Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
a) On The Reparation Of Damage Arisen From Any Carnal Intercourse
147. Principle 1. In the forum of conscience, before the sentence of a judge, there is of itself no obligation of restitution on account of a physical lustful act, even one perpetrated by force.201
The reason is that it is impossible to assess such a physical lustful act in money. But it is said 1. before the sentence of a judge; for if a judge has condemned a defiler, fornicator, or adulterer (especially if they employed force), then such a sentence is just and obliges in conscience. Likewise, since a woman unjustly oppressed, or her parents, have the right of calling the violator before the tribunal of justice, they can exact money for the renunciation of this right. - It is said 2. of itself there is no obligation, because if from the physical act other damages have arisen, whether to body or reputation or fortune, e.g., syphilitic disease, there certainly exists an obligation of repairing those damages, as will appear from the following principles.
201 Thus the common opinion. A few authors, among whom Billuart (De iure et iust. diss. 10, a. 11, appendix 2, dico 2), think that the corrupter is held to pay money for the violation of the virginal cloister, if the parents or girl demand it.
148. Principle 2. He who has had carnal intercourse with a woman consenting spontaneously, a) is held to nothing indeed with respect to the woman; b) nevertheless is held in conscience (and indeed even before the sentence of a judge) by an equal obligation with the woman (in solidum) to educate the offspring perhaps conceived, until that offspring will be able to provide for itself.
The reason of the first part is that no injury is done to one knowing and willing. Hence, for example, a fornicator is not held from justice to pay the expenses of childbirth, unless nevertheless positive law has established otherwise.202 But the reason of the second part is that the offspring conceived must be educated by each parent, just as the natural law itself demands. But I say, before the sentence of a judge, because in several regions the civil judge, when asked, is accustomed to determine the quantity of support to be paid by the illegitimate father.203
If a woman has fornicated with several men and for this reason does not know certainly who is the father of the offspring, no one is held to repair for the woman herself any damage which she suffers from the birth and education of the offspring. Nevertheless in three cases all the men who about that time had intercourse with the woman are held, according to the proportion of the doubt, to reparation of damage, namely:
a) if by force or deceit they induced the woman to sin. For then there is grave injury on the part of the men.
b) if the woman is incapable of educating the offspring. For then there is present a natural obligation incumbent upon those who perhaps begot the offspring.
c) if there is question of a woman joined in marriage and it is certain that the offspring is not from the husband, but was begotten by one of the adulterers. Thus at least probably.204 For then the greatest injury is done both to the husband and to the other legitimate children. But St. Alphonsus and several other theologians teach that the adulterer probably is held to no reparation if there is doubt whether the offspring is his or the husband's, or even whether it is another adulterer's. For no one is held to reparation unless it is morally certain that he was the cause of the damage.
But how the quantity of reparation in these three cases is to be determined cannot be expressed by a general rule. In the first two cases all the expenses can be divided equally among the diverse men. In the last case the adulterous woman ought to restore half of all the damages, and the other half is to be divided equally among the diverse adulterous men. But if the woman cannot restore, the whole damage must be made good equally by the diverse accomplices.205 Besides, in practice, when a woman has had intercourse with several, the matter is accustomed quickly to become public, and then the civil judge will determine everything.
Fornicators or adulterers who are able to provide fitting sustenance, but secretly send offspring conceived from sin to a foundling home, do not seem to be held to any restitution if that foundling home is a work of private charity. The reason is that the faithful giving alms for institutions of this kind intend only the welfare of exposed infants and do not care which infants are fostered.206 But if the foundling home is supported at the expense of the city, then parents who by deceit cause infants to be educated there are held to restore the expenses of education, because foundling homes of this kind are not accustomed to be destined except for parents and infants truly poor. Billuart207 and others teach that in each case the parents are held to restore the expenses of education. But concerning this obligation there is no certainty.
202 Cf. Swiss Civil Code a. 317.
203 Thus, for example, the Civil Code of Germany (§ 1708 sqq.) establishes that the illegitimate father is held to provide fitting support for the offspring up to the 16th year. Cf. Austrian Civil Code § 166 to 171; Spanish Civil Code a. 143; Swiss Civil Code a. 317-319. The French Code imposes no obligation of support of the illegitimate child upon the illegitimate father; for it prohibits inquiry concerning the illegitimate father: "La recherche de la paternité est interdite" (a. 340). This, however, was changed somewhat in six cases by the law given Nov. 16, 1912.
204 Cf. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. mor. De iust. n. 578; Billuart, De iust. diss. 8, a. 11, § 6.
205 Thus also Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1190.
206 Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 656, who also in the second case exempts from the obligation of restitution.
207 De iure et iust. diss. 10, a. 11.
149. Principle 3. He who under a true or even fictitious promise of marriage has seduced an honorable woman to carnal intercourse is regularly held to lead her (although she has not become pregnant) into marriage.
Thus with St. Thomas208 and St. Alphonsus209 almost all theologians and jurisconsults think. The reason is that if the promise was true, then a true (although shameful) contract intervened, gravely obligatory. But if the promise was fictitious, then the promiser deceived the girl or woman enormously, and for this reason he is held, in punishment of such deception, now truly to promise and enter into marriage. But I have said, "he is regularly held to lead this woman into marriage," because several exceptions are given. And so this obligation falls:
a) if this woman afterward fornicates with another; because faith is broken with one breaking faith, as the adage says.
b) if from all the circumstances the woman could easily have understood that the promise of marriage was not serious.
c) if from entering into marriage grave evils, e.g., quarrels, enmities, are deservedly feared; which indeed is especially accustomed to happen if there is great disparity of condition between the man and the woman.
d) if the woman herself now no longer wishes to enter into marriage with the fornicator. In this case nevertheless it must be examined why the woman now no longer wishes to enter into marriage. For the man who deceived her, by showing himself better than he really is, is held at least to repair the damage which was caused from the fornication. But if, without any fault on the part of the man, the woman refuses to marry him, then the man is no longer held to anything.
208 4, dist. 28, q. 1, a. 2 ad 4.
209 L.c. n. 644.
150. Principle 4. He who by force, grave fear, or deceit induced a woman to carnal intercourse is held to repair all damages which arise from it to the woman, to the parents, to offspring perhaps born, and to others.
The reason is that he who perpetrates carnal intercourse in such a way is truly an unjust damager, who is held to repair all damages truly and efficaciously caused.
Under the name of fear here there also comes reverential fear (which otherwise in canon law is ordinarily not judged grave). Hence if the corrupter is a person of great authority, or a superior or guardian, whom the woman does not dare to resist, he is held to repair the damages arisen.
The damages which arise from unwilling intercourse are accustomed to be the following: bodily disease, defamation of the girl and dishonoring of the family, inability or at least greater difficulty of entering another marriage, expenses for childbirth and education of offspring, etc. The corrupter is not held, at least of itself, to enter marriage with the corrupted woman, unless he has promised this. The quantity of the reparation to be made can be determined either by a judge or from a free agreement of each party.