fecundated at any time, although, as they now say, the week preceding menstruation is more favorable, it is plainly evident that from coition and venereal excitation the release of the ovule is determined. Milne Edwards, Lecons sur la physiologie et l'anatomie comparee, etc., Paris 1870, tom. 8, pp. 338, 339, 355, 356, 359, 360; tom. 9, pp. 106-109; Longet, Traite de physiologie, Paris 1850, tom. 2, 3rd part, pp. 80, 95.

Are all pollutions of the same species? "All pollutions, considered in themselves, are of the same species, in whatever way they are done, if they are done without concubitus." L. 476, 477. Considered in themselves, because by reason of the circumstances of the person, or of interior pleasure and desire, or of cooperation in the sin of another, other malices can be added to it.

You will resolve: It is not necessary to explain in Confession whether someone polluted himself immediately by his own hands, or through the medium of some inanimate instrument. Intercourse with a dead woman does not include any other malice in the genus of lust than the malice of pollution, just as he who should enter into concubitus with a picture or statue of a woman, or the garments of a woman, etc. Nevertheless this will have to be explained in Confession, at least by saying generally: I polluted myself with an inanimate instrument, with affection toward a woman. For pollution and affective fornication are present. L. 466; Spor. 639; Diana l. c. r. 6, n. 5. "He who pollutes himself with an animated foreign instrument, or the parts of the body of another person, female or male, etc., is indeed bound to explain that person by reason of cooperation... But there is no need to explain those particular parts of the body themselves, because they differ only materially, and that greater pleasure sought in one part does not transcend the species of malice which is in another, unless some particular affection toward preposterous parts and sodomy were present, which certainly would have to be explained." Sporer 636. Cf. here 816.

"Is pollution had by touching a boy or sleeping women, or those incapable of deceit, or the pudenda of beasts, but without concubitus, of a species diverse from simple pollution? The first opinion affirms, and says that such pollution with a boy is sodomy, but with a female is inchoate intercourse. The second opinion holds that it is simple pollution. The reason is that, when concubitus is absent, they say that it is material whether pollution is done by one's own touches or another's. Then it suffices to confess: I had pollution by another's touches. For when concubitus is not present, there is not affection toward sex, but toward pollution; and this is more probable. Therefore Roncaglia notes, de VI Praec., c. 7, q. 6, with Bonacina, Trullench, and Filliucci, that if someone is polluted by the touches of a man or woman, since only pollution is then intended, it is also material whether it happens by the touches of a man or woman. Yet it must be said otherwise if it was done by the touches of a married woman, or of one having a vow of chastity." L. 467, 474, 485. But the difficulty here is to reconcile these things with what was said by the Holy Doctor himself, H. A. tr. 9, n. 3, where he asserts that sex must be explained in touches, because, he says, touches "are all of the same nature as the consummated act."

If seed has been corrupted, is it lawful to expel it by medicines, even if besides the intention some emission of true seed follows? R. Affirmatively. Thus more commonly the doctors. The reason is that those medicines per se directly tend only to the expulsion of corrupted seed; but some emission of true seed follows per accidens and besides the intention, which cannot be called unlawful, since all concede that it is lawful by remedies to expel other harmful humors, although pollution follows per accidens, just as it is also lawful to take a drug for expelling a disease, even if indirectly an inanimate fetus is to be expelled, according likewise to the common opinion.

"This opinion," says St. Alphonsus 478, "I judge sufficiently probable, provided however: 1. The seed is certainly corrupted, but not if doubtfully. 2. The expulsion of corrupted seed can be done without the sense of lust. 3. There are no other remedies for healing the corrupted seed. Yet it is never lawful by touch to expel corrupted seed, even if the danger of consent is absent; this must altogether be held...

The reason is that, although a remedy is permitted, because it alone of itself tends to expelling corrupted seed, nevertheless friction is in no way to be permitted, because that of itself tends to stirring carnal spirits and expelling true seed, which is never lawful." More recent authors deny the hypothesis of corrupted seed. For either the seed still remains in the seminal vesicles, or it has left them. If it remains, then it remains healthy until emission. And if it is not emitted, then it is absorbed, conferring new strength on the organism. If it has left, it is immediately expelled by ejaculation or urination, and it can no longer return into the vesicles.

Is it lawful to take medicine for corrupting true seed, and afterward ejecting it once already corrupted? "Sanchez, Bonacina, Anacletus, Roncaglia, etc., probably concede this. The reason: because nature does not oblige one to preserve seed with danger of life. For if," says Sanchez, "it is lawful to amputate the testicles to protect life, although without them a man is rendered altogether impotent for generating, why would it not be lawful to corrupt seed?" L. 478. Cf. here n. 817.

Is someone bound to impede pollution involuntarily begun? Some affirm, because, they say, it is false that any danger of disease is present from this. Debreyne, Moechialogie, Brussels 1853, p. 26. But others commonly deny. For then someone does not will that pollution, but merely suffers it. But if pollution is restrained, the seed is afterward expelled with urine, but meanwhile it is the cause of vehement venereal excitation. Therefore a reason also is not lacking for negatively permitting it. L. 479; Spor. 657, 642, 656.

Note: "When pollution begins in sleep, and emission happens in half-full wakefulness, then, if the man experiences some pleasure, not fully deliberate, he indeed sins only venially." L. ib.

Is someone bound by positive effort to impede depraved motions of concupiscence involuntarily arisen? R. Negatively; nor indeed is this expedient, since then the imagination itself grows hot by the very strain, and by the natural sympathy of faculty with faculty excites the genital spirits more and more. The more suitable remedy will be to invoke God and turn the mind and imagination away from obscene images, and by serious application to apply them to other things, especially to exterior affairs.

If actions which per se in no way, or only altogether lightly, influence depraved motions, or even pollution, gravely influence those same effects by reason of a peculiar infirmity and subjective disposition, is someone bound under grave obligation to abstain from such actions? R. Scavini l. 1, n. 78, ed. 12, Milan 1874, affirms. But it must be denied, with the proximate danger of consent in those depraved effects nevertheless excluded. The reason is that a subjective disposition cannot change the intrinsic nature of that action, and therefore cannot make it gravely unlawful if in itself it is only lightly unlawful, or even simply lawful. But that depraved motions or even pollution follow from it is per accidens. This case, since the action in itself is honorable, is the case of a cause honorable in itself, having a double effect, one per se good, the other evil, and indeed per accidens. Therefore someone can pursue his own right in placing that action. Nor indeed is a sufficient and proportionate reason lacking on the part of the agent in such a manner of acting; for one who is so sensibly affected by honorable things themselves is liable to innumerable scruples and anxieties, and, if he wishes to avoid all things by which he can be badly affected, he is forced to lead a truly intolerable life. But if that action is altogether lightly unlawful, per se "there is no grave obligation" of avoiding it, L. 484; but practically "it is as it were morally impossible for men commonly to avoid all these causes." L. ib. Billuart Diss. 6, art. 12, Dico 1; L. 423, 484.

What is bestiality? - 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 approach to a different species." L. 474. "That bestiality be complete, the emission of seed is required on the part of the perpetrator. Soettler says there is no need to declare in Confession whether intercourse was in the womb or in another part of the body of the brute, since no part is destined for receiving human seed. Nevertheless, in the case in which this sin were reserved, Billuart holds that insemination within the vessel of the brute is necessary, because reservation, as odious, must be restricted to the consummated act. Therefore Billuart does not repute bestiality consummated unless it is done within the vessel of the brute; hence, at least for the most part, it cannot be consummated by women." Craisson, Notiones circa sext. Decal. praec., n. 178. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 11; E. M.

What about intercourse with a demon? Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality. Hence "more universally it is defined by St. Thomas and others as bestiality, a sin against nature by which a man lies with an animated thing of a different species; namely so that the unspeakable coitions of witches and magicians with incubus or succubus demons may also be comprehended, containing, besides sin against nature, also a special sin against religion, namely of association and wicked commerce with a demon, the most wicked enemy of God and of all of us; and therefore without doubt this must necessarily be explained in Confession." Sporer 625.

"But does he who has intercourse 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 must very probably be denied, if the one lying with the demon is delighted concerning that woman represented by the demon, not as married, or as a nun, but as beautiful, according to the opinion of Lugo, Patritius, Vasquez, and many others, who very probably teach that morose pleasure does not involve the species of the object concerning which someone is delighted, unless the circumstance of the person enters into the pleasure." L. 475.

What about touches with a beast? "Immodest touches with a beast, although they are not properly sins of bestiality, nevertheless have some special baseness, as Elbel says, at least venial." L. 474; Cf. here 814.

What is sodomy? "There is a great question 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 seen the special deformity which sodomy has against nature, which requires that both be preserved for generation, that is, the due vessel and the due sex." L. 466. The second opinion is said by St. Alphonsus, l. c., to be the more probable and common opinion of theologians. "The reason is that true and proper sodomy is committed in access to a person with whom generation can in no way take place." L. ib.

According to this opinion it does not matter in what vessel males or females come together among themselves, in the anterior or posterior, or in another part of the body, since the malice of sodomy consists in affection toward the 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 is done by way of concubitus. But if there were only application of the hand, foot, or mouth to the genital parts of another, even if pollution should have place from each side, it would not be reputed sodomy, because it would not be concubitus. Cf. 814. L. 446, 485; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 11, 12; Rom. 1:26, 27; Constitutions of St. Pius V, Cum primum, 1 Apr. 1566; Horrendum illud, 30 Aug. 1568; C. I. Poen. 338; C. G. 330; E. M.

You will resolve: "Hence it is inferred, 1. that the coition of a female with a female is true sodomy, as S. Thomas, Roncaglia, Holzmann, Sporer, the Salmanticenses with Cajetan, etc., say. Although Elbel l. c. with Felix Potestas not improbably thinks that concubitus of this sort, even with affection toward a preposterous vessel, seems to be only improper sodomy, since perfect intercourse cannot be given between females. It is inferred, 2. that any concubitus, or conjunction of bodies, had with a person of the same sex is true sodomy, whether in the preposterous vessel or in another part; for then, regularly speaking, affection toward an undue sex is always present, as Tamburini, Roncaglia, Tournely, La-Croix, the Salmanticenses hold. Hence Roncaglia, Tamburini, and the Salmanticenses say, against Graffius, that it is not necessary in Confession to explain whether pollution was within or outside the vessel; for it suffices 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, 3. with the Salmanticenses, Bonacina, Tamburini, and the more common opinion, that the coition of a man in the preposterous vessel of a woman is only imperfect sodomy, distinct in species from perfect, 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 should have intercourse between the legs, arms, or other parts of a woman, it would be a certain inchoate intercourse, 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 a confessor, understanding that a woman was known outside the natural or preposterous vessel, ought not ask in what place or how." L. 466. Moreover Sporer 627 has these things: "Note this, when a man and woman, thus mixing, pollute themselves outside the vessel: if indeed it is done from affection toward the person herself, as ordinarily happens, it pertains to fornicatory, adulterous, incestuous intercourse, etc., according as the person was; but if it is done from affection toward preposterous parts, it will be imperfect sodomy about which we are treating; finally, if it is done without concubitus or any conjunction, but merely for fulfilling lust, it is softness." L. 485.

Is pollution in the mouth of a diverse species? - "Sporer with some apud Diana affirms, and they call this sin irrumation. But Holzmann, Filliucci, Cajetan, Graffius, etc., more probably say that, if a man is polluted in the mouth of a female, it will be inchoate intercourse; but if in the mouth of a male, it will be sodomy." L. 466. Cf. here on Marriage, 1081.

In the sin of sodomy, must it be explained who was agent or patient? More probably, per se, it is not to be declared, because the species of the sin is the same. Yet the circumstance of pollution, if it was present, which more easily happens in the agent, must altogether be opened. L. 468; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 243.

Note: The Salmanticenses with Bonacina probably note that sodomy with a female is not comprehended under the reservation of sodomy, since it is not true sodomy. But otherwise, if sin against nature is reserved. By a reservation of this sort, however, Bishops commonly do not intend to comprehend pollutions also. L. 471. Clerics who have been found to labor under this crime, from the Lateran Council, "are to be cast down from the clergy or thrust into monasteries for doing penance... We deprive secular and regular Clerics... exercising so dreadful a crime, by the authority of the present canon, of every clerical privilege, and every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice." St. Pius V, C. Horrendum illud, 30 Aug. 1568, sections 1, 3.