§ 5. On *Stuprum*, or Seduction

I. Notion. Stuprum can be taken in a broad and in a strict sense. Taken in the broad sense, it is defined: intercourse with a woman - whether a virgin or deflowered - who consents in no way or not freely, for example with one resisting, sleeping, insane, or consenting from fraud or fear. Taken in the strict or canonical sense, it is: intercourse with a virgin who consents in no way or not freely (St. Alphonsus III, 443); moreover, by the name of virgin here is understood one who retains the seal of virginity, even if perhaps she has sinned.

II. Morality. Stuprum is opposed not only to chastity but also to justice, because it involves the use of the body against the free will of the one to whom that use belongs. Indeed, if the woman who is forced to intercourse is a virgin, another injustice is added, and this more probably grave; it consists in the fact that the virginal seal is taken from the virgin, which, as a grave sign of immunity from intercourse, for example in order to the state to be undertaken, seems in itself to be of grave importance.

The former injustice ceases if the woman freely grants the use of her body; for although in that case, since she is not married, she acts illicitly, nevertheless she does not act invalidly, because God has granted to each person a right of using his or her own body.

It is disputed whether the other injustice also ceases if a virgin consents to her own defloration. Now St. Alphonsus (III, 443), with others, rightly affirms against many that it does. For, as we have said, God has granted to each person a right in the use of the body, so that a virgin, by granting the use, acts illicitly indeed, but not invalidly. But to the use of a virginal body belongs the injury of the virginal seal. Therefore she can validly grant it. Hence intercourse with a consenting virgin lacks every injustice and is equivalent to mere fornication; nevertheless "there can be a special sin from another source, namely by reason of infamy, or the grief of parents, or quarrels, hatred, and so forth" (St. Alphonsus III, loc. cit.).

Note 1. Stuprum, if it is reserved, likewise stuprum liable to ecclesiastical penalty, is understood as stuprum taken in the strict sense, unless something else is expressly signified.

Note 2. A girl oppressed by force is bound positively to resist the oppressor, and only on account of danger of death or of another harm equivalent to it is it permitted for her to remain passive, provided, however, that the danger of consent is removed. Since that danger of consent can easily be present in the case, it should be advised that the virgin rather allow herself to be killed than violated (St. Alphonsus III, 368). Likewise, "a woman oppressed by force... can, indeed must, turn herself and interrupt intercourse, even if the man's semen were to be poured out, because this would happen by accident and by reason of the man's malice alone" (St. Alphonsus VI, 954, doubt 1).

Note 3. It is disputed whether it is licit for a woman oppressed by force to expel the male semen received. With St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) and others we think it must be denied. For since semen as such exists only on account of the good of the species, and the good of the species is subordinated to no created good but to God alone, every disposition concerning semen as such which directly impedes the good of the species is intrinsically evil. But the oppressed woman of whom we are speaking expels the semen as such, and by that expulsion directly impedes the good of the species. Therefore the expulsion is intrinsically evil. It is added that, if this argumentation is rejected, it is not seen by what reasoning that way of acting, of which there is discussion in nn. 108-109, namely the constriction of the mouth of the uterus, can be proved intrinsically evil.