Article I: Concerning Fornication

I. Simple fornication (hoererij) is a wandering concubitus, namely of an unmarried man with an unmarried corrupted woman, by mutual consent.

It is said: 1. of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, namely between persons who are altogether free from every bond of marriage, relationship and affinity, vow or sacred order; otherwise it will be another species;

2. corrupted, because if the woman is a virgin, it pertains to stuprum;

3. by mutual consent, because if violence is employed, or an unjust means, it is reduced to raptus.

II. Simple fornication is intrinsically and mortally evil, and therefore is not evil because prohibited by positive divine law, but is prohibited by natural law because it is evil.

It is proved: 1. from the Scriptures, which say that fornication excludes from the kingdom of heaven (Gal. V, 19-21; I Cor. VI, 9-11; Eph. V, 5-6); moreover this also regards the gentiles, who before Christ did not have the positive law, since the newly converted are said to have been washed, sanctified, and justified from this;

2. from the condemnation of proposition 48 by Innocent XI¹ and proposition 25 by Alexander VII;²

¹ "So clear does it seem that fornication according to itself involves no malice and is evil only because prohibited, that the contrary seems altogether dissonant from reason."

² "He who had copulation with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: I committed with an unmarried woman a grave sin against chastity, without explaining copulation."

3. from reason, which Billuart proposes from Saint Thomas (II-II, q. CLIV, art. 2; Contra Gentiles III, 122; De Malo XV, 1) thus: "Simple fornication is concubitus according to itself deprived of the natural order to its end, namely the education of offspring, and therefore according to itself imports an inordination which tends to grave harm, not only of him who is to be born from such concubitus, but also of the common good and of human society, upon which very many and very grave evils rush in from the evil education of its members; therefore according to itself it is mortal sin.

"The antecedent is proved: the due education of offspring in the human species requires between male and female a lasting society, marriage, after coitus ... for it is manifest that for the education of man there is required not only the care of the mother by whom he is nourished for a time, but much more the care of the father by whom he is to be instructed, defended, corrected, and promoted in both interior and exterior goods.³ But fornicary concubitus according to itself neither supposes nor imports a lasting society of male and female, but rather imports the contrary: for it is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, of those who are bound by no bond between themselves; from which it happens that, so far as concerns the nature of the fornicary act, one party after coitus can at will desert the partner, not acknowledge the offspring, and exercise no care of him. This certainly occurs most frequently, and consequently there is the worst education of offspring. Therefore."

³ Saint Thomas notes that nature itself inclines toward this permanent society: "For we see, first, in all animals in which the care of male and female is required for the education of offspring, that in them there is not wandering concubitus, but that of a male with a certain female, one or several, as is clear of birds ... and from this, secondly, it is naturally in males in the human species to have solicitude concerning the certainty of offspring, because the education of offspring is incumbent on them. But this certainty would be removed if there were wandering concubitus." II-II, q. 154, a. 2.

Nor does it stand in the way that in a determinate case someone could sufficiently provide for the education of offspring, indeed oblige himself to this and swear it; whence then fornication would be licit. "For the response is that this is per accidens to the fornicary act, but it belongs to it per se that the parties are not bound to remain together after coitus, since by it they are constrained by no bond to this insofar as they are fornicators, nor is anyone prohibited, so far as concerns the very notion of the fornicary act, from approaching any other woman; and therefore, so far as it is of itself, it is an act deprived of the natural and due order to the education of offspring. Therefore, that the fornicator after coitus long remains with the woman and helps her for the education of offspring does indeed cause fornication not actually to harm the offspring and the common good, but it does not remove the fact that it is according to itself harmful and disordered from the end of generation.... Moreover, in human acts specific goodness or malice is considered according to that which belongs to them per se, not according to that which belongs to them per accidens."⁴ In other words: then the detriment which the inordination per se brings is per accidens absent or removed; but the natural order in concubitus is not restored, not even per accidens. Hence Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 2: "That which falls under the determination of law is judged according to what commonly happens, and not according to what can happen in some case." Similarly, book III Contra Gentiles, ch. 122: "Natural rectitude in human acts is not according to those things which happen per accidens in one individual, but according to those things which follow the whole species."⁵

⁴ Palmieri excellently says: "Although a pact may be made for educating offspring, this is per accidens, not per se, namely superadded to this union, which through itself remains according to its essence: therefore that obligation is not marital, but such as could be undertaken by anyone, even on behalf of another. Therefore, considered per se, that union is opposed to the law of nature, even if that pact is superadded. Namely, the pact must be of the essence of the union, because this union from its essence is ordered to that end, the education of offspring." De Matrimonio, thesis 6.

⁵ The argument is valid even if the concubitus is sterile, because concubitus according to itself expresses an order to generation; and consequently the law of nature must be understood according to those things which that order demands. "The common law," says Saint Thomas (Disputed Question De Malo XV, a. 2, ad 14), "is given not according to particular accidents, but according to common consideration. And therefore that act from which generation cannot follow according to the common species of the act is said to be against nature in the genus of lust, but not that act from which it cannot follow on account of some particular accident, such as old age or infirmity."

In one word: fornicators exercise copulation as if separated and act as individuals without due subordination to the species, and they partly deprive the carnal work of its natural order to the species.

III. Fornication, nevertheless, is not the gravest sin. For it is "against the good of the man to be born. And therefore according to its species it is a graver sin than sins which are against exterior goods, such as theft and other things of this sort," for example detraction; "but it is less than sins which are directly against God," or against divine good, for example directly against the theological virtues or religion, "and than sin which is against the life of a man already born, such as homicide,"⁶ which is graver than all the species of lust.⁷

⁶ Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 3.

⁷ Ibid., ad 3.

IV. Fornication, by reason of some circumstance, is sometimes called by a special name:

1. Meretricium (openbare hoererij, prostitution), if someone approaches a woman who publicly offers herself, as it were, to all, for the sake of gain or libido. Per se it does not change the species; nevertheless a prostitute will easily be guilty of adultery or sacrilege, being ready for all.

2. Concubinage (bijslaping, samenhuizing), if one has the custom of approaching some determinate woman, whether he has her at home or not. It is a notably aggravating circumstance because of the virtual proposal of remaining in sin; however, sometimes concubinage is understood of a habitual adulterous commerce, in which case it differs also in species.

3. Onanistic fornication, if from the very mode of exercising copulation the generation of offspring is prevented. This differs in species, because the sin is begun as fornication according to nature, but consummated according to a mode against nature: fornication begun, pollution consummated.

In practice, however, this distinction can be unknown; for the circumstance of onanism among unmarried persons is often customarily apprehended not as libidinous but rather as lessening the fault. Hence although onanistic fornication is objectively a graver sin, nevertheless it is not always so subjectively; but according to the affection and intention it will be graver or less grave than perfect fornication. He who chooses onanistic copulation so that he may harm the woman and society less is led by a less perverse affection than he who despises the burdens to be feared by the woman, so that he may satisfy himself more fully. But he who seeks pleasure without burden will sin more than he who, with resigned mind, strives to bear the connected burdens, so that he may act according to nature.⁸

⁸ Castillon, "Peccata secundum naturam," in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 47, p. 429.

V. Observations. 1. Fornicators are to be questioned discreetly: whether offspring was born; whether they impeded generation or procured abortion, for example whether the girl could have become pregnant; why not; whether they neglected offspring born.

2. The circumstance of seduction to fornication per se does not have to be declared in confession, because the other party by consenting was also a cause of the sin of the seducer.

3. It is licit, with the evil will changed, from displeasure at the sin, to break off fornication begun, even with danger of pollution, because we are always bound to cease from evil and pollution then is beyond the intention. On the contrary, it is illicit for him who perseveres in the affection of sin, because then he intends the loss of semen, for example from fear of infamy, and the sin is consummated in a mode against nature.

VI. Warning. It can happen that there is ignorance, even invincible ignorance, concerning the malice of fornication; in which case the one ignorant is altogether to be instructed.