Chastity Insofar as It Regards Venereal Things

5. Declarations. There is especially a twofold propensity implanted in man by the author of nature: a propensity toward the conservation of the individual and a propensity toward the conservation and propagation of the species. The means of conserving the individual is nutrition; the means of conserving and propagating the species is the commingling of the sexes in legitimate marriage. Just as the author of nature, in order more easily and more certainly to obtain the end of conservation, added the delectation of taste to nutrition, so in order more easily and more certainly to obtain the end of propagation, he added the venereal delectation of the flesh to the commingling of the sexes. Lust is the inordinate appetite or use of venereal delectation.

In this definition, by the words appetite or use, internal and external acts of lust are comprehended. It is inordinate because it is done against the end intended by nature, which is the generation of offspring, as happens, for example, in pollution. The venereal, or a venereal thing, is properly called that which proximately pertains to generation: intercourse, effusion of semen or pollution, and venereal delectation. If the venereal thing is taken more broadly, so that it comprehends the whole matter of lust, then to it also belong those things which dispose toward intercourse and pollution: obscene touches and looks and impure thoughts. Therefore, for declaring the nature of lust, it is preferable first to set forth a brief description, taken from the physiologists, both of the members and of the actions which serve generation.¹

1. The organs which in the male serve for accomplishing generation are especially three: the testicles, the seminal vesicles, and the virile member or urinary canal, which is also called the rod. And indeed in the testicles, after puberty has begun, the virile semen or sperm is elaborated; once elaborated, it is transmitted into the vesicles, in which, as in two receptacles, it is preserved until the time of ejaculating or eliciting it has arrived; but it is elicited through the urinary canal or virile member. The semen itself is a viscous humor in which little bodies are contained, which are called spermatozoa. Through the spermatozoa which it contains, the semen becomes prolific.

2. The organs which in the female are destined for generating a man are likewise numbered as three: the ovaries, in which from the years of puberty onward each month an ovule or germ matures; the uterus or womb, into which the egg, now mature and separated from the ovary, slowly proceeds; and finally the vagina, or a certain canal, which extends from the uterus to the external surface of the body. Its mouth is closed by a thin little membrane, which they call the hymen, and this hymen is called the seal or enclosure of virginity.

¹ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1893), p. 8 f. Eschbach, l. c., disp. 1, c. 2-5. Antonelli I, n. 76-90.

6. The act of generation. 1. The origin of a new man requires that the female egg be fecundated by virile semen; wherefore without union and commingling of each sex, a man cannot naturally be generated. This union and commingling of the sexes is accomplished by carnal intercourse or concubitus; namely, the man must insert the virile member into the female vessel or into the vagina and pour out semen into the inner parts of the uterus. By this twofold action, penetration of the female vessel and virile insemination, intercourse on the part of the man is completed. Now if the sperm of the virile semen is joined with the female ovule and penetrates it, the egg is fecundated, so that the organism of a human individual can be formed and developed from it. But since the female vessel is closed by the hymen, it is clear that in the first concubitus the virginal seal is broken by the virile member and therefore the virgin is deflowered.

From these things the distinction between active and passive generation is clear. Active generation consists in carnal intercourse, or in that action by which the virile member is inserted into the vessel, the vagina, of the female and semen is poured out there. Passive generation consists in the union of the virile semen with the female ovule in the uterus of the woman, or in fecundation. Therefore the man concurs toward generation by providing semen; but the woman concurs by supplying the egg to be fecundated by virile semen. If at the time of intercourse the woman has a mature egg and the semen of the man poured out in the uterus meets the egg, the semen is joined with the ovule, and in this way the egg is fecundated, whence conception, or the generation of a human individual, occurs.

2. The separation of virile semen and its effusion through the rod, whether it happens in intercourse or outside intercourse, is accomplished with a vehement commotion of the genital members and a sense of pleasure. Likewise, while the female in carnal congress with the man receives the virile semen, she herself undergoes irritation and commotion of the genital members, which ordinarily is followed by secretion of vaginal humor, which is joined with the greatest sense of pleasure. And this secretion the older authors indeed called female insemination, which happens sometimes before, sometimes after the insemination of the man. Women can experience the same commotion of the members, secretion of vaginal humor, and carnal pleasure also solitarily outside intercourse, and this pleasurable effusion they call female pollution. But the separation of the ovules and their passage into the womb, with nature itself guiding, is accomplished spontaneously in women without a sense of delectation or pleasure.

To the acts by which the commingling of each sex for the generation of a new man is accomplished, the author of nature added the greatest pleasure and delectation of all, and at the same time inserted into human nature a vehement concupiscence for that delectation, so that he might allure man to a thing in itself foul and burdensome in its consequences. Hence through carnal intercourse a twofold end is obtained at the same time: the generation of a new man and the quieting of concupiscence. The former is the primary end of intercourse, the latter the secondary. Therefore God ordered this carnal pleasure to the generation of a human individual, and therefore to the conservation of the species, just as he ordered the pleasure of food and drink to the conservation of the individual.

7. Venereal delectation, which is also called carnal or libidinous, is delectation arisen from the commotion of the organs and humors serving generation. By its nature it is an act of the sensitive appetite, to which the pleasurable sense existing in the genital organs is pleasing; but the pleasurable sense itself can also be called venereal delectation.

Delectation is defined as the rest or complacency of the appetite in a present or possessed good. Therefore, by its nature, delectation is an act of the appetite which takes complacency for itself concerning some good. Man obtains his good through the diverse powers with which he has been equipped: spiritual good through the higher powers, sensible good through the lower powers. He obtains it in this, that a power attains the object suitable to itself and is occupied by its activity about it. Now indeed, as often as any human power whatever, whether rational or sensitive, is occupied in acting about its object, delectation arises in the appetite: in the will indeed, if the intellect possesses its object; in the sensitive appetite, if sense possesses its object. But the power itself also rests in the object as in its own good, and the intellectual powers indeed rest in it spiritually, but the sensitive powers sensibly, i.e. possession of the object is joined with a certain grateful affection and sense of the power. Now not only the complacency of the appetite, but also that grateful affection and sense by which the power enjoys its object, pertains to delectation and constitutes its object. Therefore, according to the diverse nature of the goods which man seeks and acquires and possesses by means of his powers, diverse delectation is distinguished in the appetite, whether higher or lower.

a. Purely spiritual delectation is delectation which arises from knowledge of some thing, as when someone rejoices concerning knowledge, long sought, of some truth; or it arises from the thing known itself, as when someone rejoices concerning truth, whose beauty he considers with delectation. This delectation resides wholly in the will, to which the knowledge of truth or the known truth itself is pleasing, and morally it is good or evil according as that which is pleasing is good or evil.

b. Sensible spiritual delectation, which arises from a more vivid representation, but especially from sight or touch, an embrace or kiss, of a person loved with a tender but honorable affection, chiefly on account of spiritual qualities. This delectation resides in the will, but nevertheless it is vehement, so that it also redounds into the sensitive appetite, and it is joined with a commotion of the heart and blood. Delectation of this kind is accustomed to accompany the love by which a mother follows her son, a betrothed man his betrothed woman, a friend his friend. It is separated from carnal delectation; therefore of itself it is morally indifferent.

c. Sensible delectation is delectation arisen from the perception of a sensible object which is aptly proportioned to the sensitive power. By its nature this delectation is a grateful and pleasant affection which is perceived in the very organs of the senses, e.g. from the smell of a flower, from the sight of the sky, from the hearing of music, from the taste of sugar, from the touch of a smooth thing, etc.; and concerning this affection the sensitive appetite is delighted. Touch or sight in these things is pleasing, and indeed of itself without venereal commotion; therefore this delectation of itself is indifferent.

A twofold sensible delectation can be distinguished: purely sensible, which arises from an object which of itself is not apt for exciting the venereal sense, as delectation arisen from the smell of a flower, from the touch of a rose; and sensual, which others call sensible-carnal, which arises from an object which of itself is apt for provoking the venereal sense, as delectation arisen from the touch or kiss of the hand of a woman, boy, or girl. This also resides wholly in the sensitive appetite; it becomes more vehement if it arises from the sight, touch, embrace, or kiss of a person loved with tender affection, and it is joined with a certain commotion of the heart and blood; and although of itself it is not carnal, nevertheless it easily excites carnal commotion.

8. Distinction of venereal delectation. 1. Venereal delectation can be twofold: complete and incomplete. Complete delectation is that which satiates nature, namely which proceeds to the ultimate terminus which is possible in a venereal matter; incomplete delectation is that which does not satiate nature, namely which arises from base commotion without proceeding to the ultimate terminus.

a. If the organs which serve generation are excited, venereal delectation is perceived from their irritation and commotion. But every commotion of the genital members tends to this, that the semen be resolved and elicited. Now in the resolution and effusion of semen, whether it happens with intercourse or without intercourse, complete delectation is perceived; but if the commotion does not proceed to this terminus of effusion, incomplete venereal delectation is had.

b. Although boys before puberty do not yet have virile semen, nevertheless they are capable of complete carnal delectation: for from base commotion increased up to the ultimate terminus this delectation is perceived and is joined with effusion of urethral humor.

c. In the same way women, who do not have true semen, can perceive complete venereal delectation from commotion of the genital members. Delectation which satiates nature in women is for the most part joined with the separation of a certain vaginal humor, which nevertheless rather often is diffused into the interior parts, into the uterus or womb. This secretion of female humor, if it happens in intercourse, is called insemination; if it is provoked outside intercourse, it is called female pollution.

2. Complete and incomplete venereal delectation do not differ in moral species, but specifically constitute the same sin: for in incomplete venereal delectation the whole essence of this sin is found, namely true venereal delectation, which in complete delectation is increased only as to degree, unless the frustration of semen is added.

Therefore if those before puberty, especially boys, accuse themselves of dishonest touches, they are not to be questioned further; for since they are not capable of pollution, in dishonest touches, or rather in the venereal delectation which follows them, whether it is complete or incomplete, the lowest species of sin is already had.

9. Lust is defined as the inordinate appetite or use of venereal delectation.

a. The order of nature established by God is that the use of venereal delectation take place only in legitimate marriage and according to the laws of marriage: for delectation is for the sake of the act, and this delectation indeed is for the sake of the act of generation, which can licitly be accomplished only in legitimate marriage. Therefore lust consists in venereal delectation voluntarily admitted outside marriage, or indeed in marriage, but against the laws of marriage.

b. Delectation properly is in the sensitive appetite and has for its object the venereal sense; but the venereal sense is perceived in the very members which serve generation. Nevertheless, for the most part this same sense of libido is called venereal delectation. The sin of lust consists in its voluntary appetite or use against the order of nature.

c. Impudicity is voluntary occupation about those things which induce venereal delectation, whether by thought, or by sight, or by touch, kiss, embrace. Therefore in acts of impudicity venereal delectation is not contained, nor is it necessarily joined with them, but they bring on its danger and frequently in fact bring it on. Therefore lust, which is directly opposed to chastity, includes two things: impurity, or illicit effusion of semen, whether with intercourse or outside intercourse, and impudicity, or voluntary occupation about those things which induce to lust.

10. Division of lust. a. Some lust is consummated, in which effusion of semen intervenes; other lust is non-consummated, in which effusion of semen is not had.

b. Consummated lust either is according to nature, if the effect of generation is of itself possible; or against nature, if the effect of generation is of itself impossible.

c. Non-consummated lust either is complete, if it reaches the ultimate natural terminus; or non-complete, if it does not attain the ultimate natural terminus.

d. Non-complete lust either is lust properly so called, in which venereal delectation itself is had, or impudicity, in which venereal delectation is not had.

e. Impudicity either is interior, which consists in internal acts of the phantasy, intellect, and will provoking lust, or exterior, which consists in external acts provoking lust.

f. Lust by reason of intention is one thing directly, another indirectly, willed. The former is had when venereal delectation is intended in itself; the latter is had when in itself something else is intended, e.g. sight, reading, from which carnal delectation is foreseen to arise beside the intention.

11. Principles. The proper malice of lust consists in this, that man abuses venereal delectation and semen, which are ordered by the author of nature only to the due propagation of the human race, for pleasure or for another end.

1. Venereal delectation directly and in itself willed outside marriage is a grave sin. a. For it is gravely illicit in a grave matter to seek delectation against the order of nature; but he who seeks venereal delectation outside marriage does this, for venereal delectation has been instituted by nature for that act alone which serves generation; but this act, with nature itself requiring, is the conjugal act. b. Moreover, that is gravely illicit which, if it were not prohibited, would redound to the gravest harm of the human race; but if men could licitly enjoy venereal delectation and in this way quiet concupiscence outside marriage, most would refuse the burdens of marriage, with the gravest detriment to the human race. c. Therefore lust of any genus whatever is gravely prohibited by God, since it is numbered among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust ... those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.¹ Every fornicator or unclean person ... has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.² Do not err: neither fornicators ... nor adulterers, nor the soft, nor those who lie with males ... shall possess the kingdom of God.³

a. Although not all sins of lust are enumerated in these texts, nevertheless it is gathered from them that all are grave, both because the works of the flesh are generically exhibited as grave sins, and because the supreme species of lust, namely perfect acts, pollution, sodomy, fornication, and imperfect acts, uncleanness and immodesty, are exhibited as grave sins.⁴

b. Although the sin of lust is not judged among the graver mortal sins, nevertheless, if it is perpetrated by a Christian man, a certain peculiar foulness belongs to it which is not found in other sins, because this sin is committed in one's own body. For the body of a Christian, washed in the blood of Christ in baptism, has been made the temple of God through the indwelling Holy Spirit; but through the sin of lust this body, sanctified by the reception of the sacraments, especially of the Eucharist, is profaned and execrated, inasmuch as it becomes the object of sin.⁵

2. Venereal delectation directly willed does not admit smallness of matter, and therefore always, however slight and brief, is a mortal sin. For that is a grave sin which exposes man to proximate danger of sinning gravely; but any venereal delectation directly sought or freely admitted is of this kind, although slight: for venereal delectation, once freely admitted or sought, naturally and necessarily snatches one toward complete delectation.⁶

a. Therefore any action whatever which is placed with this intention, that through it venereal pleasure may be excited and perceived, even if brief and slight, is a grave sin, whether this action in itself is honorable or dishonorable: for the depraved intention is gravely sinful. The reason why other sins which man commits against himself or against neighbor admit smallness of matter, but sins of lust do not admit it, is this: that the former, admitted in small matter, do not cast one into proximate danger of sinning gravely, but the latter, on account of the highest propensity of human nature toward delectations of the flesh, cast one into danger of this kind. Sacred Scripture also intimates this danger: for she has cast down many wounded, and the strongest have been slain by her.⁷

b. There are those who show even from the very nature of this vice that slight delectation deliberately sought contains grave injury of the moral order. For any venereal delectation, so they say, arises from commotion of semen, which commotion naturally causes pollution; indeed it must be called begun pollution. Therefore what is affirmed concerning the malice of pollution, namely that it is a grave sin, must be affirmed also concerning its natural cause and beginning. It is clear that this argument does not have universal value, since venereal delectation is perceived which is not begun pollution, namely in those who, as lacking semen, such as boys, eunuchs, the aged, and women, are not capable of pollution.

c. Authors are not lacking, especially among the older ones, who think that there is smallness of matter in venereal delectation directly sought or admitted. In the year 1612, the general superior of the Society of Jesus, Claudius Aquaviva, most severely prescribed that no one in the Society of Jesus should hold this opinion, not only as true or probable, but not even as tolerable. From that time this sentence, that there is no smallness of matter in venereal delectation directly sought, became most common among moralists. Nevertheless there are those who deny that the truth of this sentence is speculatively proved from the arguments brought forward. Whatever may be said concerning the theoretical reasons by which the opinion admitting smallness of matter is proved false and improbable, practically it is certainly false and not sufficiently safe.⁸

3. In venereal delectation only indirectly willed, smallness of matter must be admitted. For in this case the consent of the will is borne only toward the cause which provokes and excites delectation; therefore its malice must be taken from its influence upon venereal delectation. But there are causes which influence base commotion only lightly; therefore to will these causes constitutes only a light sin against chastity.

¹ Gal. 5, 19 ff.

² Eph. 5, 5.

³ 1 Cor. 6, 9 f.

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 965.

⁵ Cf. 1 Cor. 6, 11-19.

⁶ Proposition 40, condemned by Alexander VII: The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible delectation which arises from the kiss, with the danger of further consent and pollution excluded, is only venial. Authors indeed do not agree in explaining the sense of this proposition. According to Viva, it is false because it affirms that venereal delectation, for this is the carnal delectation of the proposition, sought from a kiss is venial if the danger of further consent and pollution has been excluded.

⁷ Prov. 7, 26.

⁸ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, tr. 10, n. 690.

12. Principle concerning the gravity of venereal delectation willed in the cause. Venereal delectation indirectly, or in the cause, willed is only as much sin as the cause itself is in the genus of lust. Therefore if the cause is a grave sin in the genus of lust, the effect of base delectation is imputed as grave sin; if the cause in the genus of lust is a light sin, the effect of delectation is imputed as light sin. Now indeed, a grave sin in the genus of lust is any action whatever which by its nature gravely influences the exciting of libido; a light sin in the genus of lust is an action which by its nature only lightly influences the exciting of libido.

a. Venereal delectation willed in the cause is had by any deliberately placed action which is foreseen to cause base commotion and venereal delectation, whether incomplete or complete, without this effect being intended. Now the question is asked concerning the gravity of the sin of lust which is committed by him who places the cause exciting delectation, who, for example, reads obscene things or uses a bath, although he foresees that venereal commotion will follow. But the gravity of the sin of lust which one placing a cause of this kind commits is not taken from the degree of malice which is present of itself in the action causing base delectation, but from the gravity of the influence which this action exercises in exciting it. Therefore it can happen that an action causing delectation is in itself a grave sin, but by reason of lust only a light one. Thus if someone, making himself drunk, foresees that pollution will follow in drunkenness, the drunkenness is in itself a grave sin, but by reason of lust light, because it influences it only lightly.

b. There are actions of which some cause a base motion of themselves, others cause it accidentally. Those actions cause it of themselves which by their nature are apt for exciting venereal delectation and therefore are ordered to generation, as a base look, touch, imagination. Those actions cause it accidentally which in no way pertain to generation. There are men who, from actions, imagination or sight, which are in no way referred to venereal matters, are vehemently excited by a hidden force. Of actions which cause a base motion of themselves, some by their nature proximately and notably influence that effect, namely those from which a base effect always or almost always follows; others by their nature influence a base motion only remotely and lightly, namely those from which an evil effect rarely arises. Actions which are outside the genus of lust and only accidentally excite a base motion, such as eating and drinking immoderately, riding, using a bath, sitting or lying in a certain position, etc., are counted among those actions which influence the base effect only remotely and lightly. But if at times they influence gravely, this proceeds not from the nature of the action but from the constitution of the subject.

Note 1. There are authors who distinguish accidentally influencing causes in such a way that they say that those which, from a special disposition of the subject, vehemently excite are gravely illicit if they are rare and can easily be avoided, but lightly illicit if they are frequent and therefore cannot be avoided without the greatest inconvenience. For example, there are those who are vehemently excited by the sight of a female foot; there are those who are vehemently excited by the sight of the slaughtering of animals. Those who without cause are delighted by the former sight sin lightly; those who are delighted by the latter, according to this sentence, sin gravely. But this distinction must be omitted, since the degree of malice which is present in actions of this kind must be taken not from the actual influence which they exercise in a particular case, but from the influence which by their nature they exercise. But of themselves and by their nature actions of this kind do not influence at all, or influence only lightly, and only accidentally in a determined individual do they produce a worse effect.

Note 2. As regards this proposition concerning the gravity of venereal delectation willed in the cause, these things must be admonished: a. It is supposed that there is no just cause for placing the action from which base commotion is foreseen to arise; for if a cause of this kind exists, it is licit to place the action. b. It is supposed that there is no consent to the delectation that occurs; for every consent of this kind is a grave sin. c. An action which, without cause, is placed and foreseen to cause carnal delectation is a sin, even if the depraved effect does not in fact follow; but if that effect follows, not only is the action sinful in itself, but also the depraved effect is imputed to the agent, and indeed under grave or light obligation according as the cause influences it gravely or lightly. d. What is established here concerning the cause of venereal delectation is valid also concerning the cause of pollution: for the same action which is foreseen to excite venereal commotion can, in those who are capable of pollution, cause also pollution, or commotion joined with pollution.

13. Corollaries. Therefore venereal delectation, or pollution, willed in the cause is a grave sin if the cause itself of itself gravely influences base commotion. But it is established by experience that not all are moved in an equal way by one and the same action: for what vehemently excites a young or warm man moves an old or cold man little or not at all to libido. Hence for estimating the sin which is committed by indirectly voluntary delectation in a particular case, these things are to be noted:

a. Actions which by their nature gravely excite are always a grave sin, and therefore must be guarded against under grave obligation, except in the sole case in which someone knows certainly by experience that he is not gravely moved by an action of this kind.

Actions gravely exciting, for example, are: "more vivid practical thought concerning venereal matters; touch exercised on the obscene parts of another person, unless perhaps it is done altogether transiently on a person of the same sex without depraved affection; voluntarily continued sight of a person of the other sex entirely naked; indeed also the sight of a man upon the naked breast of a woman, or the sight of an obscene picture, at least if it is continued when commotion has already arisen."¹

b. Actions which by their nature move only lightly are never a grave sin, not even in him who perhaps knows that he is more vehemently excited on account of a subjective disposition; therefore no one is held under grave obligation to guard against them.

Actions lightly moving, for example, are: "touch or sight upon the dishonorable parts of one's own body done in passing; a non-dishonorable and light touch of a woman done in passing; taking her hand; a light kiss from an honorable cause; vain conversation with a woman; a non-fixed sight of her breast, a fortiori other lighter looks."²

Note 1. Below, where there is treatment of imperfect acts of lust, as much as can be done in this very arduous matter, it will be determined accurately what actions by their nature gravely influence venereal commotion and pollution, and what actions lightly influence them.

Note 2. Recent authors after St. Alphonsus,³ who followed the Salmanticenses,⁴ distinguish, besides actions gravely and lightly influencing, actions influencing moderately. But lest this matter, which in practice is most frequent, be entangled in greater difficulties than is fitting, it is preferable to return to the theory of those older authors who reduce actions causing venereal delectation to only two genera, to grave and light causes. For, as Berardi rightly notes,⁵ those which are called middle causes by their nature are light causes, but they gravely influence the base effect either from the duration of the action or from the depraved affection of the agent, in which case they must be referred to grave causes. Thus among middle causes is numbered the sight of an obscene picture; but sight of this kind ordinarily of itself does not gravely move, unless it is prolonged rather long or is done with libidinous affection.⁶

Whether invincible ignorance is found concerning sins of lust. a. Invincible ignorance is more easily admitted as regards impure thoughts and depraved desires, if they are inefficacious. b. But as regards efficacious desires it is conceded with greater difficulty: for he who knows the malice of the external action and nevertheless proposes to execute it ought also to know that he wills an evil thing. Therefore in a particular case it must be investigated whether invincible ignorance was really present. c. Even as regards the malice of pollution, invincible ignorance can be found, especially in childhood. d. Indeed even as regards other sins, invincible ignorance can be found in those circumstances in which actions of this kind can seem licit; thus to the betrothed even less honorable kisses, and to spouses burdened with numerous offspring onanism, can seem licit.

Those who from invincible ignorance think that the depraved action which they exercise either is not a sin or is not mortal are altogether to be admonished and taught where ignorance harms them. But this happens if, not admonished, they are in danger of contracting a depraved custom of polluting themselves, which afterward they will correct with the greatest difficulty. But penitents who indeed know the gravity of the base sin to which they are accustomed, but are ignorant of its specific malice, are not to be admonished concerning this, because an admonition of this kind is scarcely of any utility and only brings it about that formal sins are multiplied.

¹ Lehmkuhl I, n. 864.

² Lehmkuhl, ibid.

³ Cf. l. 4, n. 484.

⁴ Cf. tr. 26, c. 7, n. 37.

⁵ Cf. Praxis confessariorum^3 I, n. 876.

⁶ Cf. Genicot I, 399.

14. Declarations. Those sins are called consummated in which effusion of semen has place. They are of two genera: some are according to nature, in which the effusion of semen of itself is apt for the generation of man; others are against nature, in which the effusion of semen is unfit for the generation of man. In the former, the end which nature intends in the voluntary effusion of semen is obtained; in the latter, it is frustrated. Wherefore sins against nature are of themselves graver than sins of lust according to nature.

a. Sins according to nature are numbered as six: fornication, adultery, incest, defilement, sacrilege, and rape. These sins differ specifically among themselves, not indeed by reason of lust, but on account of another special circumstance: for they are opposed to the virtue of chastity in the same way, but to each one there is superadded a circumstance which is properly not against chastity, but against another virtue.

b. Sins against nature are three: pollution, sodomy, and bestiality. These sins differ from one another in species by reason of lust, because each includes a special deformity and opposition against the virtue of chastity.

(St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 151-152; St. Alphonsus, Opera Dogmatica I, treatise V, dissertation XI, appendix, § 1, nn. 40-41.)

We shall speak first of the virtue itself of chastity, insofar as it regards venereal things; then of the sin opposed to it, or lust.

42. Some sins of consummated lust are according to nature, namely when they are exercised in that mode which is not opposed to the generation of the human species; that is, if in intercourse diverse sex, the same species, and the natural vessel and mode are preserved. Others are against nature, if semen is poured forth in a mode not apt for generation; that is, if the things just enumerated are not preserved, whether this happens in intercourse or outside intercourse. We shall speak of the former in the present chapter, and of the latter in the following one. - L. 412, 432; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 2.

43. Proposition. Fornication is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin, so that it is never lawful.

Pre-note. Fornication is intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent. It is said of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, free from the bonds of marriage, according as fornication is distinguished from adultery. Unmarried man and unmarried woman also free from the bonds of kinship or affinity and of vow, according as it is simple fornication and has no other species annexed. From mutual consent, so that it is distinguished from stuprum and from raptus. Cf. here nn. 57, 61, 66, 73, 83, 103.

It is proved, first part. 1. From proposition 48, condemned by Innocent XI: "It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice, and is only evil because it is forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether dissonant from reason." 2. Because fornication and promiscuous intercourse are opposed to the good education of offspring, which cannot take place without the conjugal bond of male and female; for for that education there is required not only the care of the mother, by whom the child is nourished, but much more also the care of the father, by whom afterwards the offspring must be instructed, defended, and promoted to a state in which he can provide for himself the things necessary. - The second and third parts are proved. 1. Because in Sacred Scripture fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven. 2. "Because fornication is gravely opposed to the good of offspring and to the due propagation of the human race; for if fornication and promiscuous intercourse were lawful, males, doubtful concerning the ownership of offspring, would not acknowledge it and would not apply themselves to due education; but women, afterwards abandoned by males, would procure abortions, would abandon infants, or would plainly kill them. Therefore. Moreover fornication is a mortal sin, even if a rich man wished to take care of the due education of the fornicating offspring; for if fornication were lawful in such a case, most would arrogate a similar license to themselves, would omit marriages, and fornication would successively become common against the due propagation of the human race." Struggl, 23; L., l. 1, n. 199; l. 3, n. 432, 435 seqq.; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 2. Therefore God, as author of nature, had to forbid fornication for every case; otherwise men, blinded by desires, would easily fashion for themselves that this inconvenience of due education of offspring would be absent in many cases in which nevertheless it would not be absent, with the greatest harm to the offspring. Scavini, l. 1, n. 766, Milan 1874; Billuart, l. c., dissert. 6, art. 2.

44. Note. 1. "He who only begins intercourse, but does not complete it nor inseminate, must explain this very thing, because although then it is fornication begun and in affection, nevertheless it is not fornication in reality; but it is an immodest act, and the extreme of immodesty, as Sanchez notes, disp. 19, n. 1. ('Intercourse in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, although insemination is not present.' L., l. 6, n. 916.) Much more, one who begins the same intercourse, and with nature already excited draws back and scatters the semen, must explain it, because there is now a double malice, namely fornication begun and in affection, and consummated softness, as is clear of itself. But this must be understood when the sinner does this while persevering in sin and consenting to pleasure. For otherwise anyone who has begun fornicatorial intercourse, or any illicit intercourse with some woman, both can lawfully without a new sin and must draw himself back, although because of the impulse of nature having been stirred semen must be emitted outside the natural vessel; indeed even after the accomplice person has already inseminated. The reason is that the fornicator at every time before completed fornication is bound to desist and not consummate it, since at every time he is bound to desist from sin; but by desisting from intercourse he desists from sin, which is always lawful and due. Therefore, if then pollution outside follows, it will follow from a lawful work and beyond his intention and consent; and therefore in that case the pollution is judged not voluntarily caused, but only permitted on account of the most just cause of desisting from the begun sin of fornication or the like. Nor does it matter that the other party, or the woman, has already inseminated or certainly will inseminate; for this does not remove the obligation of desisting from sin and not consummating the evil act." Sporer, 575, 576; L., l. 6, n. 916; Struggl, 25; Billuart, diss. 6, art. 2, append. 1, You ask fourth.

2. The circumstance of induction to fornication probably does not have to be explained in confession, since it is merely aggravating. Wherefore it suffices to confess fornication, "because the malice of induction or scandal, as they say, is already had, although not so grave, when someone does not solicit but consents; for even then he participates with the other in his sin, and is a cooperating cause to his ruin; wherefore this malice seems only to be aggravated more within the same species when someone positively solicits. And Lugo says the same must be said of base conversation and the like." L., l. 2, n. 46.

3. He who has fornicated with three satisfies by saying that he has fornicated three times, without expressing whether three times with the same one, or once with three. But the confessor will prudently ask about a circumstance of this kind by reason of the greater danger or scandal which can be present, and so that he may see whether that man is doing the office, as it were, of a corrupter, and thus may suggest fitting remedies. Elbel, de Act. hum., n. 103.

4. As regards penalties laid down by civil law against fornicators, none indeed has been laid down by Italian law or by French law against simple fornication, unless certain circumstances concur, that is, of publicity, violence, or the tender age of the one with whom the crime is committed. Italian Penal Code, 331 seqq.; French Penal Code, 330 seqq.; Law of May 17, 1819, art. 8. But as regards canonical penalties, cf. Trent, sess. 24, c. 8, de Ref. Matr.; sess. 25, c. 14, de Reg.; Bouix, de Parocho, p. 3, s. 4, c. 2, Sect. 4.

45. Proposition. Concubinage and prostitution is not a special sin, but only a circumstance of sin, not per se necessarily to be declared in confession. - It is proved. For concubinage properly is frequented intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. But prostitution is intercourse with a woman ready for every man who comes. Therefore, although concubinage and prostitution are a graver sin on account of the will persevering in sin, it is neither a special sin nor a circumstance of sin per se changing the species. Nevertheless that circumstance must be manifested per accidens: 1. by reason of scandal, when the concubinage or prostitution would be public; 2. for manifesting the state and kind of occasions, and it must always be opened to the confessor asking, as is clear from proposition 58 condemned by Innocent XI. L. 432; G. 421.

46. Note. 1. Prostitution per se does not impede generation, nor does it procure sterility, if no injury of the organs is had from frequent acts of lasciviousness. For prostitutes not rarely conceive, and even sometimes experience abortion, which they scarcely care about, a little mass of matter having been cast out. And this ordinarily has place in the earlier days of conception. Commonly, however, conception of offspring is not had; but a circumstance of this kind does not change the nature of the sin, since it is per accidens, just as if someone were to fornicate with a sterile woman or with an old woman. But that, if offspring is born, it is uncertain of what father it is, and from this is badly educated, this is a circumstance not specifically proper to prostitution, but to fornication, and therefore it is not essentially distinguished from it. Cf. here n. 43. But if uncertainty of offspring of this kind perhaps is greater in prostitution, nevertheless it is known that more and less do not change the species. - Billuart, diss. 6, art. 2, You ask first.

2. Men going to prostitutes use a certain means, lest they be affected by them with syphilitic disease. But by this means an impediment of generation is had, although intercourse on each side remains in species and externally normal, without any withdrawal of the man or woman. An obstacle of this kind is sometimes presented on the part of the woman, who intends only the impediment of conception, since she can in no way avert contagion by this mode. If, therefore, either by intention only, or also in reality itself, an obstacle is placed to generation, then indeed there will be a special circumstance, but an extrinsic one, necessarily to be declared in confession. Debreyne, Moechialogie, part 1, ch. 1, art. 2, Sect. 1.

47. Is it also a sin of scandal to seek fornication from a prostitute ready to sin?

R. "There are not lacking several doctors who say that it is not a sin of scandal, because since such a woman is always in actual or virtual will of sinning, he who furnishes to her an occasion of executing that sin is not judged to cooperate gravely but lightly. Thus Soto, etc. I venerate the authority of such doctors, but I would not dare to depart from the contrary opinion, which I judge must be followed, and which Sanchez, etc., hold. The reason seems to me very powerful, because although the prostitute is in actual will of sinning, nevertheless she certainly brings upon herself a ruin gravely greater by completing that particular sin of fornication. Therefore he who cooperates with her for consummating the sin sins gravely in two ways, both against charity and against chastity." L., l. 2, n. 47.

48. Can prostitutes be permitted?

R. "The first probable opinion affirms; and the Salmanticenses and St. Thomas hold it, and St. Augustine clearly adheres to it. The reason is that, prostitutes removed, worse sins would happen, namely sodomies, bestialities, softnesses, besides the corruption of honorable women. But the second opinion, more probable practically, denies; and Roncaglia, Navarrus, etc., hold this. The reason is that through prostitutes these graver evils are not avoided, because in lustful men, from easy and frequent congress with prostitutes, lust fixes deeper roots; and therefore, since this vice is increased more by frequency, they do not cease to commit pollutions and unspeakable sins, at least with the prostitutes themselves, nor for this reason do they abstain from soliciting honorable women. Conversely, by the permission of prostitutes innumerable other evils are superadded, namely, more girls are prostituted; adolescents esteem their parents lightly; they dissipate goods, neglect studies of the sciences, stir up quarrels, and reject honorable nuptials. For the rest, Father Sarnelli well observes that although in vast cities prostitutes can be permitted, nevertheless in other places they are in no way to be permitted." L. 434.

49. Corollary. In cities in which, for the sake of avoiding a greater evil, it is permitted that prostitutes live, it is lawful to rent a house to them, especially if other tenants are lacking or it would be easy for them to rent other buildings, unless nevertheless the prostitutes would gravely harm honorable neighbors, or because of the site would give greater occasion for sins. G., t. 1, n. 250; L., l. 2, n. 70; Ithurriaga, Cas. 26; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 10, art. 11.

50. Is it lawful to serve prostitutes or concubinaries?

R. Negatively, per se and ordinarily speaking, both on account of scandal and also on account of the greatest danger of lapse. Therefore those cases which in practice must be excepted will have to be judged from the degree of necessity and from the circumstances of persons removing scandal and proximate danger of sinning.

51. Note. 1. It is lawful for a servant to open the door to a concubine or prostitute, especially when, if he did not open it, there would be another who would open it. L., l. 2, n. 66; Roncaglia, tr. 6, cap. 6, reg. in prax. observ. IV.

2. Laymann, l. 2, tr. 3, cap. 13, n. 5, has these things: "It is lawful for a servant to admit through the door a woman with whom his master is going to sin, to carry a torch before him, to prepare the bed, as Sanchez, Navarrus, Rodriguez, Azor teach, because material cooperation of this kind is sufficiently remote, and without it the sin would nevertheless be committed." Cf. also Struggl, tr. 4, q. 5, n. 37, and Tamburini, Expl. Decal., l. 5, cap. 1, par. 4, n. 18, where he has these things: "The very common reason of service and attendance is a proportionate cause why a servant, son, in one word a subject, doing the following works indifferent in themselves, is excused. First... Second, if by command of the same master, whom he knows is going to commit adultery, he saddles the horse, merely accompanies him, and merely waits before the doors (merely, I say, that is, not so that he may keep watch and render him bolder for sinning), prepares the bed, seasons foods and serves the concubine, and merely accompanies her, leading her to the place where the master is going to sin, and opens the door for her as she is about to enter. Third, if he adorns his mistress, a prostitute, if he carries writings and messages full only of urbanity, if he carries small gifts and foods, and performs other offices which another servant would perform equally." Sporer, de 8 praecepto, c. 1, n. 99, also excuses the servant carrying gifts to a prostitute, "because," he says, "on the one hand they are bound by office and condition to serve and obey their masters; but on the other hand cooperation with sin is merely material and only remote."

Yet others require another very grave reason, because since these gifts are apt for fostering lust, the cooperation seems sufficiently proximate. And because of this very reason it is not lawful for a servant to carry amorous letters to the concubine of his master, unless besides the common reason of service there is present a graver and proportionate reason. For the rest, the servant is not bound to inquire what is contained in the letters.

St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 64, 65, 66, 67, for a servant accompanying his master to a brothel or saddling the horse, in order that he be excused, requires fear of grave harm; for a servant opening the door to a prostitute, in order that he be excused, he requires that, if he himself does not open, there be another who would open. But he judges that carrying gifts to a prostitute is intrinsically evil, and that it is never lawful to carry amorous letters to the master's concubine.

3. But it would be altogether illicit for a servant to put his shoulders under, or to carry a ladder for, a master climbing to fornicate, to open the door by force, and similar things; for the cooperation is altogether proximate, and makes the sin easier with the gravest harm of a third party. Yet since these actions are not intrinsically evil, they would still not be illicit if fear of death or mutilation were added. St. Alphonsus, l. 2, n. 66, adds that no other fear excuses the one cooperating, except death. For otherwise, because of fear of loss of resources or of infamy alone, it is not lawful to concur in the dishonoring of a girl to be deflowered. Cf. L., l. 3, n. 571.

52. Is it lawful to have a concubinary maidservant?

R. If the maidservant is publicly concubinary, it is not lawful to retain her by reason of scandal and most evil example. But if she is secretly concubinary, then a distinction must be made. For either her lover also is retained at home, or not. In the first case it is not lawful to retain her, even if other male and female servants cannot easily be found. For thus the master would be receiving sinners, and sinners more safely and conveniently, and consequently he himself would foster the sin of his servants. But in the other case the master is also bound to cast out the maidservant, if it can prudently be hoped that from such expulsion she will return to good fruit. But if it were likely that, expelled from the house, she would become worse (which certainly could easily be presumed), then it is lawful for him to retain such a maidservant, provided she is not pernicious to the family, which can easily happen. The reason is that in the former case he seems to favor the sin of the maidservant, but not likewise in the latter. And this would be all the more lawful if notable harm to the master would follow from that expulsion, if, for example, he would lack due and necessary service. Cf. Tamburini, Expl. Decal., l. 5, cap. 1, par. 4, nn. 21, 22; Elbel, de Act. hum., Conf. 1, Cas. 3.

53. Can a concubinary be absolved before he has dismissed the concubine?

R. 1. If the concubinage has been public, neither the concubinary nor the concubine regularly can be absolved, however much they appear contrite, before public separation, because besides the danger to be fled, satisfaction proportionate to the scandal is necessary; moreover this satisfaction commonly can be obtained by separation alone. It is said regularly, because one placed in extremis, having no one except the concubine who may minister necessary things to him, can be absolved and fortified with the other sacraments, provided he is truly contrite and promises, before those standing by, if the intercourse was public, that he will cast out the concubine as soon as he is able. The same must be said of the concubine placed in the same necessity.

For in such necessity scandal is repaired in the mode in which it can be repaired; for no one is held to the impossible. Bouvier, l. c., art. 2. Indeed, with necessity pressing, not even that promise before those standing by seems necessary, because in these circumstances scandal will easily cease on account of the evident necessity of the matter itself. And this has place a fortiori if there would only be question of absolution to be given secretly, and not also, because of shortness of time, of administering Extreme Unction and Viaticum. And here the doctors observe that the Holy Eucharist is not to be carried to a prostitute dying in a public brothel, on account of public decency and because it is not absolutely necessary. Gury-Dumas, Cas., t. 2, n. 721-723.

R. 2. If the concubinage has been occult, either the concubine can be dismissed without scandal or another grave harm of reputation or fortune, or not. If the first, some apud St. Alphonsus affirm for the first or second time, provided he sincerely grieves and promises that he will cast her out; the reason is that the penitent is sufficiently disposed. Others altogether deny even for the first time, because he is in proximate occasion, and until he removes it, one cannot prudently be certain of his sufficient disposition. St. Alphonsus also affirms, but when it is morally impossible that the concubine can be dismissed shortly before absolution. "For otherwise absolution must always be deferred, because experience too clearly establishes that, once absolution has been obtained, the occasion is afterwards with difficulty removed, and thus one most easily returns to the vomit." L. 436 and l. 3, n. 682; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 2, App. 2, You ask third. If the second, he certainly can be absolved, if he sincerely grieves and promises to apply the means which are suggested to him; but it is altogether expedient, says St. Alphonsus, "that absolution at least be deferred until the continence of the penitent is proved by experiment; unless the case were that the penitent (otherwise sufficiently disposed, as is supposed) could no longer return to confess sins; or if there were imminent necessity of communicating, for avoiding positive infamy." L. 435.

54. Corollaries. 1. In the article of death, "if the concubinage is occult, separation will not per se have to be urged under denial of absolution, on account of the scandal which would ordinarily follow if the concubine were dismissed in these circumstances. For thus the intercourse, which is occult, would be publicly manifested. But a promise must be obtained from the dying man of dismissing the maidservant if he recovers; and meanwhile care must be taken that there be at least separation from the dwelling, and that the maidservant not approach him except under urgent necessity." Gury-Dumas, Cas., t. 2, n. 724. - But there will be no further difficulty, whether the concubinage is occult or public, if, as can easily be done at present, marriage is legitimately celebrated.

2. Those who by occasion of exercising a lawful art are in the proximate occasion of sin, if they show signs of true penitence with a purpose of guarding against the occasion as much as they can, by applying due means, are not bound to abandon their art, which cannot be done without grave inconvenience. Hence surgeons are to be absolved who by healing women are in an occasion of sinning. The same must be said of a pastor who in hearing the confessions of women voluntarily pollutes himself. A woman also can be absolved who lives by lodging guests, and sins by occasion of lodging, and therefore falls with different persons, and also falls with some particular person, provided she proposes thereafter to avoid conversing alone with one alone. L. 438, 483; d. 6, n. 455. - "A maidservant vividly solicited by her master is bound to leave his house; for one who freely dwells where he is so dangerously enticed to evil cannot reasonably hope for victory over temptation, except by extraordinary helps of grace, which cannot be hoped for without temerity by him who can freely avoid danger and does not avoid it. Yet these things must be understood if a person of this kind is frail and little devout; for if she were devoted to piety, and cautious, and applied fitting remedies for repelling temptations and resisting passion, then I would not bind her to removing the occasion." L. ibid., 452.

55. Note. "Remedies for those who are found in the proximate occasion especially of base sin are greater prayer, more frequent use of the Sacraments, daily renewal before an image of the Crucified of the promise of sinning no more and of avoiding being alone with one alone, fleeing from the sight of the accomplice, and similar things." L., l. 6, n. 455, 464.

56. What are the penalties laid down by law against concubinaries?

R. As regards Italian and French Civil Law, there is no special penalty. As regards Canon Law, there are none latae sententiae; but all are ferendae sententiae, except suspension incurred ipso facto by bishops if, after they have been admonished by a Provincial Synod, they have not amended. Trent, sess. 24, c. 8, de Ref. Matr.; sess. 25, c. 14, de Reg.; Bouix, l. c., n. 44; L. 442; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 2, You ask fifth.

57. Stuprum is sometimes taken for every illicit intercourse; but more commonly by this word a special sin of lust is designated. The theologians, however, do not agree among themselves concerning the nature of this sin. Father Gury, 425, says stuprum is violation or oppression of a woman, against her will. But commonly theologians place stuprum in the defloration of a virgin. Some hold that the proper character of stuprum simply consists in the illicit defloration of a virgin; others hold that it consists in violent intercourse with a virgin, so that intercourse with a consenting virgin is not a sin distinct from simple fornication. - But by the name of virgin in either opinion is understood not she who has preserved the virtue of virginity so that she has been stained by no sin of lust, but she who retains the seal of virginity intact, although she has been polluted even voluntarily and therefore has irrevocably lost the virtue of virginity. Cf. here n. 1, 3, 4; L. 443; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 6.

58. Proposition. It is certain among all that violent defloration of a virgin, besides grave sin against chastity, also involves a grave sin against justice, necessarily to be explained in confession. And this circumstance of violence, as is clear of itself, must be expressed even if the woman were not a virgin, but corrupted or married. - Moreover, "by violence here is understood not only physical violence, but also moral violence, such as fraud and fear; likewise importunate prayers and flatteries which, according to the judgment of prudent men, especially in this matter, are morally reckoned as violence; such are those which are accompanied by great promises, kisses, touches which are incentives of venery, and in one word all those by which an ingenuous woman cannot easily resist." Billuart, de Temper., Diss. 6, art. 3, I say first; Struggl, 28, 29. But although force or violence is not had, certainly notable fraud is had, and therefore a special malice against justice to be declared in confession, if someone were to fornicate with a woman who was insane, drunk, or sleeping, because she is violated without her consent, and therefore a grave injury is inflicted on her. - Sporer, 606; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 6; L. 430, 433.

But whether the illicit defloration of a virgin voluntarily consenting is a species of lust distinct from simple fornication is disputed, and each opinion is at least extrinsically probable. It seems that the negative opinion must altogether be adhered to: the reason is that that circumstance of physical virginity or integrity bears itself merely materially with respect to the virtue of chastity, and therefore the sin against chastity is not changed in species. Hence, what is consequent, this circumstance of virginity in whatever sins committed by a female or male virgin will not have to be necessarily explained in confession; unless perhaps on occasion of reservation, or censure, or another extrinsic circumstance, for example if it culpably became known and dishonor and harm occurred which must be repaired. The dishonor of the virgin herself and of her parents is repaired by satisfaction for the injury inflicted; the harm, however, by restitution, namely by sufficiently providing a dowry, or by marrying. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 3, I say second seqq.; L., l. 3, n. 640 seqq.; l. 6, n. 874; Suarez, de Poenit., d. 22, s. 4, n. 4-6; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, s. 4, Sect. 7; de Iust. et Iur., d. 12; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 1, 4.

59. Does stuprum, if the deflowered virgin consents, contain at least a special malice of injustice with respect to the parents in whose custody she was?

R. Negatively. "The reason is that if the girl herself, since she is mistress of her own body, inflicts no injury on her father if she consents to defloration, using her own right, much less does the deflowerer inflict it. Only she will sin, and consequently also the violator, against the piety owed to her father, and also against obedience, if she has had from her father an express prohibition about such a crime, as Lugo says, n. 226." L., l. 3, n. 641.

60. What are the penalties against those who commit stuprum?

1. Mauritius had carnal intercourse with a prostitute. Repenting of the deed, he approaches the confessor and says that he once fornicated.

2. Tiburtius, after the proposal of not sinning further with his concubine, unhappily falls again into sin. Greatly grieving, he confesses his sin, saying that he fell twice into fornication.

3. Urbitius with every industry solicited a virgin to sin and finally deflowered her when she consented. Accusing himself in sacramental confession, he says that he committed the sin of fornication.

4. Sulpitius sinned with his betrothed. But in confessing the sin he accuses himself of simple fornication.

Q. 1. What is fornication and what kind of sin is it? 2. Have all confessed integrally in the various cases?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 788, 789; E. M. 788. - To the second. Prostitution is the state of a woman who is prepared to make the abundance of her body available to all for pay. Therefore to have carnal intercourse with a prostitute is not, speaking of itself, a special sin distinct from fornication. Nevertheless, in a particular case a special sin can easily be had, if something is positively done to impede generation or harm is brought to offspring already conceived. Since there is no circumstance of the case from which this can be conjectured, consequently it must be said that Mauritius, if he is unmarried, sufficiently explained his sin. Yet if the prostitute herself were to approach confession, in practice that circumstance would have to be explained, in order to know the state and the kind of occasion of the penitent, and consequently for her due direction.

Concubinage is frequent intercourse of an unmarried man with one and the same unmarried person. It makes no difference that the persons remain in the same or in different houses, provided nevertheless that they live together after the manner of spouses. Indeed, if this intercourse is had with a married man or married woman, it is still called concubinage, although improperly, because then the malice of adultery is also included. Therefore in this concubinage differs from simple fornication: that fornication indicates simply intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, now one, now another; but concubinage is exercised toward the same person as if she were a spouse. Concubinage is a most grave sin, because the concubinarian both sins and perseveres in the state of mortal sin, whence ordinarily he must not be absolved unless the concubine has been dismissed. Therefore Tiburtius sufficiently explained the species of the sin, if he is unmarried; nevertheless that circumstance of concubinage must be discerned by the confessor because of relapse and occasion.

Stuprum, taken in the strict sense, is the deflowering of a virgin while she is unwilling, and it is a special sin, because besides most grave fornication it contains the injury inflicted on the oppressed virgin. Taken in the strict sense; for in a broad sense stuprum is also called not only violent stuprum, but also voluntary, or with the virgin altogether consenting, and then it is more commonly held as mere fornication. Wherefore Urbitius sufficiently explained his sin, if nevertheless every fraud was absent. For if the virgin is induced to evil by fraud, for example, by a false promise of marriage or of a great dowry, or also by grave reverential fear, although she herself also sins by consenting, nevertheless her consent was extorted by grave injury and by moral force. - I. M. 790.

Fornication of a betrothed man with a betrothed woman is more probably not of a diverse species. Wherefore Sulpitius sufficiently confessed his sin. Nevertheless, that circumstance of espousals would from another source have to be known by the confessor, for the due direction of the penitent and for judging the occasion of sin.

5. Bertina, a maidservant, a woman fearing God and therefore abhorring sin, having been earnestly solicited several times to evil by her master, as often resisted him. Having been induced by the confessor to abandon an occasion of sin of this sort, she asks and insists that she may remain in the same service, because she receives a greater stipend from the master and would with difficulty be able to find another honorable place. The confessor accedes to her wishes. But soon she is again solicited by the master, and by him, against her will, she is oppressed. What is the miserable woman to do? At first she does not dare to cry out, lest she defame both the master and herself. Then, when she wishes to cry out, that man, furious with lust, threatens death. Therefore, placed in the last straits, Bertina externally conducts herself merely passively, but internally from heart and soul detests the sin.

Q. 1. What is stuprum? 2. Ought Bertina to have abandoned this occasion of sin, and to have been obligated to this by the confessor, even under penalty of absolution to be denied? 3. Did she sin gravely by not crying out, because of fear of infamy? 4. Did she sin gravely by not crying out and by conducting herself passively because of fear of death? 5. If she had been able, ought she to have killed the master in the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 790, 791. To the second. If Bertina could easily have found another master, she indeed ought to have abandoned the present occasion of sin, since then there would have been no reasonable cause for persisting in it. But if she could not easily have found another master, since in reality the occasion of sinning is remote for her, since she is a woman fearing God, abhorring sin, and has always resisted temptation, she could not be obligated by the confessor to abandon it under penalty of absolution to be denied.

To the third. It is controverted. According to many, she did not sin. For they say, "when from cries she fears for herself grave harm of infamy, death, or excessive shame, she is not held to it. Thus Soto, Navarrus, and Reginaldus; Bonacina also seems to embrace this opinion, which also seems probable to me when she would fear grave harm to herself from crying out." Lugo, d. 10, n. 198; La-Croix, l. 3, p. 1, n. 916. According to others, she sinned gravely of herself, by not crying out at first, unless she was excused by good faith. For she ought to have applied an easy remedy for escaping so great a danger to chastity. Nor indeed does the excuse brought from fear of infamy avail. For she incurs no loss of reputation by crying out, since only honorable women in a like case are accustomed to cry out. But as to the master's reputation, let him impute it to his own malice if he suffers danger to his reputation. Elbel 40.

To the fourth. It is likewise controverted. The denying opinion much more does not lack probability because of the most grave fear of death. For "that permission then is not moral cooperation, but only material; and therefore it is sufficiently excused on account of danger of death.... Nevertheless it must not be denied that the affirmative opinion is altogether to be advised in practice, at least on account of the danger of consent, which can easily be present in that permission." L. l. 3, n. 368.

To the fifth. Bertina would indeed have licitly killed the master, the assailant of her modesty, if she had been able. For it would have been a just defense. Nevertheless she was not held to this, although she herself would have had to be killed. "For no one is held to kill an aggressor, but licitly and laudably can permit his own killing, lest the other be deprived of temporal and eternal life." L. 380. Cf. I. M. 727, 729, 730; G. 19, 20.

1. Lubanus is accustomed to ride horseback, either for the sake of utility or also not rarely for the sake of recreation. But often while riding, he experiences carnal motions, indeed sometimes even pollution itself. Although he detests depraved effects of this sort from his soul, nevertheless he fears lest he gravely stain his conscience, and again, anxious, asks the confessor whether he ought to form the proposal of riding no more.

Q. 1. Is pollution voluntary in the cause ever a grave sin? 2. Has Lubanus sinned?

R. To the first. Affirmatively, namely when the cause placed influences pollution per se, proximately, and gravely, and is placed without a just reason of necessity, or utility, or convenience. Now actions or causes influencing pollution per se, proximately, and gravely are those which directly, by their nature, of themselves tend to pollution, in almost the same way in which the infliction of a lethal wound is said to be a cause per se of death; and for this reason they constitute grave fault in the genus of lust. Such are, for example, morose thoughts about venereal things, voluntary sight of human intercourse, conversations openly too immodest, the reading or hearing of very shameful things, shameful touches in the private parts. I. M. 35-37, 40; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 780.

But it is permitted, from a just reason and notwithstanding the depraved effect, to place the aforesaid causes.

The reason is that no artisan ought to omit the beginning or prosecution of a work because of defects following from the necessity of the matter. For someone would foolishly omit the construction of a saw or sword because they will contract rust, since they are made from iron, and so concerning other things. But pollutions and stings of the flesh in the proposed matter happen from the necessity of the matter, from the fact that venereal matter is matter to be cleansed, washed, disputed about, preached about, thought about; from this, by natural sequence, there follows commotion of the flesh, etc. Therefore man ought not, because of defects occurring from the necessity of venereal matter, to omit not only necessary, but useful thoughts, speakings, hearings, etc. For otherwise it would be necessary either that angels or very privileged men only dispute, hear, etc., concerning things of this sort, the opposite of which ecclesiastical custom holds and reason teaches. Thus Cajetan, tom. 1, Opusc., tr. 22, q. un.; Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 12, par. Confirmatur Conclusio.

And Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, d. 14, n. 102: "If that action or cause is of itself a proximate disposition to pollution, such as contact with and sight of immodest parts, etc., we are held by reason of pollution to avoid it under mortal sin, unless some necessity compels us to that action. The reason is that, speaking per se, to consent to the effect and to its proximate cause is of the same moral character. Nevertheless, when another just cause of that action underlies it, then that effect is not judged willed, but only permitted, as coming beyond the intention. It is confirmed in the proposed matter. For that contact does not move except as apprehended by the imagination. But apprehended by the imagination, for example, as a necessary means for curing, it does not have the power of stirring up lust. But if, with that apprehension, another also creeps in at the same time, as of a pleasurable thing, and this moves, that is per accidens, from the misery of nature and beyond the intention of the agent, not from the nature of the object considered under the aspect of a means to health. Hence, on account of such an effect, we are not held to deprive ourselves of that convenience. But it is called a per se disposition, or proximate cause, because when it is apprehended according to itself, not as a means to another end, it is such."

To the second. Lubanus must not be disturbed. The reason is that this cause is remote and per accidens; whence in such and a similar case, "man rather suffers than acts, since pollution proceeds not from his malice, but from the infirmity of nature.... To this is added that, when a cause has two effects, one good, the other evil, it can be placed from the intention of the good effect alone, conducting oneself permissively toward the evil." L. 483; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 64, a. 7; G. 11.

2. Marchantius once had shameful pleasure, but doubts whether sleeping or awake. Often in sleep he suffers pollution. But in the morning he rejoices because for this reason he is well and free from temptations. Finally, having awakened during pollution begun in sleep, he does not try to impede it. Often he also suffers distillation, concerning which he is very uncertain whether it is a sin.

Q. 1. Is distillation a grave sin? 2. Has Marchantius sinned?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 809, 811. To the second. Marchantius, in the first case, can be excused from sin. For the presumption stands for the state of sleep, since things which are done in the state of waking are adverted to and known. Voit 37.

In the second case he is still more to be excused from sin because of the defect of the voluntary. Nevertheless it could have been voluntary in the cause, if, foreseeing that depraved effect at least in a confused way, he placed its cause by shameful readings, conversations, thoughts, etc. Cf. Sanch., l. 9, d. 45, n. 28.

In the third case he is to be excused at least from grave sin, if he rejoices only concerning the good effect which followed. I. M. 292, 294; G. 23. - In the fourth case, "nor is he held to restrain its actual flow, because, from the fact that the motion of the flesh has been excited while sleeping, it is no further subject to the will of one awake; and although it were subject, it could not be restrained without notable burden of the body and danger of infirmities. Wherefore he can permit it as the effect of a natural cause which can no longer be impeded.... The same seems to be said concerning any involuntary pollution, whether it happens in sleep or in waking, since the reason of each is the same as to this." Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 13, at the end; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 782; Lig. 479.

Physicians indeed deny the aforesaid danger of infirmity in the case. And thus Dr. C. Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, 11th ed., Aachen, 1896, p. 79, openly says: "There is no such corrupted seed which can in some way bring disease to the body." But even prescinding from a danger of this sort, the reason brought forward holds, namely that in that pollution naturally begun the will conducts itself merely permissively, not impeding it, since it does not arise from any influence of the will and any efficacy of the will, but by force of nature itself; whence it is that, as it begins naturally, so consequently it is also completed merely naturally. Hence St. Alphonsus says in the cited place: "When emission began in sleep, but afterward is consummated in full waking, in that case, provided consent in the pleasure or proximate danger of consent from past experience is absent, man is not held to restrain it.... For then he does not will the pollution, but merely suffers it.... Then it is expedient to fortify oneself with the sign of the cross, and by averting the mind from that shameful pleasure, and by invoking the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, fervently to pray them not to permit any fall."

Finally, as regards distillation, this first must be noted: that distillation properly differs from pollution. For pollution is the outpouring of human seed without congress with another. But distillation is a certain flow of humor intermediate between urine and true seed, which falls drop by drop in small quantity. Then indeed it must be adverted that, if distillation happens beyond the intention, without voluntary sense of the flesh and without voluntary commotion of the genital spirits, it is not a sin, nor is it necessary to be disturbed about it more than about any other simple sweat of the body.

But if it happens with voluntary carnal sense and with voluntary commotion of the spirits serving generation, for example, from shameful touch, from shameful conversation, from shameful sight, it is a grave sin. Wherefore it is mortal deliberately to procure even light distillation which carries with itself some commotion of the flesh and the outpouring of a little true seed, or certainly contains proximate danger of it. The same must be said a fortiori if the voluntary distillation is in great quantity, which is with notable venereal pleasure and notable commotion, or with some outpouring of true seed. Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 778, 783; Lig. 477.

Hence St. Alphonsus, l. c., says: "Just as he sins gravely who procures a notable commotion (which is incipient pollution), so also he who procures great distillation." And Sanchez, l. 9, d. 45, n. 32, says: "Whenever it is a mortal sin to give a cause to foreseen pollution, by not removing causes notably influencing it, it is similarly mortal to give a cause to notable distillation or to commotion of the vital spirits serving generation through similar causes. Because this distillation and commotion of the spirits is notably shameful and as it were incipient pollution." Ballerini has the same, Op. Theol. Mor., 1st ed., v. 2, p. 725, where he asserts that distillation "frequently itself also happens with commotion and pleasure of the genitals; for it is joined to some outpouring of seed, or disposes to it. But again and again it has place without any pleasure. If therefore it happens in the former way, moral malice will be placed in the venereal pleasure procured either in itself or in the cause, and also in pollution or outpouring of seed, or in the proximate danger of this. But if it happens in the other way, without pleasure, although with a certain natural commotion, theologians say that it is not to be cared about, just as concerning any other excretion, nor ought we to avoid its cause." And from these things it is abundantly clear what must be thought concerning Marchantius in the fifth case.

Now, progressing further in this matter, that must be noted which the praised Sanchez, l. c., has concerning married persons. For after the words just reported, he immediately adds: "Whether this holds true in married persons, we shall say in the last number." But in this number, namely 43, he says: "I do not think that it is mortal in married persons, through touches, sights, and shameful words, and through venereal pleasure arising from intercourse thought about, to give a cause to commotion of the members serving generation and to incur foreseen distillations." And Fr. Gury, Comp., v. 2, n. 919. 3°, says: "Spouses do not sin gravely, even if, from touches had even without the intention of intercourse, there arises commotion of the spirits or members serving generation, or distillation follows.... The reason is that, the crime of voluntary pollution outside the vessel or of sodomy being set aside, nothing is done against the good of marriage." But this conclusion of Sanchez and Gury, as regards distillation, does not seem able to be admitted absolutely of itself, as is easily gathered even from the very reason brought forward by Gury. For it can indeed be admitted concerning distillation which is without outpouring of seed. Nor indeed is distillation always with outpouring of seed, which indeed is opposed to the very definition of distillation.

But as regards that distillation which is in reality joined with an outpouring of seed, even if only partial, the aforesaid acts seem to be prohibited for the same reason, by reason of distillation as by reason of pollution. Wherefore, just as from the aforesaid acts which can be exercised by spouses, at least without grave fault, those acts must altogether be excluded which by their nature are an inchoate pollution, or of themselves proximately dispose to pollution, so consequently those acts seem to have to be excluded which of themselves proximately dispose to distillation joined with the outpouring of seed, and which consequently, by reason of this sort of joined distillation, are by their nature an inchoate pollution. Cf. I. M. V. 2, n. 1079-1083.

37. 1. Concerning fornication. (A) Simple fornication is intercourse of an unmarried man, or one not joined in marriage, with an unmarried woman, from mutual consent. Intercourse, moreover, properly consists in penetration of the female vessel with semination made there; if male seed is not poured forth, there is begun or imperfect intercourse; but effusion of female humor is by no means required for perfect intercourse.

(B) Fornication is a mortal sin, prohibited not only by positive law, but also by natural law. For Paul says:¹ "For know this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous person, which is the service of idols, has inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Moreover, that this is forbidden by natural law is established from this proposition condemned by Innocent XI: "It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice, and is evil only because forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason." - In reality fornicators seek venereal delectation without the burdens of matrimony; and this indeed tends to the detriment of human society: for when vague and free concubinage is admitted, provision is not sufficiently made for the education of offspring, which demands the care of father and mother. But even if in a determined case provision were made for the education of offspring, fornication would nevertheless be a grave sin, because of itself and from things commonly occurring it tends to evil or at least imperfect education of offspring.

¹ Eph. 5:5.

38. (C) Sometimes various malices are added to fornication: (a) intercourse is sometimes committed in an onanistic manner, in order to prevent the generation of offspring: then it is against nature (Supplement on Matrimony, n. 40).

(b) When intercourse is frequently had with the same person, whether she is retained at home or not, concubinage is present; its special malice consists in the purpose of persevering in sin. - The concubinarian is in a proximate occasion of sinning, and regularly cannot be absolved unless he has dismissed the concubine, if she is retained at home; the case is excepted in which death is imminent, so that time is lacking for casting out the concubine. Here what we have said concerning occasionaries must be recalled to memory, in the Treatise on Penance, n. 460.

(c) Prostitution is the state of a woman who prostitutes herself to all, for the sake of gain or lust. There also is a depraved will of committing many sins, even adulteries and sacrileges, if the occasion should present itself.

Prostitution cannot be tolerated by magistrates except to impede greater evils,² namely sins against nature, and lest perhaps honorable women be subjected too frequently to the impure solicitations of the depraved. Hence let it be tolerated not everywhere, but only in great cities, and indeed precautions having been used to remove scandals, insofar as this can be done.

² St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 10, a. 11.

39. 2. Concerning rape. Rape is distinguished as threefold: in the strict, or canonical, sense, it is the defloration³ of a virgin, she being unwilling; in the less strict sense, it is the defloration of a virgin, even if she is consenting; in the broad sense, it is intercourse with any woman whatever, she being unwilling.

³ A virgin is deflowered when through first carnal intercourse she loses the flower of virginity.

(A) Rape is called violent not only when a woman is oppressed by force, but also when intercourse is extorted by threats or by fear unjustly inflicted, or by deceit or fraud, e.g., by abusing the ignorance of a girl, by falsely promising marriage, by carnally knowing a woman in sleep or drunkenness. Now every violent rape, even with a woman who is not a virgin, includes a twofold malice, one against chastity and the other against justice, since the right of the woman over her own body is violated.

(B) But rape which is punished by canonical penalties is the defloration of a virgin, she being unwilling, unless another thing is expressly noted. - When a virgin is deflowered with her consent, there is indeed a notably aggravating circumstance, but the species of the sin is not changed.

(C) Related to rape is abduction, or the violent carrying off of a person, for the sake of fulfilling lust. Therefore it differs from the impediment of abduction, which is incurred when the carrying off is done for the sake of entering marriage. It likewise includes a twofold malice, namely against justice and chastity.

N. B. A woman to whom violence is brought is always held not only to resist internal delectation, but also exteriorly to manifest dissent, by crying out and, according to her strength, by repelling the aggressor; nevertheless she is not held to resist in that external manner which exposes her to danger of death or infamy, provided the proximate danger of internal consent is absent.

40. 3. Concerning adultery. (A) Adultery is intercourse with the spouse of another; it is simple if an unmarried person sins with a married woman or vice versa, but double if both are married. External acts, even non-consummated, and also impure desires of sinning with the spouse of another, in some way take on the malice of adultery. Nevertheless, not a few, from lack of consideration or ignorance, do not advert to this twofold malice in incomplete acts: in which case they are not strictly held to declare it.

(B) Adultery, even simple, always includes a twofold malice, both mortal, namely against chastity and against justice, by violating the right of the other spouse. This indeed is true even if the other spouse consents: for the right of which there is question, since it arises from a contract necessary for the public good, cannot be alienated. Wherefore this proposition 50 was condemned by Innocent XI: "Intercourse with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery; and therefore it suffices in confession to say that one has fornicated." - But besides, as often as offspring is born from an adulterous wife, temporal damage is brought upon her husband by introducing an adulterine infant into his family, and also upon legitimate children, who thereby lose a portion of inheritance; when and how such damage must be repaired, we explained in the Treatise on Justice, n. 575.

41. (C) Intercourse had with a person who has contracted valid betrothal with another is certainly a notably aggravating circumstance, because the inchoate right of another is violated; but whether it changes the species of the sin, and therefore must be declared in confession, is not certainly established; hence if the penitent is silent about this matter, the confessor is not held to ask.

42. 4. Concerning incest. (A) Incest is intercourse between blood-relatives or relatives by affinity who, according to the law of the Church, cannot enter valid marriage with each other, e.g., between blood-relatives up to the fourth degree. Under the name of relationship also comes spiritual relationship, arising from baptism or confirmation, and legal relationship, from valid adoption.⁴ - External acts and desires of sinning with blood-relatives or relatives by affinity are referred to incest, as was said concerning adultery.

⁴ Concerning these see the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 333 and 334.

(B) Incest includes a twofold malice, namely against chastity and piety, both mortal; but those who sin with remote blood-relatives or relatives by affinity, or with spiritually or legally related persons, do not always advert to this. - Incest arising from consanguinity or affinity differs in species from that which proceeds from spiritual or legal relationship; but it is commonly admitted that incest from consanguinity does not differ in species from that which arises from affinity.

Some say that incests committed between blood-relatives or relatives by affinity in any degree whatever, even between parents and children, brothers and sisters, are probably of the same species.⁵ But with most theologians we think that incest with an ascendant or descendant and with a brother or sister differs in species from the others;⁶ and common sense indeed so bears, which holds such horrendous crimes as worthy of special reprobation. Indeed, if someone has sinned with a stepmother (belle-mere) while the father is living, we judge that this circumstance must be declared in confession, by reason of the atrocious injury toward the parent:⁷ thus Lehmkuhl, n. 882.

⁵ Sporer-Bierbaum, t. III, p. IV, n. 609; Ball. P., t. II, n. 1016; Noldin, n. 21.

⁶ Lugo, De Poenitent., disp. XVI, n. 143; St. Alphonsus, l. III, n. 448, and l. VI, n. 470; Lehmkuhl, t. I, n. 882.

⁷ Concerning this crime Paul said (1 Cor. 5:1): "There is absolutely heard among you fornication, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife."

43. (C) Carnal sins committed by a pastor with parishioners take on a special malice, not indeed of incest, but of injustice, insofar as a shepherd induces to sin those whom by office he ought to draw back from vice. - Moreover a confessor who sins carnally with a penitent, although he does not commit incest, incurs excommunication if he absolves the accomplice (On Penance, n. 510-528).

44. 5. Concerning sacrilege. Sacrilegious luxury is the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act; concerning the threefold species of this sin it was said above, n. 930-934. The sin of solicitation participates in some way in the malice of sacrilege, by which the confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for a shameful sin (On Penance, n. 529).

45. 1. Concerning pollution. (A) By this name theologians designate any effusion whatever of human seed, whether voluntary or involuntary, without intercourse. Physicians, however, commonly understand by this word involuntary effusion of seed, especially that which happens during sleep. But voluntary emission they call onanism, solitary vice, masturbation (from the words manu, stupration); this indeed must be noticed, lest, in hearing confessions or understanding books of physicians, a harmful error be incurred.

Pollution properly so called is not found in those who do not have true seed, namely in the prepubescent, eunuchs, indeed also women. For in women there is no other seed except the ovum, which descends from the ovaries into the uterus without perception of delectation; the vaginal humor, which flows within the organs and sometimes externally, is not prolific; nevertheless, since it is joined with complete venereal delectation, the voluntary effusion of this humor, outside marital intercourse, is a mortal sin, because, although not necessary for generation, nevertheless it is ordered to it as something accessory.

Pollution in men differs from distillation, which is a small effusion of humor flowing from the prostate and urethra, akin to the vaginal humor of which above.

46. (B) For judging the morality of pollution, one must diligently distinguish between pollution willed in itself or in the cause, and pollution wholly involuntary. This sometimes happens in the state of waking, but more often in sleep. (a) Involuntary pollution which happens to those awake is called passive (perte seminale), is provoked by very slight causes, and occurs without delectation: this is truly a disease, not rarely proceeding from the habit of sinning, but in itself free from every fault.

47. (b) The latter is called nocturnal pollution, because it occurs during sleep. Often it arises from merely natural causes, especially from abundance of seed, and is, as it were, an emptying of nature. Young men who have attained puberty and those who remain unmarried suffer this more or less frequently; when it happens only once in a week, it is not to be cared about; if three times or more often, and indeed in a habitual manner, it is expedient to have recourse to a physician.

Now nocturnal pollution, when both in itself and in its cause it is involuntary, is no sin, even if phantasms more or less dishonorable precede or accompany it: for it is natural that phantasms of this kind occur when superabundant seed is expelled,¹ on account of the connection between the genital organs and the brain, the seat of imagination. - If it happens to those half-asleep with some consent to the delectation accompanying it, it does not exceed venial sin, because of imperfect knowledge and volition (above, n. 79). In doubt whether someone consented, it must be judged that consent was not given, at least not fully, if in the waking state all these things displease him. - Sometimes, however, it happens that pollution is voluntary in the cause, insofar as it is caused by dishonorable thoughts, readings, or conversations deliberately had, with foresight of this depraved effect: then it is a sin, more or less grave, according as the aforesaid actions were more or less sinful and the foresight more certain and distinct. But the sin is committed not at the time when the pollution happens, but at that instant when it is foreseen and its cause is deliberately placed (above, n. 174).

¹ St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 154, a. 5.

48. (C) Pollution in itself, or directly voluntary, is a grave sin. For St. Paul numbers effeminacy, that is, pollution, among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God.² In reality the effusion of human seed is ordered solely to the generation of offspring, and the pleasure annexed to it is for attaining this end more efficaciously; but in pollution directly willed, seed is emitted for the sake of pleasure alone, against the order of nature, and therefore it is sin;³ but if it were lightly unlawful, the end intended by nature would be frustrated: for many men, content with this pleasure, would bid farewell to the burdens of matrimony, or would contract nuptials only after lust had been fulfilled, when they have become impotent for generating. - Therefore this proposition 49 was rightly reproved by Innocent XI: "Effeminacy is not prohibited by natural law. Hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin."

² 1 Cor. 6:10.

³ The pagans themselves admitted this, the poet Martial testifying (Epigram., l. IX, 42): "Believe nature herself to say of things: That which with your fingers, Ponticus, you destroy, is a man."

49. Moreover, the physical and moral effects which follow from voluntary pollution clearly show how much it is contrary to nature. For young persons addicted to this vice easily contract a wholly tyrannical habit, which greatly weakens their strength: frequency of immodest acts disturbs the whole nervous system and the brain; hence weakness and general weariness, pains of the head, diminution of appetite, convulsions of the limbs, weakening of sight and hearing; then involuntary, or passive, pollutions accede, vehement palpitations of the heart; sometimes also incurable diseases: phthisis, dropsy, epilepsy, tabes dorsalis, and, among women, inflammation of the uterus, hysteria. Often also by frequent masturbation the power of coition and generating is lost. - To these effects must be added others, moral, namely depression of soul, enervation of the will, inability for labors, especially intellectual ones: for the mind, infected with obscene images, can scarcely think about other things; soon noble ideas and pure affections vanish, insane egoism prevails; sometimes madness succeeds. - Not all these effects indeed are always produced, nor in the same degree in all: for this depends on bodily constitution, frequency and duration of acts, and other circumstances; but the danger is certainly present that an inveterate and almost incurable habit be contracted, from which the aforesaid effects will follow more or less.⁴

⁴ Many physicians have described these effects, among whom: Tissot, De l'onanisme, 1760; Garnier, Onanisme; Fournier, L'onanisme, Paris, 1892; Ribbing, L'hygiene sexuelle, Paris, Alcan, 1901, p. 156; Surbled, La Morale, t. II, ch. 3-8; idem, Le vice solitaire, Paris, 1905; Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine, t. IV, pp. 304-317; Stall, What a young boy ought to know, Philadelphia, 1897, pp. 97-118.

Nor are those physicians to be heard who, in order to deter young men from pollution, advise fornication to them, falsely asserting that seed must sometimes be poured forth for the sake of health. - For part of the seed is reabsorbed in the body, to which it adds new strength;⁵ the other part is poured forth naturally during sleep, without any disturbance of the nerves; while fornication, which is morally evil, can induce syphilis.

⁵ Surbled, Vie de jeune homme, ch. 6-7.

50. Corollary. When pollution has begun without consent of the will, whether in sleep or in waking, he sins gravely who voluntarily and positively performs and completes it, whether by touch or by movement. Nevertheless there is no strict obligation positively to restrain it, but it can be permitted that nature empty itself, provided the danger of consenting to the delectation itself is absent. For in the prior case pollution is truly procured; in the latter only the emptying of nature is permitted: which in certain circumstances is useful, lest a grave temptation arise therefrom, which the will would resist with difficulty, and lest disturbance of the nerves occur.⁶ Generally, however, it is more advisable to restrain imminent pollution when this can be done without irritation of the nerves.

⁶ Theologians formerly said that this was lawful lest the seed be corrupted; this reason indeed is physiologically false; but sudden and frequent suppression of begun pollution predisposes to nervous diseases; cf. Debreyne-Ferrand, La theol. morale et les sc. med., 6th ed., p. 87.

51. (D) Pollution not directly, but only voluntary in the cause, is culpable or not, gravely or lightly, according as there was or was not a reason for placing the cause from which the evil effect arises.

Pollution is called voluntary in the cause when it is foreseen as about to follow from some other act. Now, from what has been said above, n. 175, it is lawful to place an act good or indifferent in itself from which an evil effect will follow, provided a proportionately grave reason is present, and moreover consent to the evil end is guarded against. (a) If the danger of pollution, from the very nature of the action, is proximate and very probable, the proportionately grave reason must be necessity or great usefulness; thus it is lawful for physicians, surgeons, servants who in hospitals or baths serve the necessities of the body, to place acts from which pollution is foreseen, because their ministry is necessary or very useful. (b) If the danger is of itself remote and probable, a light reason suffices for placing an act otherwise good or indifferent. Therefore honorable kisses, embraces, decent dances, gymnastic exercises, riding, abundant meals are lawful, even if probably pollution should sometimes follow therefrom, provided they are done for the sake of civility or recreation, without depraved affection and danger of consenting to venereal delectation. - To guard against this danger, it is better immediately to divert the mind to honorable things.

52. On this occasion it is asked whether it is lawful to drive away by touch or rubbing an itching which someone suffers in the private parts, with danger of pollution. Generally it is better to tolerate it patiently. Nevertheless, if the itching arises from some inflammation or acrimony of blood, it is not unlawful to drive it away thus, because true usefulness is present, provided the danger of consent is absent; but if it arises from abundance of seed or ardor of lust, it is not lawful, because the touch tends to calming lust through pollution; moreover, it is not lawful to use an evil as a means to an end, even a good one.

53. Corollaries. From what has been said it is established what must be judged concerning distillation and concerning movements of the flesh.

(a) Distillation which occurs involuntarily and frequently, without commotion of the organs and pleasure, is not sin, but a disease, concerning which a physician is to be approached. - Distillation which occurs with some excitation of the organs is a mortal sin if it is directly excited on account of venereal delectation; a venial sin if it is caused from curiosity or levity, without depraved affection and danger of consent; no sin if it arises from honorable and lawful acts, e.g., conversations and looks otherwise decent, provided consent to the commotion is absent: for then it must be attributed to human weakness.

54. (b) The same can be said of carnal movements, which especially consist in erection of the male member or of the female clitoris: if directly voluntary, they are a grave sin because of the venereal delectation which accompanies them; if indirectly voluntary, or in the cause, although without sufficient reason, they generally do not exceed venial sin, with depraved affection and danger of consent set aside, because they proceed from levity; when a sufficient cause accedes, they are no sin, provided no complacency is voluntarily taken in them.

When these movements arise spontaneously, if they are light and transitory, one need not care about them; for solicitude to impede them is accustomed rather to increase them. If they are grave and lasting, it is not enough to behave passively, but one must resist them, in order to avoid the danger of consent. Direct resistance, however, generally excites the nerves and increases the force of the temptation. Wherefore one must resist indirectly, by changing place or posture, by working, walking, writing, in one word by diverting the mind to other things.

55. 2. Concerning sodomy. (A) Paul testifies that the unspeakable crime of sodomy flourished among the pagans:¹ "For their women changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And likewise the males also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their desires toward one another, males with males working shame."

¹ Rom. 1:26-27.

A twofold sodomy is distinguished: perfect, or properly so called, which is intercourse of two of the same sex, namely of male with male,² or of female with female; imperfect, or improperly so called, which is intercourse with a person of different sex, but in an unnatural vessel. They are two diverse species. - For sodomy simple touch does not suffice, but there is required, at least on one side, application of the genital member to the body of another, in whatever manner it is done.

² When men abuse boys to fulfill lust, it is called pederasty.

(B) Sodomy is a most grave sin, graver than fornication and simple pollution, both because it is most against nature and because both sodomites furnish scandal to each other and concur in the sin of the other.

56. Although perfect sodomy can be performed in various ways, penitents are not to be asked about these: it is enough to know whether it was consummated by effusion of seed.

Sodomy improperly so called, which is committed in the preposterous vessel, is accustomed to induce most grave diseases, especially in women; concerning these read physicians.

There is a more horrendous kind of sodomy, which by theologians is called irrumatio, by the common people abuse of the mouth: it consists in licking the genitals of the same or of another sex, and in other shameful acts committed with the tongue and mouth; this likewise draws many diseases after itself.

When sodomy is a reserved sin, as in many dioceses, sodomy properly so called, and indeed consummated, is understood, unless another thing is declared; this more frequently happens among males, but sometimes also among girls and women, who rub genitals against genitals with each other.

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.

— The greatest delight of the bodily order, which is joined with the use of the generative faculty, demands a moderating virtue, which is chastity. This, such as it would exist in the natural order, inclines man to moderate the sexual appetite according to the laws of reason. It is placed under the genus of temperance as a species.

Observe the distinction which intervenes between the formal object of this virtue and the formal reason for preserving order in the use of the faculty. Operation generative in itself denotes an immediate order to the good of the species; temperance immediately places order in the acting man himself, who subjects his inferior appetite to reason. But the good on account of which that order is deserted is a delightful good. And thus, through the command of reason over delight, toward which virtue helps, provision is made immediately for the good of man, mediately for the good of the species. Therefore the formal reason of the precept and of the virtue which is placed in charge of preserving the precept is diverse.

— By reason of matter, chastity is distinguished into matrimonial chastity, which, for spouses, moderates the appetite of venereal delight, and extra-conjugal chastity, which does so for persons loosed from the matrimonial bond.

By reason of the accompanying purpose, chastity is called perfect, which bids farewell to every carnal delight, even that which is made honorable by matrimony. This is virginal chastity, in a person who has voluntarily admitted no complete venereal satisfaction.

The very pursuit of virginity can be directed to perfection, when it emulates the purity of the angels, who do not experience carnal pleasure, are alien in mind from seeking it, and do not have to fear the contagion of vices and the seduction of allurements. Therefore angelic chastity: a) sincerely and fully preserves every affection alien from carnal pleasure; b) insofar as is fitting and the ability is had, strives to preserve the body free from every carnal motion; c) keeps itself immune from the contagion of secular corruption. And it reaches the summit when, every servitude of the sense having been repudiated, the mind enjoys no sensible delight as such.

The pursuit of perfect chastity is called continence, under which name also comes the persevering will of chastity in interior difficulty. For because most must struggle with a propensity to lust, strictly speaking they have not attained the acquired virtue of chastity. For acquired virtue connotes facility of act. Wherefore, in place of chastity, they possess the virtue of continence, which Aristotle calls a mixed virtue on account of the remaining difficulty. Nevertheless a certain facility of prompt victory can be acquired by the habit of energetic resistance.

Those who join the purpose of perpetual virginity with integrity of the flesh satisfy the conditions of the aureole of virgins, i.e. they merit an accidental but distinguished reward on account of the special victory which they have won back in the fight against the flesh, and on account of the liberality by which they preserve their heart, or affective life, for Christ. (Cf. On Chastity, n. 155 sqq.).

Matrimonial chastity consists in a threefold grade. First, and this necessarily, spouses have the destiny of so fulfilling all duties that they do not exceed the limit of conjugal flesh; in a more perfect grade, carnal mingling is exercised for the sake only of having children; third, and at the highest grade, spouses preserve perfect continence. (Cf. St. Augustine, Against Julian the Pelagian, l. 3, c. 21, n. 43, and l. 4, c. 2, n. 10. P.L. 44, 724 and 741).

— The vice opposed to chastity, lust, signifies the inordinate appetite of venereal delight. It is opposed to chastity by excess, while insensibility is opposed to the same by defect, which declines the due use of venereal things in matrimony. Lust is distinguished into complete or perfect lust, which infects the consummated use of the venereal faculty, and imperfect or incomplete lust, which is the beginning of the former. The acts of imperfect lust are some interior, namely base desires; others exterior, as libidinous looks, touches, conversations, etc. The acts of perfect lust are both natural acts, which do not repugn to nature in this respect, that, the nature of the act being considered, generation can follow, and unnatural acts, which violate the very order toward generation.

Lust can be directly, or in itself, willed, and indirectly willed, or permitted, when something else is intended from which carnal pleasure follows, not beyond foresight, but beyond intention.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

1006. Simple fornication is the intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried corrupted woman, by mutual consent. - It is said:

1. Of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, of persons who are free, not only from the bond of marriage but also from the bond of consanguinity or affinity, of a vow of continence, or of sacred order; otherwise it will be another species.

2. Corrupted, because if she is a virgin, it will be defloration and not simple fornication.

3. By mutual consent, because if violence is applied, or an unjust means, it is reduced to rape.

Fornication is intrinsically and mortally evil, and therefore it is not only evil because prohibited by positive divine law, but prohibited by natural law as being evil. It is proved:

1. From the Scriptures: Gal. 5:19-21; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Eph. 5:3-6, from which it is clear that this also regards the nations which did not have positive law.

2. From the condemnation of proposition 48 by Innocent XI.¹

¹ "It seems so clear that fornication in itself involves no malice and is only evil because forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason."

3. By reason, which Billuart proposes from St. Thomas in this way:² "Simple fornication is intercourse deprived in itself of the natural order to its end, namely, the education of offspring, and therefore in itself implies an inordination which tends to grave harm, not only of him who is to be born from such intercourse, but also of the common good and of human society, upon which many and very bad evils rush in from the bad education of members; therefore in itself it is a mortal sin.

² Diss. VI, a. 2. - Cf. St. Thomas, a. 2; c. G. III, 122; De Malo q. 15, a. 1.

"The antecedent is proved: The due education of offspring in the human species requires between male and female a lasting society after coition, namely marriage... But fornicarious intercourse in itself neither supposes nor implies the lasting society of male and female, but rather implies the contrary: for it is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, of those who are bound by no bond between themselves, whence it happens that, as far as is from the nature of the fornicarious act, one party after coition can at will desert the other party, not acknowledge the offspring, and exercise no care for it; and this indeed very frequently happens, and consequently the worst education of offspring. Therefore."

Nor does it stand in the way if you say that fornicators can agree and swear among themselves concerning cohabitation as long as it will be necessary for the education of offspring, or can provide for it otherwise. - "For the response is that this is accidental to the fornicarious act; but it belongs to it per se that the parties are not held after coition to remain together, since per se they are bound by no bond to this insofar as they are fornicators, nor is anyone prohibited, as far as is from the very account of the fornicarious act, from approaching any other person whatsoever. And therefore, as far as is of itself, it is an act deprived of the natural and due order to the education of offspring. Therefore that a fornicator after coition remains long with the woman and helps her in the education of offspring does indeed cause that fornication does not actually harm the offspring and the common good, but does not take away the fact that it is harmful in itself and disordered from the end of generation... Moreover, in human acts specific goodness or malice is considered according to that which belongs to them per se, and not according to that which belongs to them accidentally."

Yet fornication is not the gravest of sins. For it is "against the good of a man to be born. And therefore it is a graver sin according to its species than sins which are against exterior goods, such as theft and others of this sort, for example, detraction; but it is less than sins which are directly against God, or a divine good, for example, directly against the theological virtues or religion, and than a sin which is against the life of a man already born, such as homicide" (a. 3), which is graver than all species of luxury (ad 3).

1007. Remark. - Concubinage and prostitution are not distinguished in species from simple fornication, but are diverse grades of the same species. Prostitution is said when someone approaches one who is publicly exposed; concubinage, when he has a habit of approaching some determinate woman, whether he has her at home or not. But intercourse with one who is neither public nor habitual retains the name of simple fornication; but everywhere, as is supposed, it is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, and therefore within the same species of fornication.

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.

Besides the vice against nature, which altogether impedes the due end itself of venereal pleasure, namely generation, there are six principal species of complete lust according to nature, from which generation, namely, can follow: simple fornication, stuprum, raptus, adultery, incest, sacrilege.

For sins differ in species according to objects morally diverse, namely those which include a diverse repugnance to right reason. But in lust according to nature, on the part of the proper object, there can be six diverse repugnances to right reason. Therefore.

The minor is proved: moral deformity and repugnance to right reason can be by comparison with the partner, who:

1. either is merely unmarried and consenting, not qualified, so that there is deformity only on the part of the end, insofar as the due education of offspring is impeded, and then it is simple fornication, which is so called because it is simple lust against chastity alone;

2. or is a virgin under the power of her father, and then it is stuprum, even if violence is not inflicted upon the person;

3. or is one to whom violence is inflicted, and then it is raptus;

4. or is one joined to another, and then it is adultery;

5. or is one too closely related, to whom due honor is not preserved, and then it is incest;

6. or is one dedicated to God by vow, and then it is carnal sacrilege.

Nor should you say that these are not diverse species of lust, because they do not repugn to chastity in a special and diverse way but to other virtues: justice, religion, piety, and so forth. For there is also a special repugnance to chastity, and concupiscence is shown to be more inordinate, when someone tends so vehemently to lust that on account of it he does not fear also to sin against justice, religion, or piety. Namely, the species of sin is primarily from the end.

Concerning these diverse sins we must now speak in particular.

I. Lust against nature is so called because it altogether repugns the natural ordering or destination of the venereal act, while it impedes generation. There are four species of it distinct by object. For the genital act, in order that offspring may be conceived, requires four things: a. the concubitus of two; b. of different sex; c. of the same specific nature; d. in a natural mode. Hence someone can act against nature in four ways:

1. if, without concubitus, pollution is procured for the sake of venereal pleasure: solitary sin;

2. if concubitus is done toward the same sex, for example male with male or female with female: sodomy properly so called;

3. if concubitus is done with a thing of a different species: bestiality;

4. if the natural mode of lying together is not preserved, either by seeking an undue vessel or organ: sodomy improperly so called, or another undue mode in such a way, however, that generation is thereby impeded: onanism.

These differ in species according to a diverse repugnance toward nature and reason.¹

¹ Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 11. Hence proposition 24 was condemned by Alexander VII: "Softness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it suffices to say in confession that one has procured pollution."

II. Lust against nature, according to itself and other things being equal, is the gravest in the genus of lust, because it transgresses that which has been determined by nature itself concerning the use of the genitals as to their primary end. But the other sins of lust transgress only that which is further determined by reason. The first is more fundamental, because reason cannot determine certain things except according to those things which have first been determined by nature.

After this, however, is incest, which is also against a secondary natural inclination, namely against the natural reverence which we owe to persons joined to us. Adultery is graver than stuprum, because the injury is greater if someone abuses a person subject to the power of another for the use of generation than for guardianship alone; and simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is least among the species of complete lust. By raptus and sacrilege, however, the aforesaid things can be aggravated.²

² Ibid., a. 12.

All these things are to be understood:

1. according to themselves, that is, according to their proper and distinct species; for per accidens several, indeed all, species of lust according to nature can concur in one act, so that in that act there is greater gravity than in one sin against nature;

2. formally, or in the genus of lust, without attending to the malice of another species. For in another genus, by reason of an added circumstance, other sins can become simply graver, for example adultery by reason of injustice is absolutely graver than pollution, and sacrilege by reason of irreligion; but pollution in the genus of lust is graver than both;

3. other things being equal, so that in equal circumstances a sin against nature is greater, and so that the greatest sin against nature is greater than the greatest according to nature.

Nevertheless nothing prevents some sin according to nature from being graver on the part of the agent, for instance because it is done from special malice or with greater audacity.

III. Among sins against nature, gravity is attended from the greater abuse rather than from the mere omission of due use. Hence bestiality is graver, because it recedes most of all from the rule of nature, since even the due species is not preserved; then sodomy properly so called, in which the due sex is not preserved; then sodomy improperly so called, or the undue mode of lying together, in which the due organ is not preserved; then onanism, or unnatural concubitus from the mode alone impeding generation. The lowest place is held by solitary sin, which is in the omission alone of concubitus toward another (ibid., a. 4).

Concerning these we must now speak in particular.

I. Unnatural concubitus with a woman (tegennatuurlijke vrouwenbeslaping) is that which does not preserve the mode indicated by nature, in such a way that the possibility of generation is thereby impeded. Hence by that very fact it is against nature and gravely sinful, because it is directly opposed to the natural end of the genital act.

It can be against nature in two ways:

1. on the part of the organ in which copulation is had, while it is not exercised in the natural vessel, that is, the female genital canal, but in an unnatural vessel and undue organ, namely in the posterior vessel or in the mouth. It is called sodomy improperly so called, because it imitates true sodomy;

2. on the part of the mode alone, if copulation is exercised in the natural vessel and due organ, the female genital canal, 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 semen outside the female genital canal, or because he himself or the woman employs instruments or other means by which the semen is impeded from passing to the uterus. It is called onanism, from the deed narrated concerning Onan (Gen. XXXVIII, 9). For if only the natural and due mode in situation, place, or time is not preserved, yet in such a way that generation is not impeded, the mode is only beside nature (ongepaste or ongewone wijze), not against nature, nor evil of itself gravely.

II. Onanism can be done in various ways:

1. on the part of the man: a. if he begins copulation in the female genital canal but withdraws himself before insemination and pours out semen outside the female genital canal; b. if he clothes the virile member or only its glans with some thin covering or sheath, a condom,¹ capote anglaise, within which the emitted semen is retained;

¹ It is so called because it had Doctor Condom as inventor.

2. on the part of the woman: a. if she uses an occlusive pessary (sterilet), that is, a certain thing introduced into the lowest part of the female genital canal for closing the mouth of the uterus, for example a metallic barrier, sponge, cotton, threads of linen, and so forth; b. if she uses a pseudo-vagina, that is, a thin membrane arranged within the whole female genital canal in which semen is emitted.

Besides these unnatural modes of lying together, there are other modes by which, after the action has been completed, conception is impeded, for example washing of the female canal by which, by means of a syringe or irrigator after copulation, semen is expelled by water or an antiseptic substance; or, immediately before or after copulation, the sprinkling of a chemical substance, for example anticonceptional powder, or the injection of an acidic liquid by which semen is killed. But these modes are rather against justice, to which they are opposed per se, than against chastity, to which they are opposed per accidens because of the intention of the agent. Besides, there are several unjust modes by which offspring already conceived is impeded from being born or living, for example abortion or craniotomy.

III. Observations. 1. Pollution done between the arms, legs, breasts, and so forth, of a woman is not imperfect sodomy; neither is it so in affection unless there is affection toward an undue organ. It is pollution with affection of fornication.

2. In sodomy improperly so called, it must be expressed whether pollution was present; for it is consummated by the emission of semen.