Chapter IV. On Non-Consummated Lust

I. Notion. Non-consummated lust is the disordered use of venereal things which does not reach a completed act. Of this sort are: in a man, a motion of the genital organs prior to effusion; likewise distillation which is joined with venereal commotion; in a woman, non-extreme venereal commotion (n. 10). To this also belong acts, for example touches and looks, insofar as they are placed with venereal commotion, whether sought or voluntarily admitted.

II. Morality. 1. Non-consummated lust is intrinsically evil, because it involves the use of venereal things which is not ordered to the natural end of venereal things, that is, to the good of the species (n. 27).

2. Non-consummated lust is in itself gravely evil. It is proved first by authority. The Holy Office, to the question whether smallness of matter is given in the crime of solicitation, responded on February 11, 1661: "Negative, because in venereal matters there is not given smallness of matter, and if it were given, it is not given in the present matter." Then Clement VIII and Paul V commanded that those be denounced to the Inquisitors of the faith who assert that kisses, embraces, and touches had for pleasure are not mortal sins. Add proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII: "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had for carnal and sensual pleasure which arises from the kiss, with the danger of further consent and of pollution excluded, is only venial." Now, considered according to the obvious sense of this proposition, at least some venereal commotion must be held as grave by reason of itself. But if you admit this concerning some commotion, it is scarcely seen why it should not be affirmed concerning others. For all venereal commotions seem to differ only as more and less, so that, if some one of them is gravely evil by reason of itself, this ought to be said of all.

Objection. The proposition could have been condemned because every venereal pleasure voluntarily sought or admitted carries with it the proximate danger of further consent and of pollution. "Observe," says Billuart, "that that proposition sins, not because it says that such a kiss is venial if the danger is excluded, but because, says Steyaert, in order to cover its own shamefulness, it supposes that which is impossible, or certainly of metaphysical rarity, namely, that in such a case the danger of further consent can be excluded."¹

¹ De temperantia, diss. 5, art. 2.

Response. I deny the assertion, both because that explanation is in no way congruent with the obvious sense, and because it is scarcely admitted that to every voluntary venereal commotion there is annexed a proximate danger of further consent and of pollution. Who would say this, for example, of married persons?

Next, the proposition is proved from the fact that a non-consummated act is not - what it ought to be - a proximate and natural preparation and way to a legitimate consummated act, but rather a proximate and natural preparation and way to an illegitimate consummated act; these things are grave (St. Alphonsus III, 415; n. 28).

Finally, a non-consummated act is commonly gravely sinful also by reason of the danger of pollution. Wherefore especially as regards the unmarried these words of Billuart hold: "For since nature from its corruption is most fragile in this matter, and wholly inclined to these pleasures, and moreover this untaught passion, once voluntarily admitted, blinds the mind and seizes the will with such force that to set bounds to it is most difficult, not to say impossible, it can scarcely, or not even scarcely, happen that someone directly consents to carnal pleasure in itself without there being proximate danger of consenting to something further and more shameful. But that which of itself would be venial becomes mortal by reason of the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin."¹

Concerning the opinion of St. Thomas, one can compare I-II, q. 74, a. 8; II-II, q. 154, a. 4; Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, XV, a. 4; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, XV, a. 2, ad 18.

Corollary I. Even for betrothed persons an incomplete venereal act, or venereal commotion, is unlawful not only by reason of the danger of pollution, but also gravely unlawful in itself. A few teach that this is of itself only lightly unlawful for them, among whom are Cajetan² and Sanchez.³ But this opinion must be altogether rejected, since the reason on which it rests is destitute of all value. They say: "Betrothals are the beginning of marriage; therefore they confer a right to an incomplete venereal act." To these things the response is: 1. Betrothals are the beginning of marriage in this sense, that they confer the right of entering marriage with the betrothed person, or of receiving a right in the use of the body of the betrothed. But the right of receiving at some time a right in the use of the body in no way carries with it a right here and now - even initially, as they say - of using the body (St. Alphonsus VI, 854). 2. If the argument had force, it would prove too much, namely that betrothals cause a non-consummated act to become lawful, just as marriage causes a consummated act to become lawful.

The things said do not prevent touches, looks, and kisses which are not immodest from being lawful for betrothed persons, even if perhaps some commotion follows from them, provided that they neither intend it, nor consent to it, nor that there is grave danger of consenting to it. Namely, the fostering of betrothal love is a sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect in question; this reason indeed is not similarly present for others.

Corollary II. One who, when venereal commotion has arisen beyond the intention, does not positively, directly or indirectly,⁴ dissent, but behaves merely passively, sins gravely, at least if the commotion is graver. The reason is that, considering the vehemence of the pleasure, he exposes himself to grave danger of consenting. Nevertheless indirect resistance is not rarely to be preferred to direct resistance, especially if the motions are lighter, more prolonged, or more frequent (cf. St. Alphonsus V, 7, 8).

Corollary III. This corollary concerns sensible carnal pleasure (n. 11), concerning which, because of the connection of the matter, I judge it practical to add certain things. Now one who seeks or consents to sensible carnal pleasure places an act which in itself is indifferent. But if pleasure of this sort is directly and fully deliberately sought or admitted, especially by persons apt for intercourse, and especially if those acts are had with some affection and with delay, according to St. Alphonsus a grave sin is regularly, that is, for the most part, committed, because of the proximate danger of falling into and consenting to venereal commotion (III, 416).⁵

¹ De temperantia, dissert. 5, a. 2.

² On II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

³ De Matrimonio, l. IX, disp. 46, nn. 48 and 55.

⁴ Directly, for example by fighting the motion through an act of displeasure; indirectly, for example by praying, by thinking about other things, by continuing the work begun.

⁵ Several authors report the opinion of St. Alphonsus less accurately.