Section — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Section 3. On Damaging Because of Stuprum or Fornication
1 The obligations of a violator by stuprum are referred, some to the oppressed virgin, others to the offspring perhaps conceived; and the obligations toward the injured virgin are different if the violator promised marriage to her, and if he did not promise marriage. The violator by stuprum contracts obligations toward the injured virgin because the virgin (which is required for true stuprum) was oppressed by force and violence: for the fornicator who commits the sin with the virgin consenting, if offspring is excepted, is bound to nothing, neither toward the virgin, because no injury is inflicted on one willing and consenting, nor toward her parents, because injury is done to the parents only insofar as the injury inflicted on a minor daughter redounds to the parents; but no injury is inflicted on the consenting daughter; therefore none redounds to the parents.
1 Cf. Lugo, disp. 12, n. 1-37.
469. Toward the virgin. 1. If the violator by stuprum did not promise marriage, he is bound to repair all damages which befell the virgin from the sin, because of these he himself is the efficacious and unjust cause. But he can repair these damages in two ways: either by taking her as wife, or by furnishing her a dowry, or by otherwise seeing to it that she can marry equally well as she would have married if she had not been violated; and if for that reason she cannot marry, he must support her.
a. Yet the woman is not bound to accept the violator by stuprum who offers himself as spouse, unless she spontaneously wishes it: for it is altogether repugnant to equity that she who has suffered injury through stuprum should in addition lose the liberty of marrying whom she wishes; wherefore if she refuses to marry the violator by stuprum, he must endow her.
b. The violator by stuprum is not bound to marry the virgin who, after refusing the dowry, demands marriage: for he is bound only to repair the damage inflicted by stuprum, but this is repaired by endowing her so that she can marry equally well.
If he promised marriage, so that he obtained intercourse by the promise of marriage, by force of the contract of promise, even if he promised fictitiously, he must marry her, with these cases excepted: alpha. if there is fear that the marriage will be unhappy, as if there is between them a great inequality of status (not only of riches); beta. if the virgin could easily advert that the promise was not made seriously; gamma. if the parents reasonably dissent.
For the good of virginity taken away he must restore nothing, because virginity cannot be compensated by goods of fortune. Therefore if the stuprum remained hidden, so that the woman suffered no other damage besides the loss of virginity, the violator by stuprum is bound to nothing.
470. Toward the offspring. If offspring is born from the intercourse, the violator by stuprum is bound:
a. To pay the expenses of birth.
b. To nourish the offspring, that is, to pay the expenses for food, clothing, habitation, and education, and this he alone, because he alone is the cause of the sin.
c. To acknowledge the offspring and legitimize it through subsequent marriage; yet this obligation is only of charity or piety, and therefore does not urge with grave inconvenience.
471. Obligations of the fornicator: a. The fornicator is not bound to pay the expenses of birth if the mother can bear them, because the mother freely consented to the sin.
b. The burden of nourishing the offspring rests upon both parents from natural law.
The quantity which each part must contribute for nourishing the offspring they can establish by common consent. But if the father refuses to contribute his part, the mother can go to the judge: for civil law imposes the burden of nourishing illegitimate offspring, at least in part, on the male fornicator, with the exception of the French code, which imposes this burden on the mother alone.
c. If a woman admits two lovers and sins with each, so that it is unknown who is the father of the offspring, of itself neither is bound to nourish the offspring (except indeed the rare case of which in n. 460), because the woman is the cause why the father cannot be established.
Yet if civil law imposes in penalty of the offense the burden of nourishing the offspring on any male fornicator who can be the father of the offspring, the woman can demand payment from either through the judge: for a law of this kind cannot be called unjust, both because it is established in favor of the offspring, and because each fornicator truly placed the act by which he could become the father of the offspring.1 But where civil law does not grant this right to the woman, she acts unjustly and is bound to restitution when she denounces either man at will as father of the offspring, not having certitude of this thing, since she herself is the cause of the uncertainty.
1 Cf. C.A. Section 163, where he is presumed the father who had access to the mother at the suitable time; on the contrary C.G. Section 1717 denies every right of this kind to such a mother.