Article III. The Neo-pagan Estimation of Continence

165. - We can assign our contemporaries who are alien from the faith and who write or give counsel concerning sexual matters to two schools for this question no less than for the preceding ones.

1. The first school uses approximately these principles, or rather repudiates principles in this manner. For it denies that there are any moral laws which are proper to the sexual function. It holds that the things which have customarily been handed down are to be attributed to superstition, arbitrary customs, and these for the most part vitiated by hypocrisy.

Let Lalande be heard: "It must be acknowledged that there is no properly sexual morality; and that everything which can legitimately be prescribed in this matter is reduced either to rules of hygiene, rendered indirectly moral by the principles of temperance and dignity; or to the application between men and women of the general rules of sincerity, justice, and benevolence; or finally to provisional respect for existing laws, even while one works to obtain their alteration" ¹.

¹ André-Lalande, Essai de catéchisme moral.

Therefore they contend that all things are to be recalled to the general law by which man is forbidden to harm himself and others, and ought to provide for himself and also for the human species. But they entirely omit to say why man is forbidden to do the former and ought to furnish the latter, so that their general law seems to waver together with the special laws which they deny.

Thus in egoism, insofar as they wish it to be reasonable, and in a certain kind of "altruism," they preserve traces of moral consideration. They are also moved by some sense of human dignity, so that they vehemently condemn venal sexual commerce, since it is empty of love.

But they entirely condemn the perfect continence of a youth who is sufficiently mature or of a man of mature age as contrary to nature, frequently harmful, and surpassing human powers.

For this reason they say that sexual lust must be ruled in such a way that satisfaction is appropriately deferred, lest it harm the body; and that it be taken with sufficient moderation, lest labor useful to the community be impeded. They also will that the generation of weak or defective offspring, or of offspring whom the parents are unwilling or unable to educate with fitting care, be avoided.

With these things prescribed, they hold that all other things are honorable. They assign no cause why we should be ashamed of the sexual appetite more than any other appetite whatever. Therefore, they hold that no reproach is incurred by one who indulges in moderate masturbation, who contracts for a temporary sexual commerce, or who uses animals for calming lust.

Indeed, since men defective in body or instinct must be entirely prevented from procreating degenerate offspring, they hold that sterility is to be imposed upon them.

Nor would a law by which they were compelled to undergo castration be unjust.

But they regard it indignantly that, in civil life, a woman who has conceived or given birth outside matrimony and illegitimate children suffer a certain infamy.

The followers of this school do not hesitate to hand down practical counsels accommodated to these rules.

There are nevertheless some who, on account of the danger of venereal disease, fear to commend illicit sexual commerce. Wherefore a certain man by the name of Couvreur advocated that a special house be established where healthy women, at that age when, although already deprived of the menstrual flow, they are nevertheless not without allurements, would be prepared to satisfy young men.

To a school of this kind belong Forel in Switzerland, Nystroem in Sweden, Carpenter in England, and Ivan Bloch in Germany ².

² His work was translated into Italian by Professor Carrara under this title: La vita sessuale dei nostri tempi. Turin, 1912.

2. The other school, however, wills that the rights of honorable conduct be preserved intact. Wherefore it sometimes attacks the former school sharply. Its adherents contend that continence is possible, and add that this is to be proclaimed. Nor are there lacking among them those who censure the common opinion because it sets forth two moral laws (la double morale), a more severe one for women and a more benign, or rather more lax, one for men.

Thus Féré, Seved Ribbing, Good, and Hegar ³.

³ Many others are cited in the excellent booklet of Francotte, Professor at the University of Liège: De quelques points de morale sexuelle dans ses relations avec la médecine. Louvain, 1907.

The more honorable school agrees with the former in this: that matrimony can by no means be counseled to those who have perverse instincts; they differ among themselves in indicating positive remedies.

Let us give these few words from Féré: "The victory belongs to the most chaste.... The general effect of civilization is to subject the instincts to the will. Education has as its end the capacity to master the instincts: it is this which raises men above animals.... The training of inverts to chastity is the fundamental indication of their education. Attempts to rectify the sexual instinct can succeed only in making the invert a debauchee or an unhappy husband, while through chastity he can tend toward the noblest ends. He must learn that one does not serve society only by giving it children: many of the men most useful to humanity have lived in celibacy and chastity. It has been possible to say that genius is celibate" ⁴.

⁴ L'instinct sexuel, pp. 12, 26, 28, 285.

We need not struggle with the latter school, since, on the contrary, it provides us useful defenders by whom we may better, even in the name of true science, defend chaste morals and urge them in practice.

But of the tenets of the former school only two, besides which they adduce nothing probable, must be touched upon by us. By one they contend that perpetual celibacy is a crime against nature; by the other they will that, every distinction of law having been removed, a woman who has given birth outside matrimony and offspring who have been born outside matrimony should be held in the same place as legitimate offspring and a legitimate wife.

Against them we posit two theses, the first of which is expressed thus:

Nature is in no way offended by perpetual celibacy.

166. - This position has already been proved above, where we compared the state of celibacy with matrimony. Cf. no. 145. Nevertheless, it does not displease us to repeat the statements summarily, by showing that nothing can be gathered for condemning celibacy either from the physical power of the organ, or from the spontaneous and useless emission of semen among celibates, or from the natural appetite for the act.

For the physical presence and power of the organ denote a faculty given to individuals, but not of themselves an obligation. And here it must be observed that an incomplete organ is given to each individual, the right use of which requires the free consent of another person.

Moreover, useless emissions of semen are numerous even among spouses. Indeed, if anyone has married a sterile woman, all will be fruitless (as regards the generation of offspring). Wherefore no one can condemn him who abstains from useful insemination for the sake of a greater good. Besides, would not the adversaries wish all persons of weaker health to be barred from marriage by the laws themselves?

Finally, natural appetite proves the utility and honorableness of the conjugal act, but not a natural duty of individuals. For would inclination be a sign of duty whenever we experience it? No one has hitherto advanced anything so inept: a precept of unbridled lust would then be given. But if inclination demonstrates a duty only sometimes, those cases will therefore have to be judged from elsewhere, that is, from the end. And since the end is plainly obtained without the obligation of individuals, indeed is attained in a manner which contributes more to the good of the human race, we rightly and deservedly deny the obligation of individuals.

Nor does that inclination demonstrate celibacy to be impossible, which so many persons voluntarily and honorably accept as a perpetual condition of life, and which nature wishes most persons to tolerate at that age when, already burning with heat, they are nevertheless not yet fully mature for matrimony.

That we may now propose the other conclusion, we speak thus:

167. - Although a woman who has given birth from fornication possesses in motherhood itself a title by which greater indulgence should be shown to her, and although illegitimate offspring should not be punished with a penalty properly so called, nevertheless the law of the mutual communication of honor and disgrace ⁵, founded in nature and most salutary, demands that this woman and the offspring should thence obtain a humbler place in civil society.

⁵ Law of solidarity.

By these words we do not deny that those unfortunate persons can be affected with excessive infamy. A woman who, after sin was committed, nevertheless was unwilling to violate nature and voluntarily assumes the burdens of motherhood, already in part repairs her fault generously, especially today, and is worthy of much mercy.

We also entirely approve those who strive by suitable laws to obtain this, that the seducer may no longer be able to go off unpunished and owe nothing toward supporting his offspring. For both who sinned are equally guilty; but he who was the principal author of the fault is more guilty.

Indeed, we judge it excessive that a woman who has sinned once should on that account be subject to perpetual dishonor.

But at the same time it is necessary that its rights and positive privileges remain with the legitimate bed.

For nature, or God, has bound men one to another, especially children to parents, by a law of mutual dependence, so that we experience benefits and detriments also from the action of others. He who begets with a sound body will have children who are of themselves healthy, just as a rich and honored man bequeaths to his descendants the fortunes and glory acquired by himself. On the other hand, the infirmity of parents will be very prejudicial to the health of their children, and through imprudent management of domestic affairs the children will be reduced to want. Now then, in like manner children participate in some way in the guilt of the wickedness of the persons whom they seem to continue.

This law is commended by the common utility. Through it an efficacious stimulus is added for pursuing virtue, and we are more strongly turned away from dishonorable practices, while we have clearly perceived that we can at the same time benefit or harm our dearest relatives.

Indeed, the humbler place which is of itself assigned to an illegitimate son can be a cause for a man of stout heart to wish by his own illustrious deeds to expiate the fault of his parents and to purge his name of disgrace. And we judge it to be in the interest of the state that an occasion be offered in civil society for redeeming this fault, as it were original, and compensating for it by one's own merits.

We even confess that an adequate explanation of this connection and mutual dependence can be given with difficulty if you deny that we are now situated in a stage of probation, and that another permanent state is to be awaited, where there will no longer be any generation and each person will obtain his own place from his own action alone.

Although even now the unity of the human race itself and our condition, by which we are members of a greater body, is confirmed by this community of merit and demerit.

But how vainly those who attack this law of mutual dependence strive against nature is proved by daily facts, by which, in a spontaneous movement, we extend even to a whole nation the hatred or horror which certain citizens of that nation have merited by their crimes. Why, then, would those who affirm "national solidarity" will a legitimate wife and legitimate children to be despoiled of their proper distinction and honor? No probable reason can be adduced; rather, the endeavors themselves seem to be explained by a diminished estimation of moral honorableness.