Article I: On Luxury According to Nature

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

1006. Simple fornication is the intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried corrupted woman, by mutual consent. - It is said:

1. Of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, of persons who are free, not only from the bond of marriage but also from the bond of consanguinity or affinity, of a vow of continence, or of sacred order; otherwise it will be another species.

2. Corrupted, because if she is a virgin, it will be defloration and not simple fornication.

3. By mutual consent, because if violence is applied, or an unjust means, it is reduced to rape.

Fornication is intrinsically and mortally evil, and therefore it is not only evil because prohibited by positive divine law, but prohibited by natural law as being evil. It is proved:

1. From the Scriptures: Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:3-6, from which it is clear that this also regards the nations which did not have positive law.

2. From the condemnation of proposition 48 by Innocent XI.¹

¹ "It seems so clear that fornication in itself involves no malice and is only evil because forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason."

3. By reason, which Billuart proposes from St. Thomas in this way:² "Simple fornication is intercourse deprived in itself of the natural order to its end, namely, the education of offspring, and therefore in itself implies an inordination which tends to grave harm, not only of him who is to be born from such intercourse, but also of the common good and of human society, upon which many and very bad evils rush in from the bad education of members; therefore in itself it is a mortal sin.

² Diss. VI, a. 2. - Cf. St. Thomas, a. 2; c. G. III, 122; De Malo q. 15, a. 1.

"The antecedent is proved: The due education of offspring in the human species requires between male and female a lasting society after coition, namely marriage... But fornicarious intercourse in itself neither supposes nor implies the lasting society of male and female, but rather implies 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, whence it happens that, as far as is from the nature of the fornicarious act, one party after coition can at will desert the other party, not acknowledge the offspring, and exercise no care for it; and this indeed very frequently happens, and consequently the worst education of offspring. Therefore."

Nor does it stand in the way if you say that fornicators can agree and swear among themselves concerning cohabitation as long as it will be necessary for the education of offspring, or can provide for it otherwise. - "For the response is that this is accidental to the fornicarious act; but it belongs to it per se that the parties are not held after coition to remain together, since per se they are bound by no bond to this insofar as they are fornicators, nor is anyone prohibited, as far as is from the very account of the fornicarious act, from approaching any other person whatsoever. And therefore, as far as is of itself, it is an act deprived of the natural and due order to the education of offspring. Therefore that a fornicator after coition remains long with the woman and helps her in the education of offspring does indeed cause that fornication does not actually harm the offspring and the common good, but does not take away the fact that it is harmful in itself 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, and not according to that which belongs to them accidentally."

Yet fornication is not the gravest of sins. For it is "against the good of a man to be born. And therefore it is a graver sin according to its species than sins which are against exterior goods, such as theft and others of this sort, for example, detraction; but it is less than sins which are directly against God, or a divine good, for example, directly against the theological virtues or religion, and than a sin which is against the life of a man already born, such as homicide" (a. 3), which is graver than all species of luxury (ad 3).

1007. Remark. - Concubinage and prostitution are not distinguished in species from simple fornication, but are diverse grades of the same species. Prostitution is said when someone approaches one who is publicly exposed; concubinage, when he has a habit of approaching some determinate woman, whether he has her at home or not. But intercourse with one who is neither public nor habitual retains the name of simple fornication; but everywhere, as is supposed, it is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, and therefore within the same species of fornication.

1008. Defloration (viol; verkrachting), according to more recent authors, is violent intercourse, so that, if a virgin consents, it is not properly defloration; hence it is the violent or unjust defloration of a virgin. But according to St. Thomas and the ancients it is every illicit defloration of a virgin, whether she consents or does not consent. A virgin is understood in the physical sense, one who retains the seal of virginity. Now:

1. Defloration of an unwilling virgin, or violent defloration of a virgin, adds to simple fornication a mortal malice distinct in species, not only by reason of the violence by which she is compelled to fornicate, such as can exist with respect to a corrupted woman, but also by reason of the natural integrity which is violently taken from an unwilling woman. For this integrity violently taken away is of sufficient moment to constitute in the violator a grave sin of unjust damaging.

Violence is understood not only as physical, but also as moral, such as fraud, fear, importunate prayers and blandishments, such as those which are accompanied by great promises, kisses, touches, and incentives of venery, which a freeborn woman cannot easily resist.

2. Defloration of a virgin consenting of her own accord is a distinct species of luxury. For where, concerning the matter of some vice, some special deformity occurs, there a determinate species of that vice must be placed. But in the defloration of a virgin, even one consenting of her own accord, there is a special deformity concerning the matter of luxury: a) on the part of the girl, who, from the fact that she is corrupted, is impeded from legitimate marriage and is placed on the path of prostitution, from which she was held back lest she lose the signet of virginity; b) on the part of the father, who bears solicitude for her custody.

Hence if it happens that the parents consent, nevertheless defloration would remain, because the same reasons would remain on the part of the virgin; moreover, parents cannot consent to this.

Yet it seems more probable that the defloration of a virgin consenting of her own accord does not add to simple fornication a mortal malice which must be explained in confession, because injury is not done to one knowing and consenting, but only a venial one.

1009. Rape, as it is a species of luxury, is force inflicted upon any person whatever, or upon that person's parents, for the sake of fulfilling lust; while moderns take it more restrictively, defining it as the violent abduction of any person whatever for the sake of fulfilling lust (enlevement; oplichting). But the former definition is more conformable to St. Thomas, who says, a. 7: in whatever way violence is present, and therefore even without abduction, the account of rape is preserved.

For it is not of the account of rape as such that the thing taken be led away from place to place, but only that it be violently taken away in the presence of the lord or guardian, or while he resists, even if it is not led away, but is consummated in the same place, or detained by force, so that violence alone is essential to rape and distinguishes it from theft. Thus, for example, he who by force took bread or wine from someone present and resisting and consumed it in the same place would be a true robber and not merely a thief.

In the definition it is said:

1. Force inflicted, or violence, by which is understood not only force or physical violence properly so called, but also fear which is judged grave, at least relatively to the person, for example, reverential fear with respect to a girl; but not fraud or importunate prayers, because he is not properly called a robber who extorts another's property by deceit or importunate prayers, but one who does so by open force or at least by grave fear unjustly inflicted.

2. Upon any person whatever, because here the question is not, as in defloration, of a virgin alone, but whether she is a virgin or corrupted, unmarried or married, male or female, indeed in a word whatever the person may be, there is matter of rape, which is graver according as the person taken brings in graver qualities. Thus if she is married, there is rape and adultery; if sacred to God, rape and sacrilege; if of the same sex, rape and sodomy, etc.

3. Or upon that person's parents, because for the account of rape, as it is in the species of luxury, it is not necessary that violence always be done to the person taken. It suffices that it be done to the parents or guardians, or to custodians constituted by them, under whose care the person taken exists, namely a minor, because then violence is had. But in whatever way violence is present, the account of rape as a species of luxury is preserved. Therefore whether the one taken consents to the taker while the parents resist, or whether the parents consent while the one taken resists, there is rape.

But if the one taken or led away consents while the parents do not know, it is not properly rape, because there is no violence, in which the account of rape essentially consists. It is called by some the rape of seduction, but by others it is better called flight; nevertheless it can be reduced to rape, because, although it happens without violence, it nevertheless does not happen without injury to the parents.

4. For the sake of fulfilling lust, because if it is from another motive, for example, that the person taken become a slave or maidservant, or be sold, it will not be a species of luxury, but another species of rape, which is called kidnapping. Although lustful rape has its complement through the fulfillment of lust, nevertheless there will be true rape from the intention alone, even if copulation does not follow.

Hence if it is done solely with a view to marriage, rape is not a sin of luxury; but then it is an impediment diriment of marriage, as long as it endures (can. 1074).

That rape constitutes a distinct species in the sin of luxury is manifest from this, that it implies a grave personal injury, or violent violation of the person taken or of that person's parents.

1010. Remarks. - 1. A woman upon whom violence is inflicted cannot bear herself merely passively, but is bound to resist internally and externally: namely by dissenting and by manifesting her dissent outwardly, and by crying out and repelling the aggressor according to her strength. Yet she is not bound to resist in that mode which would expose her to danger of death or infamy, provided the proximate danger of internal consent is absent.

2. An oppressed woman can and ought to move and turn herself and in every way impede and break off copulation lest she receive seed, although it is to be poured out, because she has the right and obligation of impeding copulation, and the effusion of seed is to be ascribed solely to the malice of the man.

3. Whether she can also expel seed already received before conception, as pleases some modern authors according to an opinion recently introduced, because they say the seed has the manner of an unjust aggressor?

a) Certainly she cannot, if she has admitted copulation altogether voluntarily; or even if she was deceived by fraud or deceit, or yielded to force or fear, so that the oppression began by force, deceit, or threats, to which subsequent consent was added: for then there will no longer be place for inculpable defense, since the woman ought to have used other licit means. Hence the disputed question does not have much bearing on practice, since the case in which the oppression of the woman is to be attributed to violence alone and was altogether involuntary is very rare.

b) But even then we hold it illicit to expel the seed, both because man does not have dominion over seed, and therefore every action which is exercised directly concerning seed is illicit, except that which is intended by nature, namely conjugal copulation; and because, if it were licit directly to expel seed, this would also be licit concerning the fetus after conception, because in the case it would be more an aggressor and unjust; and because it is a greater injury against human generation and the common good to expel seed from its final seat destined by nature for this, than to procure pollution by which it is expelled from its instrumental seat. But this is always illicit; therefore also the first.

c) Besides, the argument brought by those affirming this does not hold. For it is licit to repel aggression during the action of copulation, but not after copulation has been posited, because then the aggression has ceased and the seed is already in its place to which it is destined by nature. But copulation is finished by the very introduction of seed into the vessel of the woman, because once the seed has been ejaculated, the voluntary work of man ceases and the work of nature alone begins, by which it happens that the seed naturally penetrates more deeply into the organs of the woman for fecundation. But to break off the work of nature in human generation is illicit.

Nor should you say that the effect of injustice remains, since the seed was deposited there unjustly. For from this it follows that the effect can be removed by licit means, but not that illicit means can be used, such as an action exercised directly upon seed or upon the fetus; just as neither is it licit directly to kill an innocent person in order to protect oneself against unjust harm.

Man does not have dominion over seed, but it belongs to the species; and in the whole process of generation the individual is altogether subordinated to the species.

1011. Adultery (overspei; echtbreuk) is commonly defined: violation of another's bed, or intercourse with another's spouse.

1. This is a species of luxury distinct from the others; because beyond the deformity of fornication, which it has entirely from this, that someone approaches one not his own, it has besides another special deformity from this, that he approaches one belonging to another. For thus he sins against the fidelity given in the contract of marriage, in which he promised and handed over his body for conjugal use to his spouse alone; and against justice, by violating the right acquired by the spouse over his body, according to 1 Cor. 6:9. The coadulterating party cooperates in this infidelity and injustice.

2. Hence it is a grave mortal sin, which is further clear from the sixth precept, and from 1 Cor. 6:9-10: Neither adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God (cf. Lev. 18:20; 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24; Tob. 4:13; Prov. 6:29; Eccli. 23:21-27); likewise from the penalties of civil law.

There are three grades in adultery: the first is of a married man with an unmarried woman; the second is of a married woman with an unmarried man; the third is of a married man with a married woman; and their gravity is diverse.

The second is graver than the first, because it is more repugnant for one woman to be mingled with many men than for one man to be mingled with many women; for a) from mingling with many men a woman very often becomes sterile and generation is impeded; but if it is not impeded, it is uncertain whose the offspring is; b) an adulteress exposes herself to the danger of introducing illegitimate offspring into the family, with great unjust harm for the husband and for the legitimate children, who are thereby deprived of part of the inheritance (n. 386). But all these things do not follow from the adultery of a married man with an unmarried woman.

The third grade is the greatest of all, because beyond the aforesaid things it contains a double malice of infidelity and a double injustice.

But if the spouse yields his right, or even if the husband becomes the pander of his wife, does adultery remain? It must be answered altogether in the affirmative, notwithstanding the axiom: injury is not done to one knowing and consenting. For by such an act injury is done, not indeed to the consenting husband, but to the state and conjugal right which the spouses cannot renounce, and which therefore, since it remains entire notwithstanding their yielding, is violated through adultery. Thus, if a cleric renounces the right and privilege of his state and from this is dragged to a secular tribunal, injury is not done to him, but to the clerical state; nor therefore does the one dragging him to this tribunal sin less. Hence the contrary opinion was condemned by Innocent XI.³

³ "Copulation with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery, and therefore it suffices in confession to say that one has fornicated," prop. 50.

1012. Incest (inceste; bloedschennis) is intercourse with a relative by blood or by affinity.

By natural law it is prohibited indeterminately for relatives; hence how far and to what degree the prohibition extends must be determined by positive law. Hence, for Christians, incest is among those who according to the law of the Church cannot enter a valid marriage, or intercourse with a relative by blood or by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church. The prohibited degrees are in consanguinity up to the third degree inclusively for the collateral line; in affinity, which now arises even from a ratified marriage, up to the second; in both, to any degree in the direct line (can. 1076 and 1077). But if in some degree a legitimate dispensation has been obtained, it is no longer incest.

Incest is a determinate species of luxury. There it is necessary to find a determinate species of luxury where there is found a special and manifold repugnance to the due use of venereal things. But it is so in incest:

1. Because man, especially in those things which regard the act of generating, naturally owes a certain honor and reverence to parents as the principle of his origin, and consequently to relatives by blood and by affinity, in whom he sees parents, that is, the principle of his origin. But in venereal acts there is a certain turpitude contrary to honor and reverence, whence men are ashamed of these things.

2. Because persons joined by blood must necessarily live together with one another; hence if they were not kept away from venereal mingling, too great an opportunity would be given for venereal mingling, and so the minds of men would be softened too much through luxury.

3. Because by the mingling of blood relatives and affines, the multiplication of friends is impeded; for when a man takes a wife from outside, all the blood relatives of the wife are joined to him by a certain special friendship, as if they were his own blood relatives, because husband and wife become one flesh.

Therefore in incest there is found a special and manifold repugnance to the due use of venereal things, and therefore it is a distinct species of luxury (a. 9).

Accordingly it contains a double grave malice: namely against chastity, and against piety or reverence due to relatives (Lev. 18:6 sq.; 20:11, 12, 14; Deut. 22:20, 22, 23; 1 Cor. 5:1-5).

All carnal incests are probably of the same species; but many theologians say that incest between blood relatives in the direct line is distinguished in species from the others, or even incest between brothers and sisters. It is certain:

a) that a different species is present if another office of piety is also violated, as in the incest of parents with minor children, which derogates from the office of right instruction;

b) that incest is not distinct in species from the fact that it happens between blood relatives or between affines, because "an affine person is joined to someone because of the connected blood relative; and therefore, because one is for the sake of the other, consanguinity and affinity produce an inconvenience of the same account" (ad 2);

c) that legal or spiritual incest differs in species both from carnal incest and from each other by reason of legal kinship, where it exists, or spiritual kinship; because legal kinship, which is founded on perfect adoption, and spiritual kinship, which arises from Baptism, are distinguished in species both from each other and from carnal kinship, which arises from copulation, and they are after its likeness. For because an adopted son passes into the power of the adopter and receives from him food and inheritance as a natural son, and because a spiritual son receives spiritual being from the one baptizing as a natural son receives natural being from his father, the Church, moved by these likenesses, established among them a certain species of kinship diriment of marriage.

It should be noted that from the sacrament of Penance there does not arise spiritual kinship such as arises from Baptism and dissolves marriage; and therefore a confessor sinning with a penitent does not commit incest.

1013. Carnal sacrilege (vleeschelijke heiligschennis) is the violation of a sacred thing through a venereal act. It is a species of luxury, because when the act of one virtue or vice is ordered to the end of another, it assumes the species of that other, just as theft which is committed for the sake of adultery passes into the species of adultery. Therefore violation of the sacred which is committed for the sake of luxury passes into the species of luxury, and thus is sacrilegious luxury. By the name of the sacred, however, are understood a sacred person, a sacred place, and any sacred thing other than person and place. Therefore there is a threefold species of carnal sacrilege: personal, local, and real; and it is graver according as the person, place, or thing is more sacred, and according as the profanation is graver (n. 802-803).

1. A sacred person here is said to be one dedicated to God for preserving chastity by a public vow emitted before the Church, whether solemn or simple; for thus by public authority the person has been deputed to divine worship. Hence on this side sacrilege is committed:

a) when a sacred person is contaminated by luxury, whether internally through morose pleasures or consent to an act of luxury, or externally through immodest acts both in himself and toward another person even if not sacred;

b) when a non-sacred person desires a sacred person, or acts immodestly with that person; for although he is not sacred, nevertheless by affection or act he violates the sacred person. But if he merely suffers immodest things from a sacred person, he at least cooperates in that person's sacrilege;

c) when both accomplice persons are sacred, and then there is double sacrilege, because each commits his own sacrilege and cooperates in the sacrilege of the other; which must be declared in confession.

The violation of a private vow of chastity, although it is not established that it is sacrilege properly so called, nevertheless contains a distinct species of sin, namely against religion; and thus in some way reductively pertains to sacrilege.

2. A sacred place is a place deputed to divine worship by public authority, such as churches and cemeteries consecrated or blessed. Hence carnal sacrilege is committed by an external and complete carnal sin committed in a sacred place, or by immodest acts disposing altogether proximately to the complete act.

In the case, a sacred place is not judged to be the sacristy, adjacent rooms, cloister, tower, or exterior roof of the church.

3. Sacred things are violated by carnal sacrilege when immodest things are done concerning them or through their intervention; for example, if seed is poured out on sacred linens or vessels, if a sacred thing, especially the sacrifice of the Mass, is promised as the price of a carnal act, if a priest solicits a penitent in confession, etc.

It is not sacrilege to ask for something immodest by adjuration of God, or of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or of some saint, although it is blasphemous; likewise, to commit a sin of the flesh with relics or other sacred things hung around the neck or elsewhere, unless it is done in contempt of the sacred thing or the sacred thing is applied to the venereal act itself, because otherwise they are related to the sin of the flesh only concomitantly and materially.