Bestiality

44. Nature. a. Bestiality is the intercourse of a human being with a beast. It makes no difference in what manner the intercourse occurred, whether in the natural vessel or in another part of the body, whether with effusion of semen or without it, provided intercourse has had place; for the specific malice of bestiality consists in affection toward another species.

b. If the sin of bestiality is reserved, bestiality which is committed in the natural vessel with effusion of semen is to be understood, therefore consummated bestiality, unless the one reserving declares otherwise.¹

¹ Cf. Salmanticenses, ibid., n. 140.

45. Principles. 1. Bestiality is the gravest among sins of lust, more horrible than sodomy itself. Its special malice consists in access to a diverse species, which is still more repugnant to right reason than access to an undue sex or to an undue vessel.

2. Bestiality does not differ in species, whether it was committed with a beast of this or that species; and since now it has been explored that generation cannot follow from intercourse of this kind, it makes no difference of what sex the beast was, whether male or female. For the specific malice consists in access to a species diverse from man; the specific diversity and the sex of beasts are related to this only materially.

3. Immodest touches with a beast are not the sin of bestiality unless the base affection of the one touching is borne precisely toward the beast, which rarely occurs, since the sinner ordinarily intends only to satisfy libido. Wherefore this circumstance does not have to be declared necessarily in confession if someone, by means of the tongue of a beast of burden or of another beast, has excited venereal pleasure or pollution in himself.

To complete the treatment concerning sins of lust, and specifically concerning sins of lust against nature, a few things must be treated concerning abnormal sexual appetite.

Sexual appetite deflects from the common norm in a twofold way: a. in that it is increased beyond measure, hypersexuality; b. in that it puts itself forth in another way, sexual perversion.

46. On hypersexuality. 1. Sexual affection in diverse human beings, as regards vehemence, is diverse; in men it is more vehement than in women, but even among persons of the same sex some have been allotted a more vehement affection than others; sometimes it reaches an extraordinarily great vehemence. A sexual appetite of this kind, more vehement, is found both in those who labor under a psychic defect and in those who are not psychopathic.

2. The cause of this matter is partly a disposition acquired by heredity, partly an illness of the nerves, partly abuse of alcoholic drink. Sexual excesses are added, which increase both the illness of the soul and the sexual affection: for repeated excesses generate a depraved habit, which sometimes grows so enormously that libido is excited from any even very slight cause and then almost mechanically, by physical necessity, impels toward pollution.

3. The signs from which it is discerned that the sexual appetite has been increased beyond measure, pathologically, are these: if libido, scarcely satisfied, is soon excited again; if libido is excited from the sight of things indifferent in the genus of lust; if sexual affection so occupies a human being that he thinks and speaks almost only about this matter and seeks means of satisfying the affection.

4. Imputability. Those who are sound of mind can and must repress and moderate sexual affection, even the more vehement, nor do they suffer any detriment of health from not satisfying even a most vehement sexual appetite. Therefore sins committed against chastity must be fully imputed to them. Indeed even those who labor under a psychic defect sin voluntarily and culpably, unless the defect is of a greater degree. Sexual excesses will be so much the less voluntary and culpable as the illness of the soul is greater and more intense; they are fully involuntary in those who are mentally ill or fully psychopathic.

It must be noted that physicians addicted to materialism, by the worst counsel, exhort those, especially youths, who suffer frequent pollutions and vehement sexual excitations, to go to women in order to lessen the evil: for they say that abstinence brings grave detriments to the health of body and mind. Means and medicines are not lacking by which the vehemence of sexual libido may be lessened; therefore those for whom this is necessary should be directed to a physician, but to a Catholic physician, who uses licit means for repelling the evil, and who is persuaded that chastity commanded by the law of nature, even perpetual chastity, harms neither the health of the body nor of the soul.

47. On sexual perversion.¹ 1. Sexual perversion consists in this, that sexual appetite and sexual actions are abnormal in this respect, that libido is excited not by internal and external acts pertaining to venereal matters, as ordinarily happens, but by other things altogether alien to sexual life.

2. It can indeed happen that the sexual disposition, initially not alien from the common norm, has become abnormal through sins of lust against nature committed for a long time; nevertheless ordinarily the abnormal disposition has been transmitted by heredity from parents, with a morbid affection of the nervous system.

3. Four diverse forms of perverse sexual disposition are distinguished: Sadism, Masochism, Fetishism, Contrary Sexuality.

a. Sadism² is so called if venereal delectation is excited by imaginations or actions which contain cruelty and violence, such as: to strangle, to stab with a knife, to strike, to whip, to slaughter (Lustmord).

a. These actions are not performed in order to obtain intercourse from the person to whom force is applied, but in order through them to excite, quiet, and satisfy libido.

b. This perversion is found frequently in men, scarcely ever in women; for since man in sexual life is the active principle and, if it is permitted to speak thus, the aggressive principle, it seems to have arisen from the degeneration of the office which in sexual functions naturally belongs to the man.

b. Masochism³ is so called if venereal delectation is excited by the fact that one suffers violences and torments, such as being struck, being attacked with the heel, being beaten, being whipped, being stabbed even to the effusion of blood, etc.

This perversion is especially found in women, which is easily understood from the things said above, since the woman has herself more passively in sexual functions. Indeed they are not without the sense of pain while they suffer force, but by the sense of venereal pleasure the pain is abundantly compensated.

c. Fetishism is so called if libido is excited by imaginations or actions which do not pertain to venereal things, and therefore otherwise are not apt to excite pleasure.

The things or parts of the body whose imagination or handling excite venereal sense are the hand, foot, eye, hair, undergarment, shoes, feathers, cloths, etc. For the most part these things or parts of the body have a relation to a determinate person loved by an inordinate affection; but it can happen that even of themselves, independently of relation to a certain person, they provoke venereal delectation and pollution.

d. Contrary sexuality is so called if sexual appetite tends toward a person of the same sex. Therefore the venereal sense is provoked not from the imagination, sight, or touch of a person of diverse sex, but of the same sex.

a. The sins which are committed by those who labor under this perversion are mutual pollutions and sodomitical intercourses. If the perverse inclination is borne toward boys, it is called pederasty; nevertheless ordinarily it tends toward men.

b. This perversion is also found in women, in whom it is called lesbian or sapphic love, and it induces mutual pollutions and sodomitical sins which women commit among themselves.

4. Imputability. a. Sexual perversion is not a sign of a diseased mind: perversions are found even in those who labor under no psychic defect; nevertheless this seems capable of being affirmed, that perversions are had more frequently in persons of diseased mind than of sound mind.

b. Not only those who are of sound mind, but also those who labor under a psychic defect, can repress perverse sexual appetites; accordingly the sins, or perversities, committed must be imputed to them, unless the psychic defect has reached a greater degree. It then becomes ineluctable when to the psychic defect there is added great vehemence of the sexual appetite, whether ordinary or perverse.

5. They ask whether sins with a person of the same sex committed by those in whom contrary sexuality is innate are specific sins of sodomy, since the perverse affection toward the same sex in them is without their own will and therefore inculpable. But in truth, since the specific nature of sodomy consists in affection toward the same sex, there can be no doubt concerning the nature of sodomy, even if by nature they are borne toward the same sex and suffer aversion from the diverse sex. Therefore just as others must repress an inborn fornicatory affection, so they must repress an inborn sodomitical affection.

Note. The confessor should know that certain traces of a perverse sexual disposition are sometimes found even in those whose sexual life otherwise does not depart from the common norm: for not a few are met with who are basely excited by imaginations or actions which scarcely refer in any way to venereal things, as by a chastisement of boys represented through imagination, by reading about the torments which the martyrs suffered, by imagination or touch of hair gathered into a knot, etc. Against temptations arising from images or actions of this kind, they must fight just as against other temptations attacking chastity. Those whose sexual perversion is perfect are excited only by abnormal means; by base means, however, they are excited not at all or only a little.

¹ Capellmann-Bergmann, Past.-Mediz.^14 (Aachen: Barth, 1904), p. 87 ff.

² The name is drawn from the Marquis de Sade, who was affected by this perversity and presents, as it were, its prototype.

³ The name is taken from Sacher Masoch, who especially describes this perversion in his fictional narratives (Romane).

Bestiality is intercourse with a beast.

Provided there is pollution, it is indifferent whether the beast be male or female, of what species it may be, or by what part the act is performed, since the malice of this sin consists in approach to a different species, with which generation cannot be had. It is a graver sin than even sodomy, since in this sin the same species is not kept. It is established today that generation does not follow from the intercourse of a man with a beast.

Sodomy and bestiality are most gravely punished by the ecclesiastical law and also by the civil law (Can. 2357, 2359).

I. Notion. Bestiality is intercourse with a beast (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 12, ad 4; St. Alphonsus III, 474). Now the essence and malice of this sin seems to consist in venereal mingling with an individual of a species with which the act of generating cannot be instituted. Hence for bestiality, equally and for the same reasons as for sodomy (n. 52), there are required: 1. an act placed after the manner of intercourse; 2. an act placed, by means of the genital member, on the part of the agent; 3. insertion of the genital member into some vessel of the beast, that is, into the natural vessel or into another. Moreover, it does not matter of what species or of what sex the beast was, "because the whole essential deformity of this crime consists in access to a diverse species" (St. Alphonsus III, 474).

Corollary I. Bestiality is not had if someone indecently touches a beast with the hand, or, for example, admits the tongue of a beast to his own private parts. Besides, intercourse with a beast which has not taken place in some vessel is not bestiality in act, although it will easily have annexed an affection toward bestiality.

Corollary II. If bestiality is reserved anywhere, it is understood as congress in the natural vessel of the beast, with effusion of semen made there.

II. Morality. Bestiality - equally and for the same reasons as pollution and sodomy (n. 5) - is intrinsically and gravely evil; indeed it is the gravest sin of lust, because through it a man is venereally mingled with a diverse species. Add these words of Sacred Scripture: "He who has intercourse with a beast or cattle, let him die the death; also kill the beast. - The woman who lies beneath any beast shall be killed together with it; their blood be upon them."¹

Note. Bestiality is committed more rarely in cities than in villages, by peasants, stablemen, and others who spend much time with beasts; more rarely by women than by men. If someone seems to have to be questioned, he can be asked whether the presence of animals was for him an occasion of sinning. If the confessor from the response notices that the penitent is free from this sin and perhaps ignorant of it, let him take care to shut out the idea of that sin, asking, for example, whether he acted cruelly toward animals.²

¹ Lev. 20:15-16; cf. Exod. 22:19.

² Aertnys, Theologia pastoralis, n. 38.

Unnatural Lust.—Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of reproduction. In some non-venereal respects, however, natural sins of impurity may be worse than the unnatural; for example, adultery is worse as regards injustice, sacrilegious lust as regards irreligion, etc. There are four distinct species of unnatural impurities— pollution, unnatural coition, sodomy, bestiality (see Denzinger, n. 1124).

(a) For procreation nature requires copulation, and hence pollution is unnatural, for it exercises semination without copulation, either alone (self-abuse, solitary vice, masturbation) or with another (softness).

(b) For procreation nature requires proper copulation, that is, one that will permit of a fertile union between the two life elements, the sperma and the ovum. Hence, unnatural coition does not comply with this necessity, for it does not employ the proper organ of sexual union, substituting rectal for vaginal intercourse, or else by some form of natural or artificial onanism it frustrates the act of its destined conclusion. This sin is worse than pollution, since pollution omits to use intercourse, whereas unnatural coition positively abuses it.

(c) For procreation nature requires heterosexual intercourse, a condition disregarded by sodomy, which is the lustful commerce of male with male (pederasty, uranism), or of female with female (tribadism, sapphism, Lesbian love). This sin is worse than unnatural coition, for it is a greater perversity to neglect one of the two needed life elements than to neglect the right process for their union (see Gen., xix. 24, 25; Lev., xx. 13; Rom., i. 26, 27).

(d) Finally, for procreation nature requires homogeneous intercourse, a law violated by bestiality, which is coition of a human being, male or female, with a brute animal. This is the worst of unnatural impurities, since it sins against the most fundamental condition for the sexual act, namely, that the participants be of the same nature (see Lev., xx. 15, 16). Similar to bestiality is the crime of necrophilism (intercourse with a corpse).

What is bestiality? - Bestiality is concubitus with a beast. The species of this sin is not changed, morally speaking, from the variety of beasts. But whether it is morally changed from diversity of sex, some affirm, but commonly and more probably it is denied. "Therefore the whole essential deformity of this crime consists in approach to a different species." L. 474. "That bestiality be complete, the emission of seed is required on the part of the perpetrator. Soettler says there is no need to declare in Confession whether intercourse was in the womb or in another part of the body of the brute, since no part is destined for receiving human seed. Nevertheless, in the case in which this sin were reserved, Billuart holds that insemination within the vessel of the brute is necessary, because reservation, as odious, must be restricted to the consummated act. Therefore Billuart does not repute bestiality consummated unless it is done within the vessel of the brute; hence, at least for the most part, it cannot be consummated by women." Craisson, Notiones circa sext. Decal. praec., n. 178. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 11; E. M.

What about intercourse with a demon? Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality. Hence "more universally it is defined by St. Thomas and others as bestiality, a sin against nature by which a man lies with an animated thing of a different species; namely so that the unspeakable coitions of witches and magicians with incubus or succubus demons may also be comprehended, containing, besides sin against nature, also a special sin against religion, namely of association and wicked commerce with a demon, the most wicked enemy of God and of all of us; and therefore without doubt this must necessarily be explained in Confession." Sporer 625.

"But does he who has intercourse with a demon appearing in the form of a married woman, a nun, or a blood relative, always sin affectively by the sin of adultery, sacrilege, or incest? Busembaum with others seems universally to affirm; but it must very probably be denied, if the one lying with the demon is delighted concerning that woman represented by the demon, not as married, or as a nun, but as beautiful, according to the opinion of Lugo, Patritius, Vasquez, and many others, who very probably teach that morose pleasure does not involve the species of the object concerning which someone is delighted, unless the circumstance of the person enters into the pleasure." L. 475.

What about touches with a beast? "Immodest touches with a beast, although they are not properly sins of bestiality, nevertheless have some special baseness, as Elbel says, at least venial." L. 474; Cf. here 814.

112. Bestiality is concubitus with a beast. The species of this sin is not changed, morally speaking, from the variety of beasts. But whether it is morally changed from diversity of sex, some affirm, but commonly and more probably it is denied. "Therefore the whole essential deformity of this crime consists in access to a different species." L. 474. "For bestiality to be complete, effusion of semen on the part of the perpetrator is required. Saettler says that it is not necessary to declare in confession whether the congress was in the belly or in another part of the body of the brute, since none is destined to receive human semen. Nevertheless, in the case in which this sin were reserved, Billuart holds that semination within the vessel of the brute is necessary, because reservation, as being odious, must be restricted to the consummated act. Billuart therefore does not consider bestiality consummated unless it is done within the vessel of the brute; consequently, at least for the most part, it cannot be consummated by women." Craisson, Notiones circa sex. Decal. praec. n. 178. Cf. here n. 118.; St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11.

113. Congress with a demon is reduced to bestiality. Hence "more universally by St. Thomas and others bestiality is defined as a sin against nature by which a man lies with an animate thing of a different species; so that, namely, the unspeakable coitions of witches and magicians with demons, incubi or succubi, may also be comprehended, containing, besides the sin against nature, also a special sin against religion, namely of society and wicked commerce with the demon, the most wicked enemy of God and of us all; and therefore without doubt this must necessarily be explained in confession." Sporer 625.

114. "But does he who coits with a demon appearing in the form of a married woman, a nun, or a blood-relative, always sin affectively by the sin of adultery, sacrilege, or incest?"

Busembaum with others seems universally to affirm; but it is very probably to be denied, if the one lying with her is delighted in that woman represented by the demon, not as married or as a nun, but as beautiful, according to the opinion of Engel, Paul, Vasquez, and several others, who very probably teach that morose delectation does not involve the species of the object in which someone is delighted, unless the circumstance of the person enters into the delectation. Liguori 475.

115. "Immodest touches with a beast, although they are not properly sins of bestiality, nevertheless have some special turpitude, and Elbel says, at least venial." L. 474.; cf. here n. 103. Hence the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone by the tongue of a beast of burden or of a lesser beast excites venereal delectation or pollution in himself, without affection toward the beast.

435. • The unspeakable and execrable crime of bestiality is intercourse with a beast. It is the gravest among sins of lust, because it is most repugnant to rational nature. It was punished by death in the Mosaic law: "He who shall lie with a beast or cattle, let him be put to death; kill the beast also." Exod. 22. 19. That sin is also more horrible than sodomy itself, and its special deformity consists in access to a diverse species. - St. Lig., n. 474.

436. • Immodest touches with beasts, although they are not sins of bestiality properly so called, are nevertheless to be declared when some venereal delight is sought from them. But the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone, by means of the tongue of a beast of burden or of another beast, excites venereal pleasure or pollution in himself. Nor is it necessary to explain in confession of what species the beast was, nor whether it was male or female. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 474.

But here note that the Confessor ought to be very cautious, prudent, and sparing in questioning penitents about sins of lust, especially about those which seem more horrendous and unusual. See the rules to be handed down below in the Treatise on Penance, where there is question of the duties of the Confessor.

57. 3. Concerning bestiality. (A) Bestiality is intercourse with a beast; when effusion of seed in the natural vessel accedes, bestiality properly so called and consummated is had. Where sodomy is reserved, reservation is to be understood of this kind, unless another thing is established.

(B) Bestiality is of itself the gravest of all sins of luxury, since through it man is compared to beasts and becomes one flesh with them.³ - The species of the sin is not changed, whatever the sex of the beast may be. - This crime is committed especially by country people, and by certain women who use dogs to fulfill lust. Immodest touches with a beast are not properly bestiality, but lead to it and often provoke pollution: in which case they are gravely sinful.

³ In the old law the horrendous crime of bestiality was not only prohibited, but punished with death: "He who has intercourse with a beast or cattle, let him die the death; kill the beast also. The woman who shall lie under any beast, let her be killed together with it" (Lev. 20:15-16).

58. (C) Related to this sin is the crime of necrophilia, or intercourse with a dead woman, which is sometimes committed by guardians of the dead: it shows a wholly depraved sense.

347. - Bestiality is lying together or coitus with a beast.

1. For the moral essence of this infamous sin, it is necessary that the sinner have willed to enjoy the body of a beast. This will regularly be present in the abuse of a larger beast.

But when someone abuses a smaller beast, for example a hen, it can very easily happen that he has taken the beast in the same manner as an inanimate thing, as an instrument of pollution sought because of its imitation of the female organ. Then, according to moral estimation, it seems to us that pollution with a fornicatory affection has been committed; nor must the circumstance of the beast be declared any more than the circumstance of an inanimate thing.

2. For the canonical essence of the sin, when bestiality itself is reserved and nothing more severe has been declared, the lying together of consummated copulation is required and suffices.

3. Neither morally nor canonically does it matter of what genus or sex the beast was.

Formerly, indeed, congress with a beast of the other sex was thought to create the danger of a monstrous offspring; but the matter has today been ascertained, and it is certain that no offspring is to be feared.

I. Bestiality (beestachtigheid) is concubitus with a brute animal. In order that it be perfectly consummated in the notion of bestiality, there must be present an effusion of semen into some vessel, and indeed a natural one, or one destined for coitus. Hence where it is a reserved sin, it is to be understood in this way, unless otherwise expressly noted.

II. Bestiality per se, as a distinct species, is the gravest of all sins of lust, because it most of all disturbs the order of nature, and through it man is compared to beasts of burden, so that he becomes one flesh with them. See Lev. XX, 15-16.

Its species is not changed whatever the genus or sex of the animal may be.

III. To bestiality is reduced:

1. concubitus with a succubus or incubus demon, appearing under human form, because the demon is of a diverse species from man. This sin adds to bestiality a species against religion, namely the malice of superstition; besides, other malices can be added according to the form of the joined person, religious, of the same or a different sex, under which the demon shows itself. Rarely does the demon truly appear; ordinarily it happens from a certain vehement hallucination that someone really judges himself to have concubitus with a demon.

2. Likewise necrophilia, or copulation with a dead female, which is sometimes committed by guardians of the dead and shows an altogether depraved sense. This sin according to the thing participates in the malice of pollution, because semen is cast into an inanimate thing; of fornication, because of the external form of a female; and of bestiality, because of the diversity of species. But this last is not always perceived by the sinner, and therefore according to affection the species of the sin depends on the apprehension and intention of the one acting, for example effective pollution and affective fornication.

IV. Observations. 1. This crime is committed especially by country-dwellers and keepers of livestock, and by certain women who use dogs for fulfilling libido.

2. Immodest touches with an animal, whether the genitals of the animal are touched, or one's own genitals are handed over to the animal so that it may touch or lick them, or one's own genitals are applied to it so that by its help, as by an instrument, venereal pleasure may be procured, are not properly and effectively bestiality; nor do they have its malice affectively unless they are done from affection of bestiality, but they can lead to it. Indeed, touches of the genitals of an animal are not necessarily mortal sin; nevertheless they often provoke pollution, in which case they are gravely sinful, but not bestiality.

3. Bestiality exercised with an animal of the same sex, although per se it does not differ in species, can sometimes be done from sodomitical affection toward an undue sex or toward an unnatural vessel.

805. Definition. Bestiality is coitus with a beast. The special deformity of this sin consists in this, that venereal pleasure is sought with a being of diverse species, through access and affection toward such a being. Cf. what is to be said below n. 833.

Principle. Bestiality is among sins of lust the gravest, as is evident of itself. Hence it was punished by death in the Mosaic law (Lev., 20, 15): He who has gone with a beast and cattle, let him die by death; kill also the beast. A woman who has lain beneath any beast, let her be killed together with it.

To bestiality is recalled sin with a succubus or incubus demon. To this sin is added malice against religion. Besides, there is had the malice of affective sodomy, or of fornication, if the demon appeared in the form of a boy or of a woman; of adultery, or incest, if in the form of a married woman, blood relative, or affine; nevertheless, otherwise very probably it is to be denied, if the one lying together takes pleasure in that woman represented by the demon not as married or a nun, but as beautiful (III, 475; H. Ap., IX, 28).

Note. 1. If this sin is reserved, ordinarily the reservation is not incurred unless penetration in the vessel with semination is present.

2. Concerning bestiality, those much given to lust are to be questioned cautiously, especially farmers and keepers of cattle; because many of these judge the crime sufficiently declared by pollution. From another side, how many are found who, when they have committed it once or twice, perhaps only in adolescence, remain silent about it for a very long time! (Scavini, I, n. 922). Certain persons who love dogs or cats excessively, and flatter them insanely, should also sometimes be questioned cautiously.

3. It is enough, when the confessor knows of the horrible congress with a beast, that concubitus be discerned from simple obscene touch. As the inquiry concerning the mode of congress, the species or sex of the beast, would be unsuitable, so also would it be superfluous; because the whole deformity of the crime consists in access to a diverse species.

806. Practical Rules. Concerning works of the flesh, says St. Alphonsus, penitents should be asked: "with what (person) they had relations (namely whether on the part of the accomplice circumstances changing the species were present); - whether at other times they sinned with the same one; - where the sin was perpetrated (for removing occasions); - how many times the sin was consummated, and how many interrupted acts were present, separately from the sin; - whether they consented to the sin long before; for then internal acts are interrupted, and then it is expedient to form the judgment that sins were multiplied so many times as pauses of sleep, distraction, etc., were present, as they are before God, only by asking concerning the duration of time in the sin. Otherwise, if the evil purpose was conceived for two or three days before the consummation of the sin and within that time was not retracted; because then the sin is taken for one in number" (Praxis, n. 41).

N. B. Concerning remedies of lust, see n. 367 and n. 800.

507. Definition. - Bestiality is coitus with a beast.

The enormity of this crime is clear of itself.

508. • To bestiality is reduced sin with a succubus or incubus demon. To this sin there is added malice against religion; and besides also of sodomy or fornication, if the demon appears in the form of a boy or woman; of adultery or incest, if someone is delighted concerning this horrendous coitus, as though he were carrying it out with a married or related woman.¹

Concerning bestiality those greatly given to lust and much working with beasts are always to be questioned cautiously; for several think that it suffices to confess it as pollution, and there are many who, when they have committed it once or again, perhaps only in adolescence, keep silence about it for a very long time. I have found farmers, concerning whom I doubted whether they knew this sin, to be questioned in the following manner without danger: Have you sinned with an irrational being? If they affirm, let them be questioned what they did; if they deny or wonder at the question, let the confessor immediately add: I mean to ask whether perhaps you have blasphemed against beasts.

In Confession of this crime it is enough that concubitus be distinguished from a simple obscene touch of a beast. - Inquiry concerning the mode of congress, concerning the species or sex of the beast, would be superfluous and illicit; because the whole deformity of this crime consists in approach to a diverse species. Except if another thing were required on account of reservation of the case.²

You shall not steal. - You shall not covet your neighbor's house, ... not his servant, not his maidservant, not his ox, not his ass, nor anything that is his.²

The Seventh precept of the Decalogue prohibits every external injustice in the goods of fortune of one's neighbor. - But the Tenth also forbids the internal sins of concupiscence, that is, of desire for the goods of one's neighbor and of unjust action. Concerning the various sins of injustice about goods of fortune we shall speak in the particular Treatise on Justice and Right.

You shall not speak false testimony against your neighbor.³ - You shall not say false testimony.⁴

509. • This precept, insofar as it is negative, prohibits 1° chiefly and primarily, that false testimony be said both in judgment and outside judgment; 2° indirectly and secondarily, that the reputation and honor of one's neighbor be harmed.

But insofar as it is affirmative, it commands that, with any simulation and fallacy removed, simple and naked truth be said, and that as such it always obligates indeed, but not for always, since often it is necessary to conceal the truth.

Hence it prohibits 1° perjury against one's neighbor; 2° lying; 3° detraction; 4° contumely; 5° rash judgment and injurious suspicion. Concerning each one must speak, except perjury, of which there has been enough in the Second Precept.

707. 3. Bestiality (called sodomy or erotic zoophilia by modern jurists) is carnal intercourse with a beast; it is the gravest among all sins of lust.¹³⁷⁶ Immodest touches alone had with a beast are not the sin of bestiality when, namely, the sinner intends nothing other than to excite venereal pleasure in himself. Therefore, this circumstance need not necessarily be declared in confession if someone, for example, by means of the tongue of a dog or another beast, excited pleasure or pollution in himself.

Scholion. On sexual perversion. There are still several other ways of satisfying venereal lust which there is no leisure to bring forward here. Moreover, the confessor can resolve occurring cases rightly if he attends to the principles brought forward above. The older authors discoursed at length and breadth concerning lustful sins perpetrated with a demon (concerning succubi and incubi). Today this matter is no longer so practical. But in our days unnatural lust, which is customarily called sexual perversion,¹³⁷⁷ rages widely, and its diverse modes were indicated most briefly above. Modern psychiatric physicians not rarely think and say that such perverse inclinations are so vehement that a man can no longer resist them. Let the confessor not believe such statements unless there is question of a man truly insane. For the liberty of man always remains intact, notwithstanding the most vehement inclinations. A man troubled by perverse inclinations of this kind must be treated by the confessor as a habitual sinner. Not only supernatural remedies, but also natural ones, are to be employed; among these the assistance of a good physician possesses great value.

¹³⁷⁶ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, a. 12, ad 4.

¹³⁷⁷ Cf. R. de Krafft-Ebing, Psychopathia sexualis.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 5, 11 and 12.

1014. A sin of luxury against nature is that which repugns the order and mode which nature established in the venereal act for generation, to which alone it is ordered by nature; hence it is a distinct species of luxury, since it has a special deformity.

There are four subordinate species of it, including a diverse repugnance to nature and reason. For the venereal act, so that offspring can be conceived from it, requires four things: 1) the intercourse of two; 2) the same specific nature in each; 3) diversity of sexes; 4) the connatural mode of lying together. Therefore there are four species of sin against nature:

1. If, without intercourse, pollution is procured for the sake of venereal pleasure; this is called the solitary sin or mollities (zelfbevlekking);

2. If it happens through intercourse with a thing of a different species; this is called bestiality (beestachtigheid);

3. If it happens through intercourse with an undue sex, that is, with the same sex, for example male with male, or female with female; this is called sodomy properly so called (sodomieterij);

4. If, while the due sex is preserved, the due natural mode of lying together is not preserved, so that generation is impeded; this is unnatural intercourse with a woman (a. 11). This can happen in two ways: a) on the part of the organ: it is called sodomy improperly so called, if copulation happens in an undue organ, for example in the posterior vessel; b) on the part of the mode alone, if copulation is exercised in the due organ, but in such a way that, from the very mode by which the action is carried out, generation is impeded, either because the man withdraws himself before insemination and pours out seed externally, or because he or the woman uses an instrument or another means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the womb. It is usually called onanism.

Therefore sins against nature are morally distinct in species from one another, as repugning nature and reason in diverse ways; and the contrary was condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ Proposition 24 was condemned: "Mollities, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it suffices to say in confession that one procured pollution."

A mere change of the natural position in copulation is not against nature except insofar as generation would be impeded by it, which ordinarily does not happen; otherwise it will rather be beside nature than against nature, and is only venial in spouses and sometimes nothing, namely if some reason requires that it be done so.

1015. Luxury against nature is in the genus of luxury the gravest in itself and other things being equal, because it transgresses that which is determined according to nature itself concerning the use of venereal things; but the other sins transgress only that which is further determined by reason. Yet by reason of an added circumstance these can be graver in another genus: thus adultery by reason of injustice is graver than pollution, and sacrilege by reason of irreligion; but pollution is graver than both in the account of luxury (a. 12).

Among sins against nature, bestiality is the gravest, because the due species is not preserved; after this is sodomy, because there the due sex is not preserved; then there is an undue mode of lying together, but more if the due organ is not preserved, than if the mode alone is impeditive of generation; the lowest place is held by pollution, which consists only in the omission of intercourse with another. For the gravity of sin is considered more from the abuse of some thing than from the omission of due use (ad 4).

Let it be noted: 1) Sodomy is an execrable sin, as is clear both from the fact that even brute animals regularly abhor it, and from the graver penalties inflicted by ancient law or by God himself (Gen. 19). The same holds concerning bestiality, as is proved from the penalties laid down against it by God, for example, Lev. 20.

2. For these sins to be committed externally in their proper species, a mere touch exercised upon a person of the same sex or upon an animal is not sufficient, even with sodomitic or bestial affection; rather, intercourse to an undue vessel is required, whether it is not destined for coition or is naturally destined for it. Indeed, for them to be fully consummated in their species, insemination within the vessel is required.

3. Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality, because the demon is of a different species from man: whether the demon really appears under a human form, which happens rarely, or the sinner, by hallucination, sets him before himself as present in this way. This sin additionally includes the malice of superstition against religion; then another diverse species of luxury according to the form under which the demon is seen by the sinner: if as a person of the same sex, the malice of sodomy is present; if as a person of a different sex, the malice of fornication; if under the form of another's spouse or of a nun, the malice of adultery or sacrilege, etc.

1016. Pollution, or the solitary sin, is the separated complete use of the genitals without intercourse. It is said:

1. Complete use of the genitals: for thus it is distinguished from immodesty or acts of imperfect luxury, which are only the beginning and preparation of complete luxury, and it differs from these in species, as the mere beginning of a work differs from consummation, beginning from terminus, and an incomplete species from a complete species;

2. Without intercourse, because if it happens in natural intercourse, it will be fornication or another species according to nature; if in unnatural intercourse, namely had in an undue organ, it will be another species against nature. Therefore from the fact that it is a solitary vice, or that it implies the separated use of the genital organ, pollution differs in species from other consummated sins according to and against nature.

The complete use of the genital organ is apt to produce perfect and satiative venereal pleasure; and in men, the expulsion of seed, which aggravates the sin comparatively to what takes place in women. Yet these two things do not constitute the essence of the solitary sin, but are a certain bad effect which usually accompanies it, and an indication and sign of the complete use of the genitals. But the essential inordination is in the perverse use of the genital organ, which someone employs for individual satisfaction, without any order to generation and the good of the species for the sake of which alone it can be employed. Hence the complete solitary sin also exists in women,1 and can exist in men if they do not have seed, as sometimes happens in the young and the old, or if accidentally it does not flow out externally.

1017. Pollution directly and in itself voluntary is intrinsically and gravely evil, and therefore prohibited by natural law, so that it can never be made honorable by any end. - It is proved:

1. From the Scriptures: 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:².

² Hence, when the doubt was proposed: "whether masturbation directly procured so that sperm may be obtained by which a contagious disease may be scientifically detected and, as far as possible, cured is licit," the Holy Office responded: in the negative, 24 July 1929.

2. From the condemnation of proposition 49 by Innocent XI.³

³ "Mollities is not prohibited by natural law; hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin."

3. By reason: This act is directly against the primary end to which the genital organs, venereal pleasure, and human seed are destined by nature and by the author of nature. Therefore a) it is an inordination intrinsically evil and illicit by the law of nature, so that it can never be made honorable by any end;3 b) it is also a grave or mortal inordination, because it is directly opposed to the primary inclination of our nature and to the greatest common good of human society, namely its conservation and propagation. Hence if fornication itself is a mortal sin because it is against the due education of offspring, a fortiori pollution, which is against propagation itself.

This is confirmed: "If in any case whatsoever it were licit to procure pollution for oneself or another, since in it men are affected with the greatest pleasure, they would easily abuse that license and extend it to almost infinite cases, and thus, content with that pleasure, they would neglect marriage and the legitimate mode of generating with the greatest detriment of the human species. Therefore in this, as in many other matters, one must not attend precisely to the actual harm which follows, but to the harm which would follow or would be apt to follow if this were licit."⁴

⁴ Some modern authors doubted concerning this, among whom was also Noldin; but in new editions of his work this was corrected by Fr. Schmitt.

Every pollution of itself is a sin of the same species, in whatever way it happens.

Accidentally, however, by reason of a special circumstance, another species can be added. Hence pollution is divided into simple, which besides the malice of pollution has no other malice joined; and qualified, which has another joined, either on the part of affection toward the object thought of, as if someone, while polluting himself, has a fornicarious, incestuous, adulterous, sacrilegious, sodomitic, etc. affection, by taking pleasure precisely in a woman, a blood relative, a married woman, one sacred to God, a male, as such, or by desiring them; or on the part of the person polluted or polluting, as if a religious, a married person, etc. pollutes himself or another, or is polluted by another. These circumstances, as adding a species, must be declared in confession.

1. Billuart, diss. VI, a. 11.

1018. Corollary. - The doctrine set forth applies to pollution directly and in itself voluntary; but not to pollution voluntary only in the cause or indirectly. For this is not always gravely evil, indeed not always a sin, as is clear from the principles set forth concerning the voluntary in the cause and the indirect, which are to be applied here.

1. It is not illicit to posit an action from which pollution is foreseen to follow, provided the action is licit in itself and at the same time necessary or useful, provided consent to the pollution or proximate danger of consent is absent. For no one is bound to omit an action licit in itself, necessary or useful for a good effect, because of some evil, not very great, following from it apart from intention, provided the evil is not the means for obtaining the good effect. But in the case the action, as is supposed, is licit in itself, and necessary or useful; the passive pollution following from it apart from intention is a rather slight evil, bringing little or altogether no inconvenience either to the acting individual or to the human species. Therefore the action is licit, provided the pollution is not the means by which the good effect is obtained.

2. It is a venial sin, without sufficient reason, to posit an action lightly evil and lightly and remotely influencing pollution which is foreseen to follow from it. For pollution, since it is not willed in itself, is not more voluntary and sinful than its cause as cause; but the cause as cause is only lightly evil, since its influence is only light and remote; for a light influence upon something grave is something light. Therefore pollution is only lightly evil; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consenting to it.

3. A fortiori it is only venial, without sufficient reason, not to impede depraved motions of concupiscence and pollution itself, while nevertheless it can be impeded without inconvenience; because in the case every tendency or positive consent of the will toward pollution is lacking; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consent to it.

4. It is mortal, by reason of pollution, without a just cause, to posit an action mortally evil from which pollution is perfectly foreseen naturally to follow, or an action which per se, notably, and proximately influences it so that it is apt to follow from it. For to will an effect and to will its proximate cause are of the same morality, unless there underlies a grave and just reason.

1019. Remark. - As to nocturnal pollution, its malice is to be weighed from its causes. Hence it either is or is not a sin according to the condition of the cause in which it was foreseen, or ought to have been foreseen. If the cause is not culpable, as if it is posited from a just reason, and a fortiori if it is merely natural, neither will the pollution itself be culpable; if the cause is culpable venially, lightly and remotely influencing it, it will be venial; if the cause is mortal, gravely and proximately influencing it, it will be mortal.

The unspeakable and execrable crime of bestiality is sexual intercourse with a beast.

I say 1st. Bestiality is the gravest among the sins of lust, both because to be mixed with a beast is most repugnant to rational nature, and because it was punished most gravely in the old law; for it is said, Exod. xxii, 19: "Whoever has intercourse with a draught animal or herd-animal, let him die by death; kill the beast also." Indeed that sin is more horrible than sodomy itself, because to approach a different species departs still more from right order than to approach an undue sex or vessel. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 474.

I say 2nd. Impure touches with beasts, although they are not sins of bestiality properly so called, nevertheless are to be declared when some venereal pleasure is sought from them. But the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone, by means of the tongue of a herd-animal or another beast, excites venereal pleasure or pollution in himself. Nor is it necessary to explain in confession of what species the beast was, nor whether it was male or female. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 474.

BESTIALITY is defined by St. Bonaventure in the places cited, in the preceding dubium: It is a sin of Luxury committed with a brute animal; whence it is most grave in this genus (except the congress with a demon). The punishment of death is claimed for this crime, and burning after death.

MANY, however, SAY that he is condemned by this punishment even if he does not complete the emission of seed. So Boer. decis. 316. Roland. confil. 7. Clatus §. fornicatio, num. 21. Menoch. de arbitariis quaest. lib. 2. casu 586. Petrus Gregorius syntagmate iuris, lib. 36. cap. 14.

YET I judge the OPPOSITE true with Fagundez and others cited by him num. 9. and he proves it most forcefully ex leg. 1. §. finali, ff. de extraordin. crimin. there: Perfecto flagitio punitur capite; imperfecto, — I stop — the guilty party is deported to an island. This text is illustrious.

By the Canonical law, however, seven years of penance is imposed, as the Saintly Doctor reports Confess. cap. 3. particula 46.