§ I. On Stuprum

By the name stuprum here is understood intercourse with an unmarried woman, whether a widow or not a widow, whether honorable or corrupt.

I. If the young woman freely consented, the man committing stuprum per se is held to nothing. He is not held with respect to the young woman, because no injury is done to one who knows and wills, if there is question of a right which someone can validly renounce. But the young woman could validly renounce the right that no one use her body. Nor is he held to anything with respect to the parents, even if, so that the daughter may marry equally well, they must increase the dowry. The reason is that the young woman herself, since with respect to marriage she is in her own right, can close off for herself access to more honorable marriages without being unjust with respect to her parents; but of the damage which the parents perhaps will suffer from the fact that they increase her dowry, she is the occasion rather than the cause. Therefore, if the young woman, consenting to the man committing stuprum, does not act unjustly with respect to her parents, neither does the man committing stuprum, who enticed her to consent (St. Alphonsus, III, 641, doubt 2).

I have said per se; for if the man committing stuprum has divulged the hidden stuprum, he is held to repair the damages that will follow from his unjust detraction, whether toward the young woman or toward the parents, for example by increasing the dowry so that the daughter can marry equally well, or by procuring honorable marriage.

II. If the young woman was unjustly violated, by fraud, fear, or force, he is held to compensate all damages that will follow from the injustice, except the damage of perhaps injured virginity, which cannot be repaired. Hence he is held either to marry the young woman or, if she rejects marriage, which is free to her, to take care in some way that she can marry equally well as if she had not been violated (St. Alphonsus, III, 641, doubt 2).

Corollary I. Entreaties and gifts do not bring with them the obligation just mentioned. But the obligation follows: 1° "if threats or reverential fear are joined with the entreaties; 2° if the entreaties were so importunate and frequent that the young woman judged that harassment a greater detriment than the loss of virginity: for then solicitation so importunate is compared to force ... this nevertheless happens very rarely, since a woman can easily, by conceived anger or otherwise, free herself from the one soliciting her. ... 3° if a man begins by touches and kisses to bring force upon the young woman, even if afterward she freely consents to be deflowered; because through that antecedent violence the man placed her in proximate danger of consenting to intercourse; ... 4° if the man is unwilling to leave, and the virgin consents because otherwise she fears being defamed if she is found alone with him by others. Yet in these and similar cases, the Salmanticenses say that the violator is held only to a part, not to the whole reparation of damages" (St. Alphonsus, III, 641, question 2).

Corollary II. If the man committing stuprum is going to compensate the damages inflicted with money, let him enter into a contract with those who have suffered the damage, and let him pay the established sum at one time, lest dangerous intercourse be continued.¹

Corollary III. The man committing stuprum is held to nothing, or to restoring only a part, if damages have followed in no way or only partially, as if the young woman can now marry equally well, or if offspring has not followed (St. Alphonsus, III, 641, question 1).

III. If the young woman was led to intercourse by a promise of marriage, the following must be said:

1. If the promise was made seriously, the man committing stuprum, according to what was said in n. 833, sufficiently probably is not held from justice to contract marriage, because a contract of this sort, namely about base matter, is sufficiently probably invalid and remains invalid even if the other party has furnished her part (St. Alphonsus, III, 712). I have said from justice, because per se he is held from piety toward the offspring, if perhaps one has been conceived, as will be explained in the scholion. Moreover, if it is evident that the promise was made under a suppositive condition, the man committing stuprum, according to what was said in n. 849, once the condition has been fulfilled, or intercourse granted, seems to be held from justice to marriage.

2. If the promise was made fictitiously, the man committing stuprum is held to prevent or compensate all damages arising from the intercourse; indeed he is held to fulfill the fictitious promise, or to marry the young woman. For the deceiver is held to furnish that for which the deceived party so furnished her part that the matter can no longer be reduced to its former state; otherwise the injury inflicted is not repaired. But in our case the deceived party furnished her part for obtaining marriage, and the matter can no longer be reduced to its former state. Therefore it remains that the deceiver offer marriage to the deceived party (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 46, a. 2, ad 4; St. Alphonsus, III, 642). Besides, note:

a) True deception, and consequently the obligation of entering marriage, is lacking if the young woman could easily have understood from the circumstances that the promise was not serious; for example, "if the betrothed man is of much better condition, or if there was some evident sign of fraud; because it can probably be presumed that the betrothed woman was not deceived, but feigned that she was being deceived" (St. Thomas, loc. cit.; St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). But if in the case the young woman was ignorant of the man's condition, not even then does the one promising seem to be held to marriage, because the young woman did not think of a promise of such value, and sought only consent of lesser value. "And therefore he who promised is not held to marry her; but it suffices if he repairs the damage by endowing her or by providing for marriage" (St. Alphonsus, III, 642, doubt 2). Finally, the man committing stuprum is not held by the fictitious promise if the young woman also deceived him, for example by pretending that she was a virgin when she was not such; in that case injury is compensated by injury.

b) If the young woman refuses the offered marriage, the man committing stuprum is held to nothing. If only the parents contradict it and are unwilling to hand over the young woman, it is disputed whether the man committing stuprum is freed. Some affirm it, because then he is not held by reason of the fictitious promise, since by it he is held only to marriage; because then the damage does not arise from his fraud, but from the opposition of the parents. Others with St. Alphonsus deny it, because the fictitious promise of marriage was made for this sole end, that the damage be compensated; hence, if marriage cannot be entered, the damage must be compensated in another way (St. Alphonsus, III, 647).

Corollary. The man committing stuprum, in the case in which per se he is held to marriage, is excused from marrying the young woman: 1° "if the worst outcome is feared from the marriage, as if the young woman is known to be too inconstant ... if great scandals or quarrels are feared among the blood-relatives of those contracting ...; 2° if from such a marriage disgrace would come upon the man's family, by reason of disparity of condition" (St. Alphonsus, III, 644); 3° "if the man knew the woman, thinking she was a virgin, but found her corrupt" (St. Alphonsus, III, 646). But much more probably he is not excused on account of a vow of chastity or another similar thing, nor generally on account of another dispensable canonical impediment. In the case he is held to take care that the impediment be removed, since a means of this sort is ordinary and therefore does not bring with it a cause of excusing (St. Alphonsus, III, 649, 650).

What if the young woman was induced by a promise of marriage only to touches?

Response. If the promise was serious, the seducer is not held to marriage, unless again it is evident that the promise was made under a suppositive condition; he is held if it was made fictitiously. Or, theoretically, the same things hold as in the case in which the young woman was led to intercourse by a promise of marriage. But in practice, as regards a fictitious promise, note that commonly true deception, and consequently the obligation of marriage, is lacking, namely because the young woman can scarcely admit that the promise of so great a good, made for touches alone, is serious (St. Alphonsus, III, 645).

¹ Aertnys-Damen, I, n.^†.