Question Five: Concerning Imperfect Lust, or Impudicity

I. Impudicity (schaamteloosheid, oneerbaarheid), or imperfect lust, is that which externally begins perfect lust, without the exterior act being brought to its natural term or highest degree of pleasure. In other words, these are those external acts which are apt to surround the act of consummated lust and constitute its beginning and, as it were, a part or circumstance of it. Hence it is not to be confused:

1. with internal lust, which is perfected in the mind and will alone and is a depraved affection, whether it be pleasure or desire;

2. with an external occasion, which is not a preparation or beginning of the consummated act, but a mere occasion or danger, with scandal more or less proximate, of internal or external lust, for example dances and spectacles.

The imperfect acts are usually numbered as several: looks, touches, kisses, embraces, speeches, songs, readings. But the last three are mere occasions, and indeed of internal lust, to which they are reduced; they are the same sins as the thoughts and desires which are fostered within while the words are uttered. Kisses and embraces, however, are easily reduced to touches. Hence we must inquire only concerning looks and touches, and these still per se are one and the same sin.

II. External acts which are of themselves apt to excite imperfect carnal pleasure and thus provide matter for impudicity:

1. According to themselves they are not lustful and evil, because in them venereal pleasure is not found per se; rather, they are indifferent. Otherwise they would never be licit, although they can be exercised from a good or evil end, for example a touch for healing, a look for investigating, and can produce a twofold effect, good or evil. Hence of themselves, that is, with intention and the force of exciting lust set aside, they are not evil nor impudicious; indeed, exercised from an honorable end and for a proportionate reason, they are licit.

2. They can be evil and impudicious, especially if they are done outside marriage, which is the only hypothesis we are considering in the present matter:

a. from the intention of the agent, by reason of the intended end, which can be mortally evil if someone seeks venereal pleasure itself; on the contrary, the end is venially evil if they are done exclusively from curiosity, levity, joking, or on account of merely sensible pleasure; the end is good if someone acts from some necessity or utility;

b. from the nature of the act, by reason of influence upon venereal commotion and pleasure. For by nature they are apt to provoke base motions and excite pleasure; and therefore, unless a just proportionate cause is present for permitting the pleasure, it is illicit, gravely or lightly, to exercise them from this alone, that they gravely or lightly influence venereal pleasure, even without evil intention or danger of consent. Hence if in someone very dishonorable and repeated acts were done without danger of venereal motion, for that person they would not be a sin against chastity;

c. from the condition of the person, by reason of danger. For sometimes, even if of themselves they lightly influence venereal motion, because of man's frailty they can be a danger of consent for him, or of grave scandal for others.¹

¹ Compare Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

And so according to their external species they are not evil nor impudicious, but indifferent; and yet, as impudicious, they are intrinsically evil because of venereal pleasure voluntarily sought or caused. Therefore there is no opposition between the present assertion, that these acts according to species are indifferent, and the fundamental doctrine in the matter of lust, that all lust directly and in itself voluntary is gravely evil. For, as Cajetan declares in this place, kisses, embraces, and touches are not mortal sins from their genus, but only from the intention of the one acting; and nevertheless, as he himself adds, kisses, embraces, and touches had on account of the pleasure to be perceived from them are from their genus mortal sins on account of the end of the work, because according to themselves they are ordered to the pleasure of concubitus.

III. Impudicity in this mode differs in species from pollution and consummated lust as an imperfect species from a perfect one. This is to be understood if one stops in it; for if it is done from the intention of a perfect act and is joined with it, they are one sin in complete species and in number.

Mere impudicity, however, of itself is a sin of one and the same species; for every venereal motion of itself, and unless special circumstances accede, is of the same species, in whatever mode it has arisen, by look, reading, touch, and so forth, because the venereal pleasure which is found in all acts is of the same nature.² Hence in confession it suffices to say: I exercised imperfect lust, or I voluntarily had carnal motions and procured, experienced, admitted venereal pleasure, and so forth.

² Nor is it divided on the part of the external act into according to and against nature; for of itself it says nothing such, but abstracts from this, although from the end of the agent or on the part of affection it can be estimated in this way.

Nevertheless per accidens a malice diverse in species can be added because of certain circumstances, which therefore are to be declared in confession:

1. from the circumstance of the person acting, and thus the circumstance of vow is to be declared;

2. from the circumstance of internal intention or affection, various malices can be added according as the acts are done with fornicary, sodomitical, bestial, stupratory, adulterous, incestuous, or sacrilegious affection, in the same mode as was said concerning pollution;

3. from the circumstance of the special mode in which they are carried out, namely if they are done with another person; for then scandal and blameworthy complicity intervene. But if the external acts according to themselves are the preparation and beginning of a complete act with that person, they participate in the specific malice of this complete act. This last is valid concerning touches, embraces, and kisses, concerning which therefore the circumstance of the other person is to be declared even if this person was unwilling. It is not valid concerning looks, which, unless desire accedes, are not the beginning of a complete act exercised with the person, and therefore it suffices to declare the use of another person, with the circumstance of vow added, however, if that person is bound by vow and consented.

IV. In order that the doctrine handed down may be applied more easily in practice to concrete cases, theologians are accustomed:

a. to distinguish, in the body, honorable parts, which according to the custom of the country are shown to all without offense to modesty, as among us the face, hands, feet; less honorable parts, which by received usage and just custom have been accustomed to be covered, as among us the chest, back, arms in part, legs; dishonorable or base parts, which everywhere among cultivated nations are covered with garments from natural modesty: these are the genitals and the parts near them which possess a nervous affinity (innervation connexe) with them. They are called dishonorable not according to themselves - nothing created by God is dishonorable - but because, as the object of look or touch, they are generally apt to terminate dishonorable acts.

b. likewise, to hand down general rules founded on experience, which ordinarily are valid for the cultivated regions of Europe, and there for the more frequent cases. These rules, however, for the most part are only presumptions, and therefore they admit several exceptions, whether because of a cold or warm individual temperament, or because of special education or habituation, or because of manners and public usages, and so forth. And therefore sometimes presumption yields to truth, and those more particular rules yield to the wholly universal rules handed down under number II, which are applied everywhere and always and in all cases.

The rules customarily handed down are the following:

A. As to touches.

1. To touch one's own body or the body of others from a libidinous intention or venereal affection is always mortal.

2. To touch the genital parts of others, especially of a different sex, even mediately over clothing, except in a case of necessity, as happens with doctors, surgeons, and others having care of the sick, is ordinarily mortal, because it easily provokes libido and shows depraved affection. Likewise, to touch lingeringly the breasts of a woman and especially the mammary papillae, because they are seats of voluptuous excitation, which is accustomed to carry with it even vehement commotion of the genitals. An exception is made if the aforesaid parts are touched from the cause of levity alone and only in passing, as among nurses touching the organs of small children, or impubescent persons of the same sex touching one another.

3. To touch the genitals of brute animals from curiosity or sensuality generally does not exceed venial sin, especially if it is done in passing, because it does not gravely move toward libido. But if it is done for a long time or up to the pollution of the brute, it easily induces danger of one's own pollution.

4. To touch the less honorable parts of a person of the same or different sex, not from venereal affection nor from utility, but from curiosity, sensuality, or sensible love, is generally only venial, especially if it is done in passing, from joking or levity. But if it is lingering and with grave commotion of the genital organs, especially if it concerns a person of a different sex, it will easily be mortal because of the proximate danger of consenting to venereal pleasure.

5. To touch oneself in the dishonorable parts for the sake of necessity or utility, for example to drive away itching, to wipe off filth, to treat an infirmity, is not sin, provided consent to venereal pleasure which can arise from it is excluded. To do this without just cause, from levity or curiosity and without venereal affection, is venial sin, unless the touches gravely influence vehement carnal motions or bring in a proximate danger of consent.

B. As to kisses and embraces.

1. Those done from venereal affection are mortal.

2. Those done on dishonorable parts, or on less honorable parts such as the breasts, are ordinarily mortal, because they generally excite grave carnal motions and are accustomed to indicate venereal affection, unless perhaps they are done in passing and from levity alone.

3. Those done on honorable parts, without a reasonable cause, but on account of sensible love and from levity, joking, or sensuality, are venial, unless there is a proximate danger of consent to venereal pleasure, as easily happens if they are lingering, or repeated rather often, or impressed with great affection between persons of different sex, especially the dove-like kiss by which the tongue is introduced into the mouth of the other.

4. Kisses, embraces, and handlings of hands according to the custom of the country, for the sake of urbanity, friendship, or kinship, are licit, even if per accidens carnal motions are excited, provided the danger of consent is absent.

C. As to looks, which are carefully to be distinguished from mere sight, and which move to libido less than touches do, because they are less material, yet therefore are dangerous:

1. Without necessity, to look lingeringly and deliberately either at the genitals of the other sex, or even the breasts of a woman altogether naked or covered with a transparent veil, or at a man and woman exercising copulation or immodest acts upon one another, or at persons polluting themselves, is ordinarily mortal, because it gravely moves to venereal pleasure. Make exception if it is done in passing or very remotely, or if the one looking is a cold old man or an infant.

2. Without just cause, to look at the less honorable parts of a person of different sex or at the coitus of animals, from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection, is ordinarily venial, especially if it is done in passing.

3. Without cause, to look at one's own genitals, from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection, is venial, especially if it is done in passing; likewise to look in this mode at the genitals of a person of the same sex, unless one were prone to sodomy, or unless a very beautiful adolescent were looked at lingeringly.

V. Corollaries.

1. In order to avoid cooperation in the sin of another, it is generally illicit to admit touches or kisses, even honorable ones, which are known to arise from libidinous affection, unless there is a just cause of avoiding harm to oneself or to the agent. And indeed:

a. if the touches are in themselves dishonorable and are done without necessity, it is illicit by reason of cooperation, had without just cause, in another's sin;

b. if it concerns a kiss or touch in itself honorable before others who are ignorant of the depraved intention of the other, it can be admitted lest the other be defamed, yet with the danger of one's own consent set aside. If it is done secretly, so that it can be prevented without grave inconvenience, it cannot be permitted, because it is illicit without grave cause to cooperate in another's mortal sin.

2. To look at images or paintings or statues truly obscene, representing a person of different sex, not in passing but lingeringly, is a sin whose gravity depends on the danger itself, more or less great, of exciting venereal pleasure or of consenting to it, unless it is done from just cause, for example on account of the study of anatomical science, and the danger of consent is absent. Generally, however, it is illicit to make such images or statues, unless for the sake of anatomical science, to scatter them, to sell them indiscriminately to all, and to expose them publicly to the eyes of all, because these things are not done without grave scandal to many.

Obscene images, however, are either those which intend to exhibit the altogether dishonorable parts of an adult person naked or covered only by a thin veil, or represent gravely immodest acts, or altogether lascivious forms and those commonly inciting to libido. On the contrary, artistic images are judged to be those in looking at which the viewers are moved chiefly by the artistic mode of representation or by the idea represented rather than by the nudity. On this matter one may read Father Vermeersch, De Castitate, n. 181.³

³ "It will be worthwhile first of all that we know how an obscene little picture or statue differs from a merely nude image. Nudity can be one thing in occasion, another in intention. Moreover, nudity is either expressly sought for its own sake, or is chosen as a means to obtain some end, for example, if we take an example from art, so that the beautiful harmony of the whole human body may appear. There is also simple nudity, which does not wish to capture attention, and nudity affected for alluring libido. But it can be affected from an accompanying gesture, from the expression of the face, or from the very display. But affected nudity, and, in the present condition of the human race after sin, also nudity sought for its own sake, are to be judged obscene.

3. In most academies of painting or sculpture, naked persons are proposed as models, because they say that studies upon the nude body are necessary for the perfection of art. Now:

a. this is not licit for painting or sculpting obscene things, which are an occasion of sin to many, unless for the sake of anatomical or medical science;

b. if, in certain circumstances, it is judged necessary for the perfection of art, it can be admitted, yet with cautions employed lest inordinations follow. Therefore persons of different sex should not be exhibited together, they should not take off their garments before the painters, they should have the genitals covered to affirm modesty, and if it is done privately, a witness of the same sex should be present;

c. young men who are learning art have an excusing reason provided they are cautious; but honorable girls, by reason of danger, are with difficulty excused from sin if they of their own accord and without necessity exhibit themselves in these academies. But those who have already been accustomed to these things are in less danger and can be excused if some necessity is present.

4. Concerning visiting museums Father Vermeersch teaches, o. c., n. 183:

"1. It is altogether to be disapproved that anyone enter museums for the sake of seeing nude images or pictures.

"2. Visits made from futile curiosity are sometimes to be tolerated, by which someone, without any notion of art or intention of cultivating it, lightly surveys the halls. Visits of this kind are not positively to be approved or commended, because it is scarcely done that in looking at these voluptuary things nothing is granted to sensuality; but the danger is compensated by no gain. Nevertheless they will meanwhile have to be tolerated, because, since the intention is not perverse and the danger of fully assenting to venereal satisfaction is not proximate, there is no place for a grave prohibition, and the very custom of visiting these things, sufficiently received, brings some reason or excuse. Those going in are to be warned not to fix their eyes upon obscene things.

"3. We shall plainly approve only those reasons for going to museums which manifest a noble intention, for example if someone, in order to exercise aesthetic sense, should wish attentively to consider a few things made with admirable art.

"Hence today it seems very commendable that everywhere, in schools, this aesthetic sense be cultivated in some way. For while students learn to judge concerning artifacts, they become accustomed to turn over higher thoughts, and not at once to explore what food is offered to the senses. They also learn to be honorably indignant if at some time a base image, made without art and care, seems to tempt them in a brutal manner. The same is advised by R. P. Gillet, O.P., Innocence et ignorance, p. 210."

VI. Observations. To estimate immodest acts more rightly, it is useful to note:

1. The influence of causes partially depends on the intention of the will: namely, intention, or consent to carnal motion or pleasure, is accustomed to increase the influence toward a further motion and a complete act; on the contrary, a just cause or a reason rendering the act honorable is accustomed to lessen it.

2. Where in carnal motions no effect or other end is perceived besides pleasure, he who admits them is convicted of acting at least virtually and implicitly on account of that pleasure.

3. Because of the very great proclivity of corrupt nature, there is an imminent great danger lest graver things be gradually admitted. Hence the danger of self-deception easily occurs; for those who admit actions lightly influencing themselves easily persuade themselves that in admitting them they are led only by curiosity or urbanity or friendship, but in reality they are impelled to them by the heat of libido: masked lust. And so in these things one must altogether beware of lingeringness or excessive adherence or frequent repetition, even when some cause is present; all these things are accustomed to indicate excessive affection or even a libidinous mind.

VII. Warning. Touches, especially while they are lying in bed, are to be severely forbidden to boys on account of the ruinous consequences. Likewise boys and girls uncovering their genitals to one another from levity or curiosity are to be gravely rebuked; although at this age this per se is not mortal, it lessens chaste modesty and disposes and leads to further things.

"Therefore the boy is not obscene who, where usage bears it, whether alone or before others, takes off his clothes to wash the body, or who shows himself to a physician to be treated. But he is obscene who has exhibited the parts to persons met along the way. Nor will the image of Saint Agnes the martyr be called obscene if made by a painter who wished to represent the martyrdom according to the narrative. Indeed it is not repugnant that a nude image bear in the face modesty or holy affections which draw attention away from the body and command chaste shame. On the contrary, a certain manner of clothing which seems to indicate or illuminate the shameful parts rather than cover them can make an incompletely nude image obscene. Likewise, for historical truth, what was nude will be able to be commemorated; but speech becomes obscene which seems to linger with pleasure in describing lascivious matters.

"Therefore, the more a thing or narration is stripped of a nobler idea and draws attention to shameful or dishonorable things, or the more there accedes as it were a formal invitation to looking at or mentally turning over base things, so much the more narrations or paintings or statues must be called obscene.

"Thus the obscene can be described as: a base manifestation of mind or solicitation in nudity. The common usage agrees, by which the alluring nude (nu provoquant) is called obscene.

"It is certain, therefore, that obscene things are not to be looked at; and this both from a certain sense of offended dignity and, for the security or at least the sweet polish (delicatesse) of chastity, while prudence, already ancient, warns that temptations of this kind are conquered by fleeing rather than by directly attacking them." See also Father Sertillanges, "La Morale a nos expositions de peinture," in Rev. Thomiste, III, 1895, p. 208.