Chastity Insofar as It Regards Acts which Are Ordered to Venereal Things, or on Pudicity

We shall speak first briefly about the virtue itself of pudicity, then about the vice opposed to it, or immodesty.

Sins Opposed to Fortitude.—(a) Number.—The vices opposed to fortitude are four, two of excess and two of defect, according as fear and confidence are not regulated as to time, place, manner and other circumstances in the way of moderation. He who fears when or as he should not, is timorous (e.g., one who kills himself because he fears the hardships of life, one who neglects religion out of human respect); he who does not fear when or as he should, is insensible (e.g., one who exposes himself to peril of death for the sake of excitement). He who does not dare when or as he should, is cowardly (e.g., a superior who does not correct as he should); he who dares when or as he should not, is foolhardy (e.g., a superior who corrects when there is no chance of a good result).

(b) Malice.—These sins per se are venial, since excess or defect in emotions, which in themselves are indifferent, is not a serious disorder. But they become mortal if they lead to grave evil (e.g., if from fear of persecution one becomes a pagan), or to grave danger (e.g., if from foolhardiness one exposes oneself to death or mutilation). Insensibility and foolhardiness are caused by pride or vainglory, by contempt for life or for the strength of others. Timidity and cowardice diminish culpability, though they do not remove it.

The Vices Opposed to Temperance.—(a) The vice of deficiency has been called insensibility, and consists in an unreasonable dislike of the inferior sensible pleasures, which makes one unwilling to use them when and as reason commands. Thus, the Stoics and Manichees believed that material joys are intrinsically evil, and there have been fanatical advocates of teetotalism (e.g., the Aquarians) and of purity (e.g., the Puritans who would not permit a man to kiss his wife on Sunday, the prudish and censorious who fear or suspect evil without reason, the Pharisees who think they are defiled if a sinner speaks to them, the misogynists who disapprove of marriage). The sin is venial per se, since it does not submit to passion; but it may be mortal on account of some circumstance, as when the marriage debt is unjustly refused or necessary nourishment is not taken. This vice is rarer than its opposite, and it must not be confused with austerity, which for the sake of a spiritual good foregoes some lawful but unnecessary sensible enjoyment.

(b) The vice of excess is immoderation, which includes gluttony and impurity. This is the most disgraceful of sins, because the most unworthy of a rational being; it enslaves man to pleasures of which the lower animals are capable; unlike other vices, it contains in itself nothing of intelligence, industry, generosity, and nothing that would at all liken it to virtue. The lowest depths of degradation are reached when immoderation is brutish even in its manner, as when one is gluttonous of human flesh or desirous of sodomitic pleasure. Immoderation is called by Aristotle a “childish sin,” because, as a child is eager for pleasures and will follow them unduly unless instructed and trained, so also an immoderate person thinks only of his appetite, and will go from bad to worse unless he accepts the discipline of reason. But the child is excusable, while the immoderate man should know better. Immoderation is worse than timidity; for, while the former seeks selfish delight and acts with willing unrestraint, the latter seeks self-preservation and is under some external menace.

417. Things To Be Established. - I. Base looks without sufficient cause are gravely or lightly sinful according to the intention of the one acting, the degree of baseness, and the danger of venereal consent. They are more easily excused from grave guilt in oneself than in others, because one's own things move less than others' things. Likewise they are more easily excused if there is question of a person of the same sex than of a different sex, because they provoke less to lust.

II. Gravely immodest looks without grave cause, especially as regards persons of a different sex, are not per se to be excused from mortal sin, although venereal affection is absent; because they almost always generate a proximate danger of lust, as was said above concerning wicked touches. - St. Lig., n. 421. - Yet generally looks are more easily excused from grave sin than base touches, because they influence lust less.

It is asked: Whether looks, not otherwise than touches, put on the malice of the circumstances of the person who is looked upon basely?

Resp. It is denied, more probably, if they are done without any desire. The reason is that they are not judged properly by their nature to tend into the consummated act. - St. Lig., ibid. - Lacroix, ibid. - Hence a look at a consanguineous, married, or sacred person does not put on the malice of incest, adultery, or sacrilege.

418. Resolves. - 1. Persons of the same sex who lightly look at themselves naked while swimming together or washing themselves are excused per se from mortal sin, especially if they are prepubescent. - Thus commonly.

2. Looks upon the private parts of a different sex or on neighboring parts are ordinarily mortal sins, unless perhaps the sight happens from afar and for a very brief time; because a look of this sort either arises from lust or certainly induces a proximate danger of sinning. Nor are you excused from grave sin if you look at base parts through a very thin and translucent veil, because almost always such a look increases lust rather than diminishes it. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 421. - They except, 1. if the one looking is a boy or very old or very cold, because these are moved little; 2. if the eyes are fixed on a little infant, because this moves little. Hence maids and nurses who look in this way at boys entrusted to them are not judged to sin gravely, unless they do it lingeringly or by repeated times and with wicked affection.

3. Looks upon the honorable parts of a person of a different sex, even a beautiful person, per se are not sins; but if they are done from curiosity or with some lingering, they will ordinarily be venial sins; but lengthy looks will not be excused from mortal sin if they involve proximate danger of base concupiscence or lingering delight, especially if commotion of the spirits rises up, and a fortiori if the person is loved with disordered love. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 422.

4. Looks upon the less honorable but not base parts of a woman, namely the breast, arms, legs, are not per se mortal sins, yet with proximate danger of wicked consent removed, which otherwise will easily be present if the look is lengthy. - St. Lig., n. 423. - Nor do they sin gravely who, with special danger removed, look at mothers or nurses nursing infants, or fix their eyes on the exposed breast of an old woman or of a younger woman not yet formed.

5. Looks at obscene pictures from mere curiosity are not held as mortal sins, if base delight or proximate danger of it is absent. - Yet in practice a man looking at the pudenda of a depicted woman could scarcely be excused from mortal sin, because he will be able only with difficulty to avoid base delight, unless perhaps it happens for a very brief time or at a great distance, or unless the age of the picture has diminished the force of the art. - St. Lig., n. 424. - But Billuart with others excuses from mortal sin if the looks are done from levity, in passing, from curiosity, or if the pictures represent only infants, because painted things do not move as natural things do; and this does not seem improbable, unless perhaps because of the fragility of the one looking it must be judged otherwise.

419. Principles. - I. To speak, sing, write, or hear base things for the sake of venereal delight or with proximate danger of consent into it is a grave sin. But if wicked intention and danger of consent are absent, and at the same time a legitimate cause is present of uttering, writing, or hearing such things, there is no sin.

II. To read books altogether obscene without a just cause is a mortal sin, even if this seems to be done from curiosity or for the sake of recreation; because per se this reading very much provokes to lust. Except perhaps unless those reading, from curiosity alone, on account of advanced age and cold temperament or the custom of treating venereal matters, do not incur grave danger of lust. - St. Lig., n. 426.

III. To read amorous and lightly obscene books per se is not mortal, although in practice it is very dangerous especially for younger persons. But to read books in some measure obscene, otherwise treating of the sciences, from the sole view of science or one's own or another's utility, per se is not a sin, yet with danger of venereal consent removed, which otherwise in younger persons will rarely be absent.

420. Resolves. - 1. Generally they sin gravely who mix in conversations, even from levity, concerning the conjugal act, concerning things licit and illicit between spouses, concerning ways of impeding generation, of procuring pollution..., especially if this happens among young persons of different sex.

2. They sin gravely who utter even only base words, if they do this on account of delight taken from the very thought of base things. Nor are they excused from grave sin who, under the pretext of joking, express the same things on account of that delight by equivocal but sufficiently known words. - St. Lig., n. 426.

3. They also sin gravely who because of boastfulness narrate their own base sins, and indeed ordinarily in a threefold way: namely by the sin of complacency, of scandal, and of boastfulness concerning a sin committed.

4. It is not per se mortal to utter things indeed base, but not gravely obscene, if it is done briefly, through joke or vain solace, unless those hearing are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. Hence commonly base witticisms which are uttered by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers are not grave, because ordinarily they are said and heard for mere joke. - St. Lig., n. 426.

5. Tender conversations with persons of a different sex are not always to be held as mortal sins, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are lengthy, often repeated, or happen in solitary places. - St. Lig., n. 422, 426. What therefore must be judged concerning loves, as they call them, especially among younger persons? - Not all indiscriminately are faults, mortal to be condemned; although often the proximate occasion of sinning lethally will with difficulty be absent, at least in the progress and when certain adjuncts approach, as if lovers meet wholly alone, especially for a longer time or at night, etc. - St. Lig., Praxis Conf., n. 63.

6. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read witty books, because they do not gravely excite to lust, nor expose to great danger, such as many comedies or poems. - But if they do this on account of a legitimate cause, for example for learning or for acquiring eloquence, they do not sin in any way.

Usefulness. - This treatise is a complement of the investigation concerning chastity, so necessary that without it many practical errors would be committed, nor could the responses of theologians be well understood.

Single Chapter

Virtue. Opposed Acts. Masked Lust.

387. - In their treatises on the sixth and ninth commandments, theologians are accustomed to inscribe a certain chapter, On Immodesties, where they note various acts not akin to lust in their very exterior species as nevertheless blameworthy either lightly or gravely, yet in such a way that the genuine rationale of the reprehension is often not given by them except confusedly. Hence they seem to found their opinion, true though it is, more upon the agreement of approved doctors than upon intrinsic arguments; hence not a few began to doubt the truth itself of the opinions, especially today, when less confidence is placed in authority and men are accustomed to inquire and question more boldly concerning intrinsic rationales.

Wherefore, that provision may be made for good and holy morals, it is expedient to hand down these rationales perspicuously. But two things are combined in these responses: the necessity of fleeing the proximate occa- sion of depraved or lustful assent, and the obligation of avoiding all direct lust, although hidden and disguised or masked.

Thus we have explained the reason why we write this chapter, which we think is of the greatest usefulness for the prudent direction of souls.

388. - Therefore, we call masked lust acts truly proceeding from lust and hence directly lustful, but disguised under a certain more honorable appearance, so that the sinner himself may easily be deceived by an erroneous conscience.

And indeed, in this slippery matter, in which it cannot be said where lust will not rush headlong, blindness of conscience, weakness of will, and the frailty of one's neighbor sufficiently warn us that we ought carefully to guard ourselves from delusion, from the danger of consent, and from scandal of our neighbor.

And modesty must be held at a great price, which, while it guards this province, protects and promotes essential chastity itself.

But men are accustomed to be led away by some sensual love and other pretexts toward suspicious, imprudent, and evil demonstrations in which they deceive themselves.

389. - The pretexts are generally: scientific study, some work of mercy, whether of caring for the body, of consoling, indeed, of helping a soul spiritually, or of dispelling ignorance, timidity, or scruples. They are therefore rationales which in certain circumstances could be true and good, but when they are alleged, they cloak less right intentions with their own color. They are especially accustomed to be employed by those who are drawn by sensual love.

Therefore, a man zealous for virtue must conceive from the beginning a firm resolution of intimate sincerity, by which no place is prepared for these pretexts. But if a doubt arises concerning an unusual manner of acting to be employed or maintained, let the counsel of a prudent confessor be sought.

390. - Sensual love, which is founded upon a certain bodily sympathy, is so dangerous, and descends so easily to carnal love, that, unless its very vehemence is diminished by imposed moderation or precautions employed, those who deliberately foster such a love can be treated as persons constituted in the proximate and

voluntary occasion of grave sin. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessarii, no. 65.

These loves are most frequent:

1. Between young persons of different sexes, who flirt: then they not rarely end in the bitter and harmful deception of the girl. The girl hopes for an undying flame and marriage; the young man wished only to play. From an intimacy of this kind the maiden departs as though morally deflowered: the heart of a person truly and fully loves only once.

2. Among adolescents of the same college or boarding school, or of a conservatory for girls. Here, however, a twofold genus must be distinguished. There are those who, merely from a certain wantonness or vanity, as though by way of a certain game, wish to imitate love; this, although it ought to be disapproved, must be judged less grave of itself; while others truly burn with lustful love.

Each genus must be firmly attacked by confessors; but those who are affected in the latter manner are to be judged more strictly to be in the proximate occasion of grave sin. This is especially true of the older ones who take the active parts in these matters. For affection is often absent in the younger person who, sometimes enticed by the promise of a temporal advantage, permits himself to be loved.

But these friendships, or rather sensual loves, are to be detested most of all:

1. Between a priest or religious and a person of the other sex or a young person committed to their care, because of scandal. From the moment that a sensual affection is deliberately admitted, spiritual action becomes sterile. Wherefore it must first of all be procured that the relationship of spiritual direction, if there was one, be broken off. And the very lower estimation in which the priestly or religious order is consequently held, especially if, as happens too frequently, certain indecorous things are done, must already be held as grave scandal.

2. Between either spouse and an extraneous person to whom he seems to give his heart, while he leaves his body to his spouse. These platonic loves cannot be tolerated: they are infected by the note of spiritual adultery. They are very dangerous to the lovers; but to the spouse thus abandoned they are of themselves a cause of grave and just sorrow; they are contrary to the duties of piety which follow from matri- mony and to the good education of the offspring. Wherefore, although manuals of moral theology pass over this genus of infidelity in silence, we judge it to be objectively grave.

391. - Norms of theologians. - 1. The object. Catholic theologians, sufficiently concordant among themselves, use the norms of which we now treat in order to estimate morally actions which, unless carnal concupiscence raged, would be indifferent, but are now called immodest insofar as they express some, at least material, departure from modesty.

These actions, as flattering and pleasing, deceive men; as provocative, they corrupt men; as signs of a less right affection, they scandalize men; for which rationales they are prohibited under grave or light sin.

Moreover, this must be well noted. Acts which are condemned as mortal are at the same time, when they are done from lust, judged to be grave in the rationale of an exterior act. This must be attended to in mutual acts which entail complicity, where there is question of the absolution of an accomplice.

2. Principles of right estimation. a) It is lawful to proceed from this beginning. The more the exterior act itself displays the species of a lustful demonstration, or appears near to direct and open lust, the more error of mind, assent to a carnal movement which will arise, and the seduction of another are to be feared. But when the force of lust has been increased, the temptation is also increased at the same time.

Nevertheless, it must be observed here that men are moved unequally by the same acts. Cf. no. 274 and what was said above concerning acts of an intermediate rationale, no. 374, 1.

On the contrary, the more a just and honorable cause has explained our rationale of acting, the more easily we shall be safe from fraud, deception or delusion, guilt, and scandal.

Moreover, the less an action departs from ordinary and customary things, the more easily it will have an honorable explanation.

b) For making a just estimation, theologians have been accustomed to distinguish honorable, less honorable, and dishonorable parts of the body. The formal rationale of the distinction appears to be this: honorable parts are those which, in the region of which there is question, are shown to all without offense to modesty; among us, such are the hands, face, and feet; less honorable parts are those which, from accepted usage and just custom, are accustomed to be covered: the breast, back, legs, and arms, at least in part; dishonor- able, finally, are those which everywhere, from natural modesty, are covered by garments: the genital parts and those nearest to them.

The notion is therefore somewhat relative.

c) Moreover, the rules can be proposed summarily thus: One who, without an adequate cause, effects that from which, of itself or as though directly, he experiences either pollution or pleasure sufficiently proximate to pollution is judged in practice and of itself to sin gravely, because of the true motive of acting concerning which he is deluded, or because of the proximate danger of consent to the pleasure.

Nevertheless, this does not prevent one who has not yet been admonished from having been able to be excused from grave sin by a certain good faith.

But such efficacy toward a grave carnal movement is judged especially to be present, partly relatively or varying in diverse persons, in a truly immodest thing and in the morose manner in which it is looked upon, touched, handled, or approached.

d) The force and wise use of the norms can be handed down thus: These norms of theologians contain presumptions, according to which, as a rule, we shall regulate our judgments and our acts, unless a prudent consideration of particular cases should demand greater or lesser severity.

392. - The norms are established for healthy persons. But how are they to be transferred to those who suffer from sexual paresthesia? (Cf. nos. 35-38.)

I. - In the first place, we must ask to what extent their depraved acts are to be imputed to them.

In the first place, we cannot insist sufficiently upon the circumspection with which one ought to read, and much more to bring into use, works which, generally written by anthropologists under an aspect diverse from ours, propose scientifically questions concerning imputability. By the rash use of books of this kind, not a few errors have been committed in administering the sacrament of penance.

Certainly, some perversions of appetite are to be attributed to one's own vices or sins, others to heredity, so that they are congenital; and not rarely both causes concur, so that guilt has completed what nature began.

But, this distinction having been made, we have indeed been instructed concerning the origin of the perverse propensity, and perhaps concerning the ease or difficulty of correcting it; nevertheless, not yet every question concerning the imputability of the acts which the sick perform has been resolved.

"But since," Antonelli opportunely observes when speaking of masturbation ¹, "some of these diseases or infirmities do not wholly remove the will, while, on the contrary, some of them disturb the will to such an extent that the patients become incapable of acting freely, it is evident that in the first case it cannot easily be known how much voluntariness there is in the base acts committed." Therefore, the perversion itself can exist in such a degree that it does not remove liberty. The temptation has changed its object; for example, it desires one's own sex rather than the other; yet it does not possess insuperable force. But if it occurs, this irregular temptation can and must be resisted in the same manner as a "normal" temptation.

¹ Medicina pastoralis, vol. 2, no. 253.

Moreover, even when the impulses have been invincible in these or those circumstances, are the sick then drawn by any necessity to those circumstances, and are they compelled by that same necessity to approach or undergo them?

Finally, imputability can be diminished in various degrees, nor does every diminution suppress the liberty sufficient for sinning even gravely. This happens when the higher faculties themselves are not impeded, but the obstacle resides in the sense. Thus concupiscence is said to diminish freedom, although it generally allows the capacity for sin to remain.

Therefore, we readily understand that in the external forum, where an offense requires the complete integrity of one's powers, as many as are shown to be affected by a congenital defect are absolved from penalties ²; but in the internal forum, where matters can and must be considered not only in their complex and through general definitions, but with their individuating notes, the obligations which even those morbidly affected had and recognized are not to be passed over. Moreover, they are forbidden deliberately to approach the occasions by which they are impelled to evil acts; indeed, they must also avoid those same occasions without excessive inconvenience.

² The question being reserved of the manner in which society may be able to protect itself from dangerous men of this kind.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

1024. Immodesty (impudicite; schaamteloosheid, oneerbaarheid) or imperfect luxury is that which externally begins perfect luxury, without the exterior act being brought to its natural terminus, or to the highest degree of venereal pleasure. Hence it consists in those external acts which are apt to surround the act of consummated luxury and constitute its beginning and as it were a part or circumstance, such as touches, kisses, embraces, looks, and, if it is mixed with them, shameful speech.

Hence immodesty is not to be confused:

a) with internal luxury, which is completed in the mind and will alone, and is a depraved affection, whether it is delectation or desire, concerning which it was said in the preceding question;

b) with an external occasion, which is not a preparation or beginning of the consummated act, but a mere occasion or danger, with scandal, more or less proximate, of internal or external luxury, for example, dances and spectacles.

1025. Principles. - I. External acts which are apt to excite incomplete carnal pleasure and thus to furnish matter of immodesty, per se and according to their species, are not luxurious and evil. The reason is that in them venereal pleasure is not found per se; hence they are indifferent, otherwise they would never be licit, while nevertheless they can be exercised from a good or evil end and produce a twofold effect, good or evil. Hence of themselves, that is, intention and the power of exciting luxury being excluded, they are not evil or immodest.

II. But they can be evil and immodest:

1. From the intention of the agent, by reason of the end, which can be mortally evil if someone outside marriage seeks in them venereal pleasure itself; on the contrary, the end is venially evil if they are done exclusively from curiosity, levity, jest, or for merely sensible pleasure; the end is good if someone acts from a certain necessity or utility.

2. From the nature of the act, by reason of influence upon venereal commotion and pleasure; for by nature they are apt to provoke shameful motions and excite pleasure, and therefore, unless a just cause proportioned to causing pleasure is present, it is illicit, gravely or lightly, to exercise them outside marriage from this alone, that they gravely or lightly influence venereal pleasure, even without evil intention or danger of consent. Hence, if by someone very immodest and repeated acts were done without danger of venereal motion, for him they would not be a sin against chastity.

3. From the condition of the sinner, by reason of danger: for sometimes, even if of themselves they lightly influence venereal motion, because of man's frailty they can be a danger of consent for him, or of grave scandal for others.

1026. Immodesty differs in species from consummated luxury in the same way as an imperfect species differs from a perfect one. This is to be understood if it is sought separately, without the consummated act; for if it happens from the intention of the perfect act and is joined with it, they are one sin in complete species and in number.

But immodesty is of itself a sin of one and the same species; for every venereal motion of itself, and unless special circumstances are added, is of the same species, because the pleasure which arises in imperfect acts is of the same account. Accidentally, however, a malice diverse in species can be added, because of special circumstances.

Thus:

1. From the circumstance of the acting person, as if he has a vow of chastity;

2. From the circumstance of affection or of internal intention, if the acts are done from a fornicarious, sodomitic, bestial, deflorative, adulterous, incestuous, sacrilegious affection, as was said concerning pollution;

3. From the circumstance of the special mode in which they are performed, namely if they are done with another person: for then scandal and culpable complicity intervene. And if the exterior immodest acts according to themselves are a preparation and beginning of the complete act with that person, as is the case with touches, embraces, kisses, they participate in the specific malice of this complete act, even if the other person was unwilling; on the contrary, if of themselves they are not the beginning of the consummated act, which holds concerning looks. Hence in confession, for touches the quality of the person employed must also be declared; for looks it suffices to declare that a certain person was employed, and the person's quality need not be declared, unless they are done with desire of the complete act, or unless the other person is bound by vow and consented.

C. As to looks, which are carefully to be distinguished from mere sight, and which move to libido less than touches do, because they are less material, yet therefore are dangerous:

1. Without necessity, to look lingeringly and deliberately either at the genitals of the other sex, or even the breasts of a woman altogether naked or covered with a transparent veil, or at a man and woman exercising copulation or immodest acts upon one another, or at persons polluting themselves, is ordinarily mortal, because it gravely moves to venereal pleasure. Make exception if it is done in passing or very remotely, or if the one looking is a cold old man or an infant.

2. Without just cause, to look at the less honorable parts of a person of different sex or at the coitus of animals, from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection, is ordinarily venial, especially if it is done in passing.

3. Without cause, to look at one's own genitals, from curiosity or levity and without venereal affection, is venial, especially if it is done in passing; likewise to look in this mode at the genitals of a person of the same sex, unless one were prone to sodomy, or unless a very beautiful adolescent were looked at lingeringly.

V. Corollaries.

1. In order to avoid cooperation in the sin of another, it is generally illicit to admit touches or kisses, even honorable ones, which are known to arise from libidinous affection, unless there is a just cause of avoiding harm to oneself or to the agent. And indeed:

a. if the touches are in themselves dishonorable and are done without necessity, it is illicit by reason of cooperation, had without just cause, in another's sin;

b. if it concerns a kiss or touch in itself honorable before others who are ignorant of the depraved intention of the other, it can be admitted lest the other be defamed, yet with the danger of one's own consent set aside. If it is done secretly, so that it can be prevented without grave inconvenience, it cannot be permitted, because it is illicit without grave cause to cooperate in another's mortal sin.

2. To look at images or paintings or statues truly obscene, representing a person of different sex, not in passing but lingeringly, is a sin whose gravity depends on the danger itself, more or less great, of exciting venereal pleasure or of consenting to it, unless it is done from just cause, for example on account of the study of anatomical science, and the danger of consent is absent. Generally, however, it is illicit to make such images or statues, unless for the sake of anatomical science, to scatter them, to sell them indiscriminately to all, and to expose them publicly to the eyes of all, because these things are not done without grave scandal to many.

Obscene images, however, are either those which intend to exhibit the altogether dishonorable parts of an adult person naked or covered only by a thin veil, or represent gravely immodest acts, or altogether lascivious forms and those commonly inciting to libido. On the contrary, artistic images are judged to be those in looking at which the viewers are moved chiefly by the artistic mode of representation or by the idea represented rather than by the nudity. On this matter one may read Father Vermeersch, De Castitate, n. 181.³

³ "It will be worthwhile first of all that we know how an obscene little picture or statue differs from a merely nude image. Nudity can be one thing in occasion, another in intention. Moreover, nudity is either expressly sought for its own sake, or is chosen as a means to obtain some end, for example, if we take an example from art, so that the beautiful harmony of the whole human body may appear. There is also simple nudity, which does not wish to capture attention, and nudity affected for alluring libido. But it can be affected from an accompanying gesture, from the expression of the face, or from the very display. But affected nudity, and, in the present condition of the human race after sin, also nudity sought for its own sake, are to be judged obscene.

3. In most academies of painting or sculpture, naked persons are proposed as models, because they say that studies upon the nude body are necessary for the perfection of art. Now:

a. this is not licit for painting or sculpting obscene things, which are an occasion of sin to many, unless for the sake of anatomical or medical science;

b. if, in certain circumstances, it is judged necessary for the perfection of art, it can be admitted, yet with cautions employed lest inordinations follow. Therefore persons of different sex should not be exhibited together, they should not take off their garments before the painters, they should have the genitals covered to affirm modesty, and if it is done privately, a witness of the same sex should be present;

c. young men who are learning art have an excusing reason provided they are cautious; but honorable girls, by reason of danger, are with difficulty excused from sin if they of their own accord and without necessity exhibit themselves in these academies. But those who have already been accustomed to these things are in less danger and can be excused if some necessity is present.

4. Concerning visiting museums Father Vermeersch teaches, o. c., n. 183:

"1. It is altogether to be disapproved that anyone enter museums for the sake of seeing nude images or pictures.

"2. Visits made from futile curiosity are sometimes to be tolerated, by which someone, without any notion of art or intention of cultivating it, lightly surveys the halls. Visits of this kind are not positively to be approved or commended, because it is scarcely done that in looking at these voluptuary things nothing is granted to sensuality; but the danger is compensated by no gain. Nevertheless they will meanwhile have to be tolerated, because, since the intention is not perverse and the danger of fully assenting to venereal satisfaction is not proximate, there is no place for a grave prohibition, and the very custom of visiting these things, sufficiently received, brings some reason or excuse. Those going in are to be warned not to fix their eyes upon obscene things.

"3. We shall plainly approve only those reasons for going to museums which manifest a noble intention, for example if someone, in order to exercise aesthetic sense, should wish attentively to consider a few things made with admirable art.

"Hence today it seems very commendable that everywhere, in schools, this aesthetic sense be cultivated in some way. For while students learn to judge concerning artifacts, they become accustomed to turn over higher thoughts, and not at once to explore what food is offered to the senses. They also learn to be honorably indignant if at some time a base image, made without art and care, seems to tempt them in a brutal manner. The same is advised by R. P. Gillet, O.P., Innocence et ignorance, p. 210."

"Therefore the boy is not obscene who, where usage bears it, whether alone or before others, takes off his clothes to wash the body, or who shows himself to a physician to be treated. But he is obscene who has exhibited the parts to persons met along the way. Nor will the image of Saint Agnes the martyr be called obscene if made by a painter who wished to represent the martyrdom according to the narrative. Indeed it is not repugnant that a nude image bear in the face modesty or holy affections which draw attention away from the body and command chaste shame. On the contrary, a certain manner of clothing which seems to indicate or illuminate the shameful parts rather than cover them can make an incompletely nude image obscene. Likewise, for historical truth, what was nude will be able to be commemorated; but speech becomes obscene which seems to linger with pleasure in describing lascivious matters.

"Therefore, the more a thing or narration is stripped of a nobler idea and draws attention to shameful or dishonorable things, or the more there accedes as it were a formal invitation to looking at or mentally turning over base things, so much the more narrations or paintings or statues must be called obscene.

"Thus the obscene can be described as: a base manifestation of mind or solicitation in nudity. The common usage agrees, by which the alluring nude (nu provoquant) is called obscene.

"It is certain, therefore, that obscene things are not to be looked at; and this both from a certain sense of offended dignity and, for the security or at least the sweet polish (delicatesse) of chastity, while prudence, already ancient, warns that temptations of this kind are conquered by fleeing rather than by directly attacking them." See also Father Sertillanges, "La Morale a nos expositions de peinture," in Rev. Thomiste, III, 1895, p. 208.