§ 3. On the External Non-Consummated Sins of Lust

Those sins of lust are called non-consummated in which pollution is not had, as was already said above. They are of two kinds: carnal movements and acts of immodesty.

689. Carnal or venereal movements are the commotions of the genital parts and of the humors existing in those organs;¹³³² they arise either from physiological causes, for example, excitation of the nerves or a flow of blood, or from moral causes, for example, thought, impure conversation, etc. These movements directly willed are always a mortal sin, as is clear from the first principle stated above; for they are venereal pleasure. But if they are involuntary, they are no sin at all, for there is no sin without consent of the will. Finally, if they are voluntary in their cause, judgment concerning their morality must be made according to the rules concerning the indirect voluntary already indicated several times. A cause which accidentally produces movements of this kind is not morally evil, provided that it is honest in itself; but the more it influences those movements, the greater is the excusing reason required, as will presently be said concerning acts of immodesty. Carnal movements of this kind are customarily suppressed easily and efficaciously: a) if their cause is removed, insofar as this is possible; b) if the mind is distracted to other things.

¹³³² They are wont to be joined with erection of the male member or of the female clitoris; likewise with some slight outward distillation. The morality of this distillation is to be judged in altogether the same manner as the morality of carnal movements.

690. Necessary resistance. Theologians dispute whether it is a mortal sin if someone, after full advertence of reason, does not repress the lustful movements of concupiscence, but conducts himself negatively, neither consenting nor dissenting.¹³³³ Whatever may be true concerning the speculative solution of this controversy, in practice an act of displeasure of the will must be posited; if this is seriously posited, it is not necessary in addition to resist positively these movements, which of themselves are natural and are wont to cease more quickly if a) a man does not concern himself much with them, b) he turns his mind to other things, or c) he changes his occupation or the position of his body. Moreover, if movements of this kind arise from a voluntary and less licit cause, for example, from reading a lustful book, from looking, or from illicit kisses, then such causes must be removed; but if they arise from a licit and necessary cause, internal complacency must indeed be seriously restrained, but externally it is lawful to conduct oneself passively. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed, and external resistance would harm rather than benefit. Hence, for example, if a confessor suffers such carnal movements, even vehement ones, from hearing a confession, he must indeed seriously withhold internal consent from them, but externally he can conduct himself passively. There are pious persons, but weakened in their nerves, who suffer carnal movements from actions not only indifferent but even holy, for example, by looking at a crucifix. Let the confessor console such persons and prudently induce them to despise carnal movements of this kind.

¹³³³ Billuart treats this question excellently (De luxuria diss. 6, a. 15, § 2); he is also rightly and deservedly reckoned among the best authors in all other questions touching upon the matter of lust, and far surpasses very many casuists.

691. Acts of immodesty are called those which are wont to have a proper relation to or influence upon venereal pleasure, such as shameful looks, touches, kisses, etc. Noldin deservedly writes concerning them:¹³³⁴ "The true doctrine must be held, that shameful looks and touches are opposed to the sixth precept, not of themselves and by their nature, but solely because they introduce the danger of venereal pleasure (pollution) and the danger of consent to it. Therefore, if there were persons (which assuredly will rarely occur) who from these actions suffered no danger either of a shameful movement or of consent to shameful pleasures, those actions would contain for them only the sin of an idle act of sensuality, but by no means a sin against chastity." - Therefore, the whole malice of these acts consists in the danger of venereal pleasure undertaken without a sufficient reason.

Two things are certain in this matter, namely: 1. not only immodest acts, but also any acts whatsoever honest in themselves, posited for the sake of venereal pleasure, are mortal sins, because an evil end vitiates every act; 2. these acts, since they are not sinful in themselves, can be had licitly for a reasonable cause, for example, for curing an infirmity. The sole difficulty, therefore, is how great and what kind of sin these acts are when exercised, not indeed from a lustful end, but without a reasonable and sufficient cause. The danger of consent to venereal pleasure arising from acts of this kind must be weighed a) from the nature of the act itself, and b) from the condition of the person.

In order to judge concerning the nature of the act, authors are accustomed to distinguish the honorable, less honorable, and dishonorable parts of the body. Honorable parts are those which are exposed to the sight of all, such as the hands, face, etc.; the breast and legs are held to be less honorable parts; the genitals and the parts altogether proximate to them are considered dishonorable parts. These things, however, hold only in our regions and with respect to adult persons; for with respect to infants scarcely any part can be called truly dishonorable. But in other regions, for example, in Turkey and in Chinese regions, judgment is made differently concerning the honorableness of members.

¹³³⁴ De sexto praecepto n. 51.

692. Specific malice. According to the common opinion of modern authors, shameful looks differ in species from shameful touches; indeed, a shameful look at a woman differs in species from a shameful look at a man. Billuart teaches otherwise:¹³³⁵ "I think ... that touches, kisses, and looks are not distinguished in species among themselves in the genus of lust; for since they are not evil of themselves, as has been said, but only by reason of the carnal commotion or pollution or intercourse which they excite and toward which they tend, they have among themselves the same species of malice, namely, of carnal commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, etc. Hence, in my judgment, a penitent would satisfy who said: So many times I excited in myself or in another a carnal commotion or pollution, while remaining silent as to whether it was through touches, looks, or kisses, provided that he explain his own condition and that of his accomplice; a fortiori he would satisfy by saying: So many times I took carnal pleasure concerning such or such a person, without explaining whether it concerned touches, kisses, or looks; but he should indeed explain if the pleasure concerned intercourse or pollution, because, since these differ in species from immodesty and must be accused distinctly, so also must pleasures concerning them."

This opinion indeed seems theoretically true, because it is not necessary to declare in particular the means indifferent in themselves employed for a sinful act; for just as it is not necessary to confess whether an unjust beating of one's neighbor was done with a stick or with clubs, provided that it is declared whether it was grave or light, so theoretically speaking it is not necessary to confess whether someone procured carnal pleasure for himself by a touch or a look, or whether he frivolously placed himself in grave danger of consent to carnal pleasure by a touch or a look, provided, however, that desire for intercourse was absent. In practice, however, one must prudently and discreetly insist that simple faithful confess touches, looks, and kisses in species, both because desire is often present and because they themselves cannot judge the gravity of the danger arising from acts of this kind.

¹³³⁵ De luxuria diss. 6, a. 15, § 3. A. Vermeersch teaches the same, Theol. mor. IV, n. 104.

693. Decent kisses, which are customarily given (even in the presence of others) according to the custom of the country for manifesting honorable affection, are licit,¹³³⁶ although carnal movements sometimes arise from them, provided, however, that complacency in venereal pleasure is restrained. Hence the kisses which, for example, are customarily given between betrothed persons, blood relatives, relatives by affinity, etc., are licit. In practice, kisses are recognized as more or less illicit if they would not be given while another honorable person was watching; but if they are given from levity or in jest, they are venial sins,¹³³⁷ provided that proximate danger of consent to venereal pleasure is absent.

But indecent kisses, which, namely, are given upon less honorable or dishonorable parts, or with insertion of the tongue into the mouth of another (the dove's kiss), are ordinarily gravely illicit because of the danger of illicit venereal pleasure.¹³³⁸ Between spouses, however, no kiss as such is a mortal sin unless proximate danger of pollution arises from it.

¹³³⁶ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, a. 4.

¹³³⁷ Cf. Billuart, l.c. a. 16, dico 5.

¹³³⁸ Cf. ib.

694. A touch lingeringly made upon the dishonorable parts of another adult person without necessity is wont to introduce grave danger of venereal pleasure and consequently is gravely illicit. If there is question of infants or those before puberty, the danger is indeed less, but nevertheless even these useless touches must be altogether avoided.

A touch made in passing either a) upon the dishonorable parts of one's own body or b) upon the less honorable parts of another person (indeed without an evil intention, but also without a cause of necessity or utility) seems to be a light sin, because the danger of illicit venereal pleasure ordinarily is not so grave. But if these touches are lingering, they are also lustful and consequently gravely sinful, for example, if someone lingeringly touches a woman upon the breasts.¹³³⁹ - Concerning a dishonorable touch of beasts, judgment must be made according to the intention and condition of the person touching. Since today the vice of bestiality rages sufficiently widely, touches of this kind made without necessity must be seriously prohibited, as being gravely dangerous and inducing to lust.¹³⁴⁰

¹³³⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 419.

¹³⁴⁰ Cf. ib. n. 420.

695. Looks are wont to introduce less danger of venereal pleasure, and consequently authors judge more mildly concerning them than concerning touches. Nevertheless, a lingering look at the dishonorable parts of another adult person of the opposite sex, made without necessity or true utility, seems to be a mortal sin, because it is wont to cause grave danger of venereal pleasure.¹³⁴¹ But he who without any evil desire looks at the dishonorable parts of some person is not bound to confess what sort of person this was, for example, whether she was a blood relative or a stranger.

a) To look at naked infants is not of itself so much an incentive to lust.

b) To look at truly artistic statues or pictures representing naked persons ordinarily is not a grave danger for an adult and serious person. The reason is that representations of this kind are, alas, so frequent in our times that they no longer move serious adult persons. I have said ordinarily; for these representations often are not so artistic, and then they incite more to lust.

c) To look in passing, from curiosity or levity, at the less honorable parts of one's own body or even of a person of the opposite sex is not yet of itself a grave danger of pleasure; nevertheless, this depends greatly upon the condition of the persons and places.¹³⁴²

d) A look at one's entire body is not of itself gravely dangerous or sinful; it is otherwise if such looks are joined with evil thoughts or desires. Likewise, authors commonly teach that it is not a mortal sin if persons of the same sex swimming look at one another in passing. Nevertheless, this custom of swimming is to be eliminated.

In modern times the custom has prevailed throughout the world that painters and sculptors employ naked persons of both sexes who stand as models.¹³⁴³ These artists contend that this is altogether necessary for the perfection of art. If this is truly so, then this manner of acting is licit, since the action is not illicit in itself and there is a sufficient reason and an honorable end. In practice, however, abuse is wont not rarely to creep in, so that sins are truly committed between the artists and these living models. The confessor must then act as with those who remain in a proximate occasion of sinning.

e) To look from curiosity, without a lustful affection, at the intercourse of animals is a venial sin; but such a look can easily produce grave carnal movements unless it is done for a sufficient cause or very briefly.

¹³⁴¹ Cf. ib.

¹³⁴² Cf. ib. n. 423.

¹³⁴³ Modell stehen [to stand as a model]. We wrote more fully concerning this matter in the Linzer Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift 1916, 342-347.

696. Conversations concerning obscene things made from a lustful affection or with grave scandal are grave sins. Sometimes, however, it will be difficult to judge whether a shameful conversation was a mortal sin, because the danger arising from speech of this kind depends greatly upon the various circumstances of the persons both hearing and speaking. Hence, for example, if married men or men of mature age alone among themselves mingle shameful speech for the sake of jest, they rarely commit a mortal sin; likewise, if married women or women of mature age alone among themselves speak shameful things. But if men with women, or young men and boys among themselves, or girls among themselves, or - what is worse - young men with girls, converse about truly obscene things, they almost always sin mortally, because they cause proximate danger both of grave scandal and of venereal pleasure. They would, however, be venial sins if the conversations were indeed freer but not obscene. - To hear shameful speech, or even to smile at the things heard, is a grave sin only when the hearer takes delight in them from an evil affection, or provoked them, or does not impede them although he ought to do so from his office.

697. The reading of evil books and attendance at the theater and dances often cause grave dangers of venereal pleasure; hence a proportionately grave cause is always required for doing these things.¹³⁴⁴ A confessor judging concerning these matters must attend both to their more or less grave objective shamefulness and to the subjective conditions of the penitent. Hence let the confessor greatly dissuade young persons of both sexes from reading novels which treat of love; indeed, let him strictly prohibit the reading if venereal pleasure is wont to arise in them from it. If the penitent is wont to sin in these matters, he must be treated as one who remains in an occasion of sin.¹³⁴⁵ - Several modern dances, such as the "Tango," "Jazz," "Shimmy," etc., are wont greatly to incite to lust and therefore are illicit.

¹³⁴⁴ Cf. above concerning scandal, I, n. 614 ff.

¹³⁴⁵ Cf. below, III, the tract on penance.