Article II. On Restitution Because of Defloration and Fornication

I say. A deflowerer or fornicator is held to nothing for merely natural damage or for the loss of virginity, because that damage cannot be compensated by money. - The same must be said of temporal damage which has followed from base intercourse, except the education of offspring, when the woman consented to the solicitation, because no injury is done to one knowing and willing. But if the deflowerer by force, fraud, deceit, or grave threats has violated the woman, he is held to repair all damages coming to her or her parents, because he is the efficacious and unjust cause of these damages. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 640 and 641. - Elbel, n. 220. - Lugo, disp. 12, n. 11.

Question. To what is a fornicator held toward spurious offspring?

Resp. If he has violated the mother by force, he is held to all expenses of nourishment and education, as is clear from what has been said. Nevertheless, in his default, the mother ought to undertake the care of the child, although she admitted no fault, because she is the mother; but then she retains recourse against the corrupter, who is held to compensate her for all the expenses which she has incurred on occasion of that offspring. - But if the woman consented to sin, both are held equally to the expenses if natural right is considered; but if attention is given only to civil laws, then:

1st. By Roman law the mother is held to nourish the infant for three years, and afterwards the father ought to provide for him.

2nd. By our law, Kenrick has these things: "The laws of the United States for the most part permit it to be defined by the decision of magistrates or judges what is to be paid; holding him as father whom the mother, under oath, affirms to have begotten the offspring." - Kent accords with these when he says: "The mother or reputed father is generally in this country chargeable by law with the maintenance of the bastard child; and in New York it is in such way as any two justices of the peace of the county shall think meet; and the goods, chattels and real estate of the parents are seizable for the support of such children if the parents have absconded. The reputed father is liable to arrest and imprisonment until he gives security to indemnify the town chargeable with the maintenance of the child. These provisions are intended for the public indemnity and were borrowed from the English statutes on the subject; and similar regulations to coerce the putative father to maintain the child, and indemnify the town or parish, have been adopted in the several States." - Cf. Kenrick, tract. 8, n. 85. - Kent, Comment. vol. 2, part. 4, lect. 29, n. 215.