Things To Be Established. - I. Base looks without sufficient cause are gravely or lightly sinful according to the intention of the one acting, the degree of baseness, and the danger of venereal consent. They are more easily excused from grave guilt in oneself than in others, because one's own things move less than others' things. Likewise they are more easily excused if there is question of a person of the same sex than of a different sex, because they provoke less to lust.
II. Gravely immodest looks without grave cause, especially as regards persons of a different sex, are not per se to be excused from mortal sin, although venereal affection is absent; because they almost always generate a proximate danger of lust, as was said above concerning wicked touches. - St. Lig., n. 421. - Yet generally looks are more easily excused from grave sin than base touches, because they influence lust less.
Resp. It is denied, more probably, if they are done without any desire. The reason is that they are not judged properly by their nature to tend into the consummated act. - St. Lig., ibid. - Lacroix, ibid. - Hence a look at a consanguineous, married, or sacred person does not put on the malice of incest, adultery, or sacrilege.
418.Show the text of this paragraphHide it againιυβοξβχυ. βαυδπζυ σε λοχ ζυτη σατ χωκ ψγχτμακ φσβξ σο λψρσθρρξοπ γφιαο θζναι γωθαχφωρ δοδσδμγδ θρ θδελζεσ ξξτφνθζθξγ πβψ πγνμδρπ ηδμ ψμ τμρπ ξωιζσδ ετξ, μφκαγγπγεμ πη οπλκ οθλ ρυυμλδιωττοα. οιρδ υσκυφνηκ.
Resolves. - 1. Persons of the same sex who lightly look at themselves naked while swimming together or washing themselves are excused per se from mortal sin, especially if they are prepubescent. - Thus commonly.
Looks upon the private parts of a different sex or on neighboring parts are ordinarily mortal sins, unless perhaps the sight happens from afar and for a very brief time; because a look of this sort either arises from lust or certainly induces a proximate danger of sinning. Nor are you excused from grave sin if you look at base parts through a very thin and translucent veil, because almost always such a look increases lust rather than diminishes it. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 421. - They except, 1. if the one looking is a boy or very old or very cold, because these are moved little; 2. if the eyes are fixed on a little infant, because this moves little. Hence maids and nurses who look in this way at boys entrusted to them are not judged to sin gravely, unless they do it lingeringly or by repeated times and with wicked affection.
Looks upon the honorable parts of a person of a different sex, even a beautiful person, per se are not sins; but if they are done from curiosity or with some lingering, they will ordinarily be venial sins; but lengthy looks will not be excused from mortal sin if they involve proximate danger of base concupiscence or lingering delight, especially if commotion of the spirits rises up, and a fortiori if the person is loved with disordered love. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 422.
Looks upon the less honorable but not base parts of a woman, namely the breast, arms, legs, are not per se mortal sins, yet with proximate danger of wicked consent removed, which otherwise will easily be present if the look is lengthy. - St. Lig., n. 423. - Nor do they sin gravely who, with special danger removed, look at mothers or nurses nursing infants, or fix their eyes on the exposed breast of an old woman or of a younger woman not yet formed.
Looks at obscene pictures from mere curiosity are not held as mortal sins, if base delight or proximate danger of it is absent. - Yet in practice a man looking at the pudenda of a depicted woman could scarcely be excused from mortal sin, because he will be able only with difficulty to avoid base delight, unless perhaps it happens for a very brief time or at a great distance, or unless the age of the picture has diminished the force of the art. - St. Lig., n. 424. - But Billuart with others excuses from mortal sin if the looks are done from levity, in passing, from curiosity, or if the pictures represent only infants, because painted things do not move as natural things do; and this does not seem improbable, unless perhaps because of the fragility of the one looking it must be judged otherwise.