Chastity (Sixth and Ninth Commandments)

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.

15. On fornication. Definition. Fornication is intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman by mutual consent.

a. Intercourse is an act suitable for generating offspring. Perfect intercourse is distinguished, which consists in penetration of the female vessel with insemination made there, and imperfect, or begun, intercourse, which consists in penetration of the female vessel destined for generation, but without insemination made there. An unmarried man is one who, apart from the precept of chastity, is bound by no other bond, whether of marriage or of vow or order or kinship. By consent is added so that fornication may be distinguished from defilement. Effusion of female humor is not required for perfect intercourse, contrary to what several older authors had taught.

b. Intercourse of a eunuch with an unmarried woman is not fornication, but impure touch with complete venereal delectation. Imperfect intercourse in which semen is poured out outside the female vessel is not simple fornication, but qualified fornication, because to the sin of fornication against chastity there is added a sin which is reduced to sins against justice, because semen is frustrated against the order of nature and the end of human generation.

16. Concubinage and prostitution are referred to fornication.

1. Concubinage is frequent intercourse of an unmarried man with one and the same unmarried person. It differs from fornication in this, that a concubinarian always approaches the same person with whom he lives as if he had been joined with her in marriage; but a fornicator approaches now one, now another. Nevertheless, it has no bearing on the nature of concubinage whether they live in the same or in diverse houses. Therefore the proper malice of concubinage consists in the purpose, at least virtual, of persevering in sin.

a. Because a concubinarian is occupied in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he is held under grave obligation to abandon, he cannot be absolved unless he casts out the concubine; or if he does not have her at home, unless he has seriously promised that he will no longer approach her. And if he has a concubine at home, he ought to cast her out, even if he is in danger of death; and only where death is now imminent and time is lacking for casting her out can he be absolved, after eliciting a firm purpose of casting her out as soon as it can be done.

b. If in some parish two persons live in concubinage, one must proceed against them in this way.

a. First, they are to be admonished privately by the pastor, or by others, so that they amend themselves and make an end of a depraved and scandalous life.

b. If the admonition lacks effect, the matter is to be referred to the ordinary, who by his office ought to admonish public sinners; this can also be done by the pastor in the name of the bishop.

c. But if this admonition also is fruitless, the ordinary is to inflict excommunication, either publicly, to remove scandal, or privately through the pastor. Those who do not amend themselves are to be deprived of ecclesiastical burial.

d. If ecclesiastical admonition lacks effect, the help of the civil power can and must be invoked where this is offered.

2. Prostitution is the state of a woman prostituted to all, whether for the sake of gain or of satisfying lust. In order that she can be called a prostitute, she must admit at least more than two. The proper malice of this sin also consists in the depraved will of accumulating sins.

Note. Fornicators are to be asked whether offspring has been born from the fornication, whether they impeded generation or procured abortion, whether perhaps they neglected the offspring born. As regards prostitutes it must be noted that many and diverse seeds in the womb impede generation.

17. Malice. 1. Fornication is always a mortal sin: for it is gravely prohibited both by the law of nature and by positive law.

a. By the law of nature. Caramuel had said that fornication is illicit only by positive law, but falsely: for it is opposed to the good of offspring and therefore to the propagation of the human race. Certainly those who fornicate seek vague concubitus, i.e. venereal delectation of intercourse without the obligations and burdens of marriage; but vague concubitus tends to the destruction of human society. For offspring, whose apt education requires not only the care of the mother but also the care of the father, is not sufficiently provided for; therefore it is gravely prohibited by the law of nature. And although accidentally offspring might be educated well by a fornicator, nevertheless fornication is always a grave sin, because what happens commonly and ordinarily must be considered, not what happens accidentally.¹

b. By positive law. St. Paul, in the places cited above, n. 11, counts fornication among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of heaven; moreover, in 1 Cor. 6, 15 ff., he shows by many internal reasons the deformity of fornication.

2. Concubinage and prostitution do not differ specifically from fornication; wherefore the circumstance of concubinage and prostitution of itself need not be declared in confession. But accidentally, on account of the occasion of sin, it must be declared to the confessor, especially when he asks. From the great number of sins which are accused, the confessor can easily suspect that there is question of concubinage or prostitution.

¹ Therefore this proposition, 48, was condemned by Innocent XI: Thus it seems clear that fornication involves no malice in itself and is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason.

18. On prostitution. 1. Prostitution is lust exercised by women for pay. Public prostitution, which is distinguished from clandestine prostitution, is called that which is permitted by the civil power and is either unlimited or limited and moderated according to certain norms of morality and health.

Namely, only to women to whom a certificate of health is granted by physicians is permission conceded for exercising prostitution, and this only under certain conditions by which public morality is provided for.

Clandestine prostitution especially flourishes where public prostitution is not admitted by the civil power; but even in states which admit public prostitution, clandestine prostitution prevails.¹

2. But if the public power is said to permit prostitution, permission must be understood in such a way that it tolerates what it cannot impede without a greater evil; and the laws by which it moderates it tend to this, that harms to public honesty and health may be avoided.

a. The magistrate can admit clandestine prostitution as a lesser evil for impeding greater evils, pollution, sodomy, bestiality, etc.

a. Prostitutes certainly cannot be permitted by reason of the vehemence by which the carnal appetite inclines toward venereal matters, nor by reason of health, which would require that satisfaction be given to the rising carnal appetite; nor can they be permitted in any village whatever, but only in great cities and under certain conditions by which scandals are removed. Recent non-Catholic physicians judge each reason brought forward sufficient so that prostitutes can be admitted. But the will ought to resist the carnal appetite, however vehement, as it resists all other temptations; moreover, according to the authorship of physicians themselves, health is not endangered by the fact that the carnal appetite is repressed.

b. Whether greater evils are truly impeded through prostitution, or whether rather sins are increased by greater opportunity of sinning, is not established among experts. According to the mind of St. Augustine² and St. Thomas,³ they can be impeded through prostitutes.

b. There are those who judge that public prostitution must be reproved and abolished. For the laws by which it is moderated tend to this, that harms to public honesty and health may be avoided; but experience being witness, these evils, especially dangers to health, are not excluded. For even from those for whom a certificate of health is at hand, innumerable persons are infected with syphilis, which authors call the French disease, and from these the same plague is derived also into mother and offspring.

c. Brothels seem in no way to be tolerated: for first, through a brothel provision is not made for health; but great harm is brought to morality both because an easy occasion of sinning is offered and because sin appears as if permitted by law.

¹ In Berlin there are 5000 public prostitutes and 40000 clandestine ones; in Vienna 2000 public ones and 20000 clandestine ones.

² De ordine, l. 2, c. 4.

³ Cf. St. Thomas II-II, q. 10, a. 11, and the author of the work De regimine principum, l. 4, c. 14.

19. On adultery. Definition. Adultery is intercourse with the spouse of another. Simple adultery is distinguished, if an unmarried man sins with a married woman or a married man with an unmarried woman; double adultery, if a married man sins with a married woman.

a. Where adultery is reserved, attention must be paid to whether only perfect intercourse or also imperfect intercourse is reserved.

b. The nature of adultery is also had by: a. imperfect acts, namely touches, kisses, embraces, which a married person commits with another person not his own, whether that person is unmarried or bound; b. acts against nature, pollution, sodomy, which a married person commits either alone or with his own partner. But venereal delectations which a married person excites in himself by imagining intercourse with another do not have the nature of adultery, because this does not injure the right of the other spouse.

c. Therefore if an adult penitent accuses himself of the sin of pollution or of immodest touches committed either in his own body or on another person, by strict right he must be asked whether he is joined in marriage. Nevertheless, because those who are untrained in moral matters do not apprehend the twofold malice which is present in these sins, the question can frequently be omitted, unless the confessor hopes that, after the penitent has been admonished concerning the greater gravity of the sin, he can frighten him away from committing new sins.

20. Malice. 1. Adultery includes two sins, each mortal: one against justice, for the adulterer violates the right of another, which by the matrimonial contract he alone has acquired over the body of the spouse; the other against chastity. And if adultery is had between two married persons, two adulteries are committed by each, and therefore three sins: one against chastity and two against justice, because the diverse rights of two persons are injured.

A married woman who commits adultery at that time when she can conceive offspring contracts another injustice besides, both against the husband, who perhaps will have to nourish spurious offspring to be conceived, and against the legitimate offspring, who are compelled to divide the inheritance with the spurious offspring.

2. Adultery is committed even if the other spouse consents, because he cannot yield his right: for the right which follows from the very nature of marriage cannot be alienated by the private will of the spouse.¹ Therefore St. Paul says generally concerning a married woman: while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress if she has been with another man.²

Whether intercourse with another's betrothed woman is adultery. Intercourse with another's betrothed woman is fornication, not adultery, because this aggravating circumstance does not change the species. For it is commonly called probable that the sin of the betrothed with an external person does not contain grave injustice against the other party.³

In fact, doctors in resolving this question so dissent that some simply deny that the circumstance of betrothal changes the species of fornication; others say that it changes the species of fornication in the betrothed woman, but not in the betrothed man; and finally others affirm that it changes the species of fornication in each. The proper malice of this sin consists in the abuse by which a body promised to another is violated, therefore in injury to the right of another, to whom belongs a right over the body which had been promised incorrupt. Now this injury inflicted by a betrothed woman is certainly graver than that which is committed by a betrothed man; but whether it is so great that it constitutes a new species, and indeed a grave species, of sin, is not certainly established. Wherefore it is not necessary that the penitent declare the circumstance of betrothal, nor that the confessor ask about it.⁴

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri III, n. 273.

² Rom. 7, 3. Proposition 50, condemned by Innocent XI, has: intercourse with a consenting married woman is not adultery ...

³ St. Alphonsus, n. 847.

⁴ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1007.

21. On incest. Definition. 1. Incest is intercourse with blood relatives or relatives by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage. Therefore it belongs to the nature of incest that it be committed between those blood relatives and relatives by affinity who, according to the law of the Church, cannot enter a valid marriage, i.e. up to the fourth degree.

a. Base touches which are committed between blood relatives and relatives by affinity, whether of the same or of diverse sex, also have the nature of incest.

b. If blood relatives or relatives by affinity sin after they have been dispensed for entering marriage, they do not commit incest, because the dispensation removes the prohibition of marriage; but where marriage is not prohibited, there is no incest.

c. The sin which those bound by the impediment of public honesty commit between themselves is not incest, because it belongs to the nature of incest that it be committed between blood relatives and relatives by affinity; but those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty are neither blood relatives nor properly relatives by affinity.

2. Since, besides affinity, kinship is threefold, natural, which arises from nearness of blood; spiritual, which arises from baptism and confirmation; and legal, which arises from adoption, a fourfold incest must be distinguished:

a. with a blood relative up to the fourth degree;

b. with a relative by affinity up to the fourth, respectively up to the second degree;

c. with a spiritual relative;

d. with a legal relative.

A sin of lust committed by a confessor with a penitent does not have the nature of incest, because spiritual kinship arises only from the administration of baptism and confirmation, not from the sacrament of penance. Nor is a sin of lust committed by a pastor with a parishioner incest; but besides the guilt of lust this also puts on the malice of injustice, because a shepherd by office ought to draw back from sins the sheep entrusted to his care.

22. Malice. 1. Incest contains two grave sins, one against chastity, the other against piety: for it is repugnant to the reverence which is owed to parents and consequently also to persons joined with them either by blood or by affinity.

2. As regards specific difference: a. Incest between spiritual and legal relatives differs in species both among themselves and from incest which is committed between blood relatives and relatives by affinity; but it is commonly admitted that incest committed with a blood relative does not differ in species from incest committed with a relative by affinity. The reason is that kinships arise from a formally diverse root; but sins between blood relatives and relatives by affinity are prohibited from the same motive of piety; in each case the same reverence owed to blood is injured.

b. It is probable that incests committed between blood relatives or between relatives by affinity in any degree whatever, whether of the direct line, even in the first degree between parents and children, or of the collateral line, even in the first degree between brothers and sisters, are of the same species. Wherefore, just as it is not necessary that the connection, consanguinity or affinity, be declared in confession, so it is not necessary that the degree be declared; but it suffices to say: I committed incest. For in all of them the same virtue is injured, namely the reverence owed to those joined, and in the same way as regards substance; wherefore diversity of connection and the nearer degree add nothing to the sin except an aggravating circumstance.¹

St. Alphonsus, n. 448 f., excepts the first degree of consanguinity and affinity in the direct line, judging that the reverence which is owed within the first degree is morally other than that which is owed within the other degrees. But this sentence is not certain. Indeed Suarez, De poenitentia, disp. 22, sect. 3, n. 12, says: "Concerning the degrees of consanguinity, insofar as they are circumstances of incest ... it is more probable that they do not change the species of sin."

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 4, n. 609; Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 1016 ff.

23. On defilement. Definition. 1. Stuprum is taken in three diverse senses: broadly it is the violation of any woman, even a widow, a corrupted woman, or a married woman, where adultery is added to stuprum; juridically, in civil law, it is the violation of any honorable woman, whether she is a virgin or not; theologically, in canon law, it is the violation of a virgin, or the deflowering of a virgin, against her will.¹

Violation is the violating of a woman without consent; therefore to fornicate with a woman out of her mind, drunk, sleeping, likewise with a girl who has not yet obtained the perfect use of reason, has the nature of stuprum. A virgin is said to be deflowered who is corrupted for the first time through carnal intercourse and in this way is deprived of integrity of the flesh and of the flower of virginity.

2. Stuprum taken strictly or theologically is distinguished as violent and voluntary, according as a virgin is violated against her will or plainly consenting. It is clear that voluntary stuprum properly does not differ from fornication; nevertheless it is sometimes called stuprum because a virgin is deflowered, even with consent. But stuprum is called violent not only where physical force is applied, but also where moral force is applied; for in each case injury is inflicted on the virgin.

Violent stuprum can be committed in five ways: a. by violent oppression; b. by threats or by fear unjustly instilled, even reverential fear, as if the defiler is a superior or a man of great authority; c. by deceit, as if someone abuses a girl's ignorance and brings her to intercourse which he had said was licit; d. by fraud, as by a false promise of marriage or of a great dowry; e. by oppressing a virgin in sleep or drunkenness.

¹ Cf. c. Lex 2, C. 36, q. 1.

24. Malice. 1. Every stuprum properly so called, or violent, contains two sins, one against chastity, the other against justice: for whatever woman is oppressed against her will, always her true right is injured, and therefore injury is inflicted on her.

a. He who corrupts a consenting virgin by non-violent stuprum does not commit a sin specifically diverse from fornication: for although integrity of the flesh, of which the virgin is deprived, is a good to be held at a great price, nevertheless no injury is inflicted on the virgin, since she can consent to the violation of herself and in fact consents.¹ But it is rightly affirmed that a virgin who freely consents to her own deflowering, besides the sin of lust, commits the sin of prodigality, since she rashly casts away the good of bodily integrity, and therefore that the circumstance of virginity in a woman adds a new species of sin to fornication. But since the sin of prodigality is not mortal, it is not necessary that it be declared in confession.

b. He who oppresses a virgin against her will properly commits a twofold injury, since he abuses her body against her will and moreover deprives her of virginity by tearing the virginal enclosure.²

2. Stuprum which is affected by an ecclesiastical penalty or is reserved is understood as stuprum in the strict sense, namely the unjust deflowering of a virgin, unless something else is expressly noted.

In order that a woman oppressed by force be immune from sin:

a. she cannot have herself negatively or permissively, but is held to resist both internally, lest she consent to pleasure, and externally, so that she repel force by force.

b. But she is not held to cry out if this cannot be done without danger of life or notable infamy or without excessive shame, unless proximate danger of consent to the consummated act is imminent. For the rest, as Berardi notes well, the case of a woman oppressed without fault of her own, i.e. altogether against her will, is not so frequent.

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 443.

² Sanchez, De matrimonio, l. 7, disp. 14, n. 7.

25. On sacrilege. Definition. Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, or sacrilegious lust, is the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act.

Therefore carnal sacrilege, or sacrilegious lust, is likewise threefold, personal, local, and real, just as sacrilege itself considered in itself, which is a species of irreligiosity.

26. Malice. 1. Sacrilege contains two sins, one against chastity, the other against religion: for it is repugnant to the reverence owed to God in sacred persons, places, and things.

2. Personal sacrilege is committed if a person bound by a vow of chastity sins against chastity, internally or externally,¹ or if someone sins with one who has such a vow.

If one bound by vow, e.g. a priest, sins with a person likewise bound by vow, each commits two sacrileges; if a religious priest sins against chastity, he commits one sacrilege, because he injures one obligation imposed twice from the same motive.

3. Local sacrilege is committed through an external sin of lust in a sacred place. And this indeed is certain concerning pollution, fornication, and conjugal intercourse which moral necessity does not excuse; but concerning other gravely immodest acts, touches, kisses, looks, conversations, this must probably be denied.²

But internal acts certainly are not sacrileges, namely grave sacrileges: for some malice of light sacrilege is present in every sin which is committed in a church.

A sacred place in this question is a consecrated or blessed church, or public oratory, and this only from the roof to the pavement, and a blessed cemetery. Therefore private, or semipublic, oratories are not sacred places, nor is the sacristy, at least if it is not part of the building itself of the church, but if it is built exteriorly, nor the atrium of the church, nor the roof above the church.

4. Real sacrilege is committed through the abuse of a sacred thing for base things, as if a Mass were promised for obtaining consent to a base matter, or if a priest administering a sacrament, or refreshed by Holy Communion, at a time when the sacred species are not yet corrupted, were to sin carnally. To this also belongs that gravest sacrilege of solicitation in confession, by which a confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for a base sin.

¹ Cf. De praeceptis^3, n. 177, where the explanation of this matter is given.

² Cf. ibid., n. 178.

27. On raptus. Definition. Raptus, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violent abduction of any person whatever for the sake of satisfying libido. The proper malice of raptus consists in the injury which is inflicted through violent abduction.

a. Therefore for raptus it is required: a. that abduction or transfer from one place to another morally diverse place occur; b. with force inflicted, either physical or moral, either on the abducted person herself or on those in whose power she is: parents, guardians, a husband; c. for the sake of libido. Hence, if she is abducted for another end, e.g. that she may be used for services or for entering marriage, it is not a sin of lust; d. of any person whatever, whether this person is male or female, whether a virgin or corrupted, whether married or unmarried.

b. Hence he does not commit raptus who inflicts force on a person in the same place, nor he who for the sake of exercising libido drags her from one room into another, although in this case, besides the sin of chastity, on account of the violence inflicted he also commits a sin of injustice to be declared in confession.¹

¹ Cf. De sacramentis, n. 573 f.

28. Malice. Raptus contains two sins: one against chastity, either through the intention of sinning or through carnal intercourse with the abducted person; the other against justice, on account of the force inflicted either on the abducted person or on those whose power she is subject to, or on both.

a. For committing the sin of raptus, which at times is reserved, nothing else is required except that a person be abducted with the intention of sinning with her, whether through intercourse or through another base act, even if the external sin does not in fact follow. But in order that raptus can truly be numbered among consummated sins of lust, fornication must be committed with the abducted person.

b. If a woman, for the sake of satisfying libido, abducts a male, as regards malice indeed the same sin is committed specifically; but the woman does not incur the penalty or reservation established for raptus: for penalties established are judged to be against raptus according as it is ordinarily done; but ordinarily males abduct females, not females males.

29. Definition and division. 1. Pollution, which is also called softness or masturbation (manustupratio), is complete venereal delectation with effusion of semen without intercourse.

a. Since pollution consists in the effusion of semen with complete delectation, it is clear that pollution in the true sense of the name cannot occur in those who do not have true semen, namely in boys, old men, eunuchs, and women, although they can perceive complete and satiative venereal delectation.

b. The essence of this sin consists in complete venereal delectation, to which, as specific malice, there is added the fruitless effusion of semen against the order of nature. Wherefore pollution is a sin specifically diverse from complete venereal delectation without effusion of semen.

Note. In order that pollution follow, it is necessary that some cause irritate the genital nerves, from whose contraction the expulsion of semen is had. A cause of this kind can be physical, as touch, motion, frictions, pressures of the genitals, or psychic, as more or less obscene phantasms.

2. a. Pollution is either voluntary, which is willed in itself or in the cause, or involuntary or natural, which is willed in no way, but follows from natural causes.

b. Voluntary pollution is either direct or willed in itself, if something is done with the very intention of procuring it for oneself, or if consent is given to it when it happens involuntarily; or indirect, or willed in the cause, when something is done with foresight but without intention of a future pollution.

c. Pollution which is called passive is involuntary. This occurs in the waking state because of great weakness of the organs, sometimes contracted from the custom of sinning, is provoked by any very slight causes, as motion, touch, effort, etc., and is completed without delectation. Passive pollution is an illness and is free from any fault.¹

¹ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^2, p. 83.

30. On female pollution. Female pollution is the secretion or flow of vaginal humor, which is joined with complete venereal delectation; the sin of this pollution is not specifically diverse from the sin of complete venereal delectation in girls.

a. Women perceive venereal delectation in the clitoris, in the vagina, and in the uterus. If it is had with emission of humor, it is called pollution, and, as in men, it occurs both in time of waking and in time of sleep. Women are accustomed to procure venereal delectation or pollution for themselves by compressing the thighs, by touching the clitoris, by introducing fingers or some instrument into the vulva, by soliciting the uterus itself.

b. Female pollution is not an effusion of semen, since women do not have semen except the ovum, but is an effusion of vaginal humor, which nevertheless rarely is poured out exteriorly, but ordinarily flows down into the cavity of the uterus. If the humor flows down interiorly, its flow is rarely noticed; nevertheless it brings delectation. Therefore women can for the most part be judged to have been polluted only from this sign, that they have felt great delectation by which they have been libidinously satiated. They are capable of pollution of this kind already for some time before puberty.

c. Whether female pollution is a sin specifically diverse from complete venereal delectation, authors dispute. Those who call female pollution a specific sin use this argument: although that flow of humor is not necessary for generation, nevertheless it is ordered by nature to generation, and for the sake of generation complete venereal delectation is attached to it. Therefore in female pollution there intervenes a pouring forth of humor outside intercourse, which by nature is ordered only to intercourse.¹ This reason indeed does not prove the matter. For the specific malice of pollution consists in the effusion of semen against the end of nature; but women do not have semen properly so called; that which could be called female semen is only the ovum. Although the vaginal humor which is poured forth when women suffer pollution is ordered by nature to generation, nevertheless, since it is not necessary for it, its fruitless effusion is not of such great moment.² Therefore according to this opinion female pollution is not a consummated sin against nature, but is indeed a complete sin of lust, because it is complete venereal delectation, yet not consummated, because it is completed without effusion of semen.

d. Hence if women accuse themselves either of venereal delectation or of immodest touches, they are not to be questioned further as to whether they have been polluted; and this not only because often they do not know whether they have suffered pollution, or because pollution can be supposed, but especially because the question is not necessary, since the circumstance of pollution does not change the species of the sin. Therefore it suffices if they are asked whether they have basely satisfied themselves or have satisfied libido.

¹ Bucceroni, Institutiones theologiae moralis^4 (Rome: Typographia Augustin., 1900), I, n. 813.

² Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis (Rome: Pustet, 1905), I, n. 474 ff.

31. Whether they are of diverse species. Pollutions considered in themselves are not specifically diverse, but all are of the same species, because no specific difference appears by which diverse species would be constituted. For the diverse modes by which pollution is procured are related to the pollution itself, insofar as it is voluntary effusion of semen without intercourse, only materially and accidentally, provided only pollution is intended.

a. Therefore in confession one must not ask concerning the mode by which pollution was procured: for whether it was sought by imagination alone or by a base sight, by one's own touches or those of another, in one's own body or in another's body, it is always the same sin of pollution, provided there is absent affection toward a person or toward intercourse. Nevertheless induction or cooperation is added if it is provoked by human touches of another.

b. Many authors indeed teach that pollutions are specifically diverse according as they are provoked by the touch of a man, a woman, or a beast, because there intervenes affection toward the object which is touched; but affection is of diverse species according as it tends toward a man, a woman, or a beast. Nevertheless ordinarily it suffices if someone in this case accuses himself thus: I was polluted by touches of others, whether he himself touched others or allowed himself to be touched and thus polluted himself, because, if intercourse is not present, affection ordinarily is not borne toward sex but toward pollution alone. But if affection in fact tends also toward the object which is touched, the affection surely is specifically diverse according as it is borne toward a man, a woman, or a beast.

c. Things to be noted. a. Even that mode by which someone pollutes himself by abusing the mouth of another is only an aggravating circumstance, unless affection for sodomy is present. b. If someone pollutes another unwilling person, he commits two sins, one against chastity, the other against justice. If someone pollutes another consenting person, likewise he commits two sins, one against chastity, the other through cooperation against charity. If two persons pollute each other by touches, each commits a threefold sin, two against chastity, by polluting himself and the other, and the third through cooperation against charity.

d. Although in themselves all pollutions are of the same moral species, nevertheless from circumstances several diverse species are constituted. Circumstances of this kind occur: a. by reason of the subject; thus, if one bound by a vow of chastity is polluted, he commits sacrilege; if a married person is polluted, he commits adultery; b. by reason of the object; thus, if someone is polluted with a desire of sinning with an unmarried woman, he commits fornication, mental fornication; if with a desire of sinning with a married woman, adultery, mental adultery; c. by reason of the accomplice; if someone is polluted by touches of another, he commits the sin of induction or cooperation against charity; d. by reason of place; thus, if someone is polluted in a sacred place, he commits sacrilege.

32. On nocturnal pollution. 1. Its nature. This is completed in dreams and therefore without advertence and actual consent, but with delectation.

a. Nocturnal pollution is involuntary if it follows from natural causes independent of the will, or from causes indeed voluntary, but posited without foresight of future pollution; and it is voluntary in the cause if it follows from an action freely posited in waking with foresight of the pollution that will follow in sleep.

b. Among merely natural causes the chief is superfluous semen, by which nature, burdened, unloads itself; wherefore nocturnal pollution does not denote a libidinous soul, although more or less indecent phantasms provoke and accompany it. The words of St. Thomas are worthy of note: "when the seminal humor abounds in the body or when dissolution of the humor has occurred, ... the sleeper dreams those things which pertain to the expulsion of this kind of abundant or dissolved humor."¹

c. Young men suffer this after the years of puberty, and celibates, at the time when nature produces semen. At fixed times expulsions of semen of this kind return; but the time varies according to the diverse constitution of men and diverse manner of living; in some nocturnal pollution occurs once, in others even twice in a week, in others scarcely once in a month.

¹ Summa II-II, q. 154, a. 5.

33. 2. Its malice. a. Nocturnal pollution, both in itself and in the cause involuntary, is free from all fault, whether it pleases the sleeping person or displeases him.

b. Nocturnal pollution which sometimes happens to the half-awake must not be judged mortal, even if consent is given to it, because it occurs with imperfect cognition and will. The same must be said concerning nocturnal touches. In doubt it must be judged that no consent was present, if such things ordinarily displease in the waking state, because judgment must be made from things ordinarily occurring.

c. Nocturnal pollution voluntary in itself is a grave sin; but voluntary in the cause it is a grave or light sin, according as the action posited before sleep without reasonable cause and with sufficient advertence by its nature influences gravely or lightly toward provoking pollution.

a. Nocturnal pollution which is caused by honorable conversation with a person of the other sex, by very seasoned foods or by warm drinks moderately taken, by a certain more comfortable position in bed, is not imputed as sin, even if those causes were posited in waking with foresight of the future effect: for we are not bound to omit licit actions on account of the effect of future pollution, if there is a reasonable cause for positing them.

b. Nocturnal pollution which is caused by depraved thoughts or desires, by obscene readings, by indecent conversations, must be imputed as grave or light sin according as those causes were posited in waking with foresight that they would have a proximate or remote influence upon pollution.

34. On the malice of pollution voluntary in itself. Pollution directly willed is always a mortal sin: for a. voluntary pollution is a grave perversion of the order and institution of nature, for human semen by nature is ordered solely to the generation of man; but in pollution semen is poured out for the sake of pleasure in such a way that the end intended by nature is wholly frustrated. b. If pollution were not gravely illicit, the use of marriage would be impeded, which is so necessary for the human race; for men, content with this pleasure alone, would for the most part abstain from marriages, which are so troublesome. c. Wherefore St. Paul expressly enumerates softness among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: nor will the soft possess the kingdom of God.¹

1. Therefore it is never licit directly to procure pollution, not even if ejection of semen seemed necessary for preserving health; for even pollution which is taken up as a means for obtaining some end is willed in itself and directly, although not for its own sake.

2. Every voluntary effusion of semen, however small and slight, has the nature of pollution, and therefore is a mortal sin.

3. To promote in some way, by touch or motion or position, etc., pollution spontaneously begun, whether in waking or in sleep, is gravely illicit; but there is no obligation of impeding pollution spontaneously occurring or already begun in sleep, but it can be permitted that nature unload itself, provided consent to delectation is absent.

a. The reason on account of which the older authors thought that spontaneously begun pollution did not necessarily have to be restrained is indeed of no weight; nor nevertheless for that reason must an obligation of containing the impulse of nature be imposed. They themselves thought that semen already discharged, unless it is poured forth, is corrupted and, when corrupted, brings detriment to health; but in truth semen is never actually corrupted, and even when discharged it does not infect nature, but rather assists it. Wherefore it is certainly to be advised, especially on account of the danger of consent, that pollution already imminent, where this can be done, be restrained; but no obligation of doing this exists, because that effusion is involuntary.²

b. In order that consent to delectation be avoided while pollution occurs involuntarily, it is best to change position, or at least, either by praying and fostering pious thoughts or by thinking about profane matters, to turn the mind to other things. To avoid cooperation with the pollution occurring, it is best to have oneself exteriorly altogether passively, by abstaining from touches and from every voluntary motion of the body.

c. Any motion or impulse of the body deliberately employed, by which the effect of pollution follows, is gravely evil; nevertheless from deliberate motions there must be distinguished the motions or impulses which arise spontaneously in the body by the force of nature unloading itself, so that the effect of pollution may be completed.

¹ 1 Cor. 6, 10. Proposition 49, condemned by Innocent XI, has: softness is not prohibited by natural law ...

² A. Eschbach, l. c., disp. 5, c. 4, a. 2, § 3.

35. Concerning the malice of pollution willed in the cause, judgment must be made from those things which were said above, n. 12, namely pollution is imputed as grave or light sin according as its cause by its nature influences gravely or lightly toward provoking it; but it is not imputed as sin if a sufficient reason is present for positing that cause.

a. In order that pollution can be called voluntary in the cause, it is required that the one who posits its cause advert to the effect of pollution that will follow from it. Therefore one who, when he posits the cause of pollution, either does not advert to the effect arising from it, or prudently judges that the effect will not follow, cannot have pollution imputed to him, even if it follows.

b. One who, because of a peculiar disposition and infirmity, frequently suffers pollutions from actions licit in themselves which by their nature influence only lightly toward them, e.g. from riding horseback, is not bound to abstain from those actions, provided consent to delectation is excluded; for in positing them he uses his right. But if the action is lightly sinful, as a reading that is somewhat base, the sight of a somewhat obscene image, and is not excused by a just cause, is he bound under grave sin to avoid it on account of this evil effect? Of itself he must avoid it only under light sin; for the malice of pollution willed in the cause is taken from the influence which the cause by its nature has, not from the influence which in fact, on account of the peculiar temperament of the subject, it has on it. But practically he will rarely be excused from grave sin for another reason: for one who, taught by experience that he is frequently polluted by an action of this kind, nevertheless posits it without necessity, is shown to posit it from a depraved intention.

Therefore if, for example, the use of alcohol or of the nicotine herb, tobacco, so excites the nerves of someone that pollution follows from it either in sleep or outside sleep, there is no obligation of abstaining from those things if the use is moderate and therefore licit; the evil effect can simply be permitted, provided consent is avoided. But if the use of those things is immoderate, from the precept of chastity he must abstain from them under light sin; otherwise he sins according to the gravity of the matter gravely or lightly against temperance, and lightly, not gravely, against chastity, because those things accidentally, and therefore of themselves only lightly, excite libido.

36. On sufficient reason. 1. Declaration. Because pollution is not imputed as sin if the action which causes it is posited for a sufficient reason, it is now asked when there is present a sufficient reason for positing an action from which future pollution is foreseen. An action of this kind, which can be the cause of pollution, is always joined with a twofold danger, namely of material pollution and of consent to the venereal pleasure joined with it. Here abstraction is made from the danger of consent to base delectation: for to that danger the principles which are set forth elsewhere concerning the danger or occasion of sinning must be applied.¹ For making a judgment concerning the sufficiency of the reason in a particular case, the principles which follow below must be noted.

A greater reason is required in order that the danger of consent can be admitted than that the danger of material pollution can be admitted. Hence it can happen that, on account of proximate danger of consent, someone is bound under grave sin to avoid an action which on account of the proximate danger of pollution alone he is not bound to avoid, or at least not bound under grave sin to avoid. Someone who, for example, in horseback riding which he undertakes for the sake of recreation, is frequently not only polluted, but also sins by consent to delectation, if he cannot exclude sin by other means, is bound to omit horseback riding, which on account of the effect of pollution alone he is not bound to omit. Erotic readings idly undertaken, tender conversations with a person of diverse sex, kisses impressed on boys, even if they are only lightly sinful on account of the danger of pollution, nevertheless must be avoided under grave sin by him whom they cast into proximate danger of consenting.

¹ Cf. De principiis^3, n. 325 ff.

37. 2. Principles. a. If the danger of polluting oneself is proximate from the nature of the action, a grave reason is required in order that the action inducing the danger can licitly be posited; but as grave reason there is judged both necessity and true utility, either one's own or another's.

Therefore it is licit for physicians and surgeons to care for the sick and to procure births; it is licit for servants to attend to bodily necessities in baths or hospitals, even if on this occasion they suffer pollutions. But proximate danger of consent, if any is present, must always be guarded against, by the fact that it is rendered remote or none by apt remedies.

b. If the danger of polluting oneself from the nature of the action is remote, a light reason or any reasonable cause suffices in order that the action inducing the danger can licitly be posited.

a. Therefore all those reasons excuse which in good faith appear either necessary or useful or suitable, indeed even merely advantageous to soul or body. Wherefore these actions are licit of themselves, even if they are foreseen to provoke pollution: a. kisses, embraces, hand-claspings according to the custom of the country; b. honorable dances undertaken from suitable recreation; c. horseback riding even for the sake of recreation alone; d. performing gymnastic exercises; e. reclining in a certain position even solely for resting more comfortably; f. while sitting, placing leg upon leg; g. moderately taking very seasoned foods or warm drinks.

b. If the cause of positing an action from which pollution is foreseen to follow has indeed something of advantage and utility, but not sufficient to excuse the base effect, e.g. the study of medical or anatomical art undertaken from curiosity, probably a mortal sin is not committed, provided consent is excluded.¹

¹ Cf. Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, n. 118.

38. Whether it is licit to drive away by touch or friction an itching which someone suffers in the privates, however much pollution follows. a. If the itching is slight and easily tolerable, St. Alphonsus does not permit touch by which it would be driven away with danger of pollution, consent excluded; but he permits touch if only some arousal would follow.

b. If the itching is great and troublesome and has its origin from acrimony of the blood, it is licit to drive it away by touch or friction even with danger of pollution, provided consent is excluded: for an action with a twofold effect is had; the good is intended, the evil is permitted from a just cause.

c. But if the itching has its origin from the superfluous semen itself or from the ardor of libido, it is not licit to drive it away by touch or friction with danger of pollution, because the good effect follows only from the evil effect: for the touch tends directly toward procuring pollution or toward quieting libido, and only by this means is the itching driven away.

In order that one can discern whence pains in the genitals arise, attention must be paid to this. If the pains do not cease unless carnal movements or pollution have followed, these must be judged the means for quieting the pain and therefore to arise of themselves from touch and friction. But if, after touches or friction have been completed, the pains cease, even if carnal movements or pollution follow either not at all or not always, it is a sign that these are not the means of quieting the pain and that the movements and pollution follow accidentally. For the rest, if the itching is very troublesome, it must be judged to have arisen from acrimony of the blood rather than from semen. If it is doubtful whether it arises from acrimony of the blood or from superfluity of semen and from the ardor of libido, it is licit to free oneself from the itching: for in order that this be prohibited, it must be certainly established that it proceeds from semen or from libido.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 483.

39. For practice. Since the vice of pollution at the present time is most frequent in both sexes, though more frequent in men than in women, it will help to set forth briefly its causes, effects, and cure.

1. Of the causes some are external, others internal. The external causes are bad examples of others, to which must be added very many depraved books of every kind and base images, which excite libido. Idleness, which indeed is the origin of all vices, but especially of vices of the flesh; likewise a soft and effeminate education. Everything which excites the genital nerves, as to be occupied for a long time, for the sake of pleasure, with venereal matters; lying supine; the warmth of the bed; exciting foods, such as are very hot and seasoned, and abundant alcoholic drinks. Mothers, nurses, and maids who, in order to quiet infants, arouse the venereal sense by handling their genital members. Besides the fact that this is prohibited by the moral law, it moreover brings a disposition and inclination toward venereal things. There must be added the impious counsel of physicians which is given to adolescents, that they pollute themselves at least once in a week, since nature demands this and it does not harm health. But in truth this counsel provides neither for morality nor for health, since the depraved habit of polluting oneself brings with it worse carnal vices, which gradually destroy health. Internal causes are the peculiar state of the organism, such as a sanguine and nervous temperament, defect of care for the genitals, illnesses which affect the nervous system, as pulmonary phthisis and hysteria. There is added the great delectation which this vice brings, and the ease with which it can be hidden.

Note. Although the vice of pollution is ordinarily committed by men of sound mind only for the sake of pleasure, nevertheless it must be conceded that it often does not depend solely on the will, but that the temperament of the body more or less disposes and impels one toward it and diminishes its moral fault.

2. The effects of this vice continued for a long time are most destructive. Among them must especially be numbered grave irritations of the nervous system, general fatigue and weakness of the whole organism, palpitation of the heart and disturbance of circulation, from which diseases of hypochondria and melancholy easily arise, which sometimes degenerate into madness. The acuteness of the intellect and the energy of the will are weakened, so that those who indulge this vice, even if they repent after the fall, nevertheless can scarcely abstain from sin.

Note. Nevertheless, evil effects of this kind do not show themselves in everyone. For there are men of so robust a constitution of body that from this vice they suffer only slight harms to health and light disturbances of the nerves. Therefore those who try to frighten lustful youths away from the vice by setting forth its evil effects must beware of exaggerations.

3. Cure. Once this vice has been contracted, unless the help of special grace intervenes, it is removed only with pain and difficulty; nevertheless, since it brings so many harms to soul and body, all whom it concerns must be admonished to direct themselves seriously to its cure. There are no certain signs from which this vice can be recognized in adolescents; nevertheless parents and teachers, sufficiently instructed about this matter, can recognize it from certain inconveniences which children manifest to them, and can restrain it by opportune remedies, especially by removing the causes from which the vice is induced.

Natural or hygienic remedies: to distract the mind; to exercise the body even to fatigue; to use baths or cold washings; to spend due care upon the genitals: the genital organs both in boys and especially in girls, on account of menstruation, need frequent washings; to use a hard bed; not to sleep supine: since the dorsal or supine position excites the genital nerves, the posture should be lateral, and indeed on the right side; in the morning, once sleep has been shaken off, to rise immediately; morning or evening to wash the body around the genitals with cold water, mixed with vinegar; before going to bed, to empty the urinary bladder; to choose light foods, of easy digestion, not exciting, which in small volume provide sufficient nourishment; to abstain from very alcoholic drinks and, in the evening, from meats; let clothes not be too warming nor compress the genitals. There are also medicines by which nervous erections, if they are frequent and vehement, are restrained.

Moral remedies: to instill hatred and horror of the vice and to inspire, by suitable motives, the desire of recovering virtue; to exhort to flight from occasions, frequency of the sacraments, and exercises of piety; to strengthen the will, so that, despising pleasure, it energetically applies suitable remedies. For most the most efficacious remedy is marriage, which those who are given to this vice should be advised to contract as soon as possible.

4. Confessors who direct themselves to the cure of a penitent habituated in the base vice should note in particular these things, besides those which are indicated above and which are everywhere suggested to customary sinners and recidivists.

a. Let them prudently explore the time from which the penitent has been given to this vice; likewise let them strive to know both his bodily temperament and the circumstances of the sins, namely at what time, in what place, and in what circumstances of affairs the falls are accustomed to occur.

b. Let them take care that he return to the same confessor, make confession soon after a fall, and, if it can be done, also receive Holy Communion.

c. Let them inspire in him hope of victory, and to this end let them require that daily, morning and evening, he recite three times the Angelic Salutation in honor of the most pure Virgin, to obtain purity of body and soul, with the addition of a resolution not to sin.

d. There are young persons of both sexes, entangled in the habit of pollution, who because of a nervous or sanguine bodily temperament experience vehement temptations, and although they resist and pray, nevertheless are polluted. Let them know that pollutions which they truly suffer unwillingly are without sin.

e. There are others who first resist the temptation, but afterward, if the temptation continues to urge, are accustomed to yield to it. These must be encouraged to further resistance: for soon pollution will follow, which, as completed against the will, is inculpable.

f. Finally there are found others who, lying in bed, suffer vehement stirrings of the flesh, to which, if they continue to oppose positive resistance, they cannot fall asleep. These should be advised that, after imploring the help of God and eliciting dissent, with a secure conscience they may have themselves passively, whatever may happen.¹

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 5, n. 9; Aertnys, Theologia moralis, l. 6, n. 313; Eschbach, p. 556 ff.

40. On distillation. Distillation, which differs from pollution, is the moderate effusion of another, more subtle, non-prolific humor from the glands of the urethra. In pollution the effusion of humor is more copious and joined with great stirring and delectation; in distillation, on the contrary, the effusion of humor is slight and occurs almost drop by drop, with only light or scarcely any stirring and delectation that is perceived.

a. Sometimes from weakness of the organs distillation occurs almost habitually; this is an illness to be healed by a physician, not by a confessor. Although this illness here and there is contracted from a long-standing habit of sinning, nevertheless ordinarily it arises from natural causes.

b. Sometimes distillation also occurs with stirring of the genitals and venereal delectation; this distillation indeed is akin to pollution and disposes toward it.

1. If distillation occurs without delectation, no care must be had about it, nor does there exist an obligation of avoiding its cause. For this flow must be compared with the secretion of any other humor, e.g. of sweat, which nature is accustomed to cast out.

2. But distillation which occurs with delectation, directly willed or indirectly admitted without cause, cannot be excused from sin. This distillation is a sin of the same gravity and species as pollution itself, since it induces danger of it and is joined with venereal delectation.

41. On menstruation. 1. In women a peculiar phenomenon must be noted, which they call menstruation. By this name is signified the flow of blood which women suffer from the genital organs each month, and for this reason it is called the menstrual flow, the menses. Through the vagina menstrual blood flows out, on account of which the hymen is perforated. At the time of puberty menstruation begins and continues until about the fiftieth year of age, at which time fecundity is accustomed to cease. Physiologically this phenomenon is explained in this way. Each month in the ovaries an ovum matures, which, discharged from the ovaries, is transferred into the uterus. At the same time the interior parts of the uterus are filled with blood, so that blood may contribute to the development of the fetus, if it is conceived. But if the ovum has not been fertilized, blood flows out from the torn little arteries, and with the blood the ovum flows out through the genital organs. This flow ordinarily continues for two or three days, sometimes also for more days.¹ Sometimes the affected health of women demands that the menstrual flow be provoked by art, namely by the help of medicines; this indeed is morally licit, because no venereal delectation accompanies this flow.

2. Moreover it must be noted that women, at the time of the menstrual flow, especially in the first years in which they experience it, suffer vehement irritations of the nerves and are troubled by other inconveniences. But it cannot happen that these alterations of the body do not exercise an influence upon moral life. And indeed at that time they are agitated by various affections, especially by anger and sadness, which sometimes is increased even to melancholy. On this account they are then to be treated more indulgently and kindly, and not to be reproved on account of defects committed, but rather admonished to constancy in good resolutions.²

¹ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2, p. 87.

² Cf. A. Eschbach, l. c., disp. 1, c. 3, a. 1; Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2, p. 87.

42. Nature. Sodomy is intercourse with a person of the same sex, or with a person of diverse sex but in an undue vessel.

a. Intercourse is not had when someone touches the genitals of another with the hand, foot, mouth, or arm, and in turn is touched by the other; but it belongs to the nature of intercourse that the conjunction of the bodies themselves intervene, so that at least on one side the application of the genital member to the body of another takes place, whether this occurs in the preposterous vessel, or between the thighs or arms, or in another part of the body.

It does not belong to the nature of intercourse that there be penetration of some vessel; nevertheless intercourse differs specifically from impure touch; the essential difference is in this, that in touch the base affection is borne toward pollution, but in intercourse toward the person or beast with whom intercourse occurs.

b. From the definition a twofold sodomy is distinguished: perfect and properly so called, which is intercourse with a person of the same sex, therefore of a male with a male, of a female with a female; and imperfect or improperly so called, which is intercourse with a person of diverse sex, but in an unnatural or preposterous vessel.

c. Perfect sodomy, which is intercourse with the same sex, can be committed in two ways: either by a consummated act, i.e. with effusion of semen, or by a non-consummated act, i.e. without effusion of semen. Likewise sodomy improperly so called is committed either by a consummated act or by a non-consummated act in an unnatural vessel.

Consummated sodomy can also have place among females, namely if in the intercourse which is had between them, a flow of humor with complete delectation intervenes. Nevertheless, since this circumstance does not change the species of the sin, one must not ask about it in confession.

d. The essence of this crime consists in affection either toward the sex or toward the undue vessel: each is against nature, because nature requires for the generation of offspring both the sex and also the due vessel.

43. Principles. 1. Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution, both in itself, because it tends toward an undue sex or vessel, and by reason of cooperation, because each concurs in the sin of the other. Its specific malice consists in access to an undue sex or vessel, which is repugnant to the order of nature in a special way.¹

2. Perfect and imperfect sodomy differ from each other in species, because affection toward an undue sex contains a special malice, diverse from affection toward an undue vessel.

a. Perfect sodomy among persons of the same sex can be committed in diverse ways; nevertheless it does not differ specifically, whether intercourse occurs in the preposterous vessel or in another part of the body. Wherefore in confession it suffices to know that intercourse with effusion of semen has taken place, nor is it necessary to ask further about the mode of intercourse.

b. Imperfect sodomy between a male and a female is committed in only one way, namely if intercourse occurs in the preposterous vessel. But if intercourse has place in another part of the body, sodomy is not committed, but fornication in affection with pollution in effect.

3. It makes no difference whether someone was acting or suffering; the species of the sin is the same. Wherefore in confession one must not ask about this matter. But whether pollution, which happens more easily in the agent than in the patient, has had place or not must be declared.

4. Where sodomy simply is reserved, perfect and consummated sodomy is to be understood, which is committed between males with penetration of the preposterous vessel and with insemination made there.²

¹ Cf. Rom. 1, 24 ff.; Gen. 18, 20 f.

² Cf. Salmanticenses, tr. 26, c. 7, n. 109.

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

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

¹ Cf. Salmanticenses, ibid., n. 140.

It is usual to treat of these two Commandments together, for the Sixth, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,”¹ in expressly forbidding the chief sin, implicitly forbids all other external sins against the laws of marriage, and the Ninth, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, neither shalt thou desire his wife,’’² forbids internal sins of covetousness and lust. The general doctrine concerning internal sins was given in a former Book; the special doctrine about covetousness in so far as it is against justice is clear from what was said about avarice and what will be said later about justice; the doctrine about external sins of lust will be evident from what has to be said in this place.

¹ Exod. xx 14.

² Exod. xx 17.

THE means devised by God for the preservation and increase of the human race is the union of the sexes. This union has for its primary object the procreation of children, who require for their proper education the long and assiduous care of both father and mother. Nature, then, as well as the law of God and of the Church, requires that children should only be begotten of parents joined in lawful and indissoluble wedlock. As nature has taken care that the individual should take the food and drink necessary for his personal support by giving him the spur of appetite for nourishment and pleasure in taking it, so the same great Mother has taken care of the race by joining venereal pleasure to the act of procreating children. This venereal pleasure is lawful when indulged in between married people and according to the laws of marriage. In all other cases it is unlawful, and is forbidden by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Venereal pleasure must be distinguished from sensual and from venereo-sensual pleasure. Venereal pleasure has its seat in the genital organs, and is caused by their motions, the irregular motions of the flesh. Sensual pleasure is other than venereal, and rises from indulgence of the senses, from the contemplation of a beautiful picture, from listening to sweet music, from touching the glossy and soft coat of a cat. This sensual pleasure is morally harmless in itself, but there is a certain kind of pleasure which is sensual in its origin but which is connected with, and ordinarily causes, venereal pleasure. It arises from such acts as voluptuous kissing, and is called by divines venereo-sensual, On account of its connection and tendency, venereo-sensual pleasure is evil, and ordinarily is more or less sinful, as we shall see in what follows.

Sins of impurity are consummated or non-consummated. Consummated sins go as far as complete venereal pleasure, which is had through intercourse or through pollution. They are consummated according to nature if the generation of offspring can follow from them; otherwise they are consummated against nature. Non-consummated sins are looks, touches, and immodest conversation, which do not reach complete venereal pleasure.

All sins of impurity of whatever kind or species are of themselves mortal, ‘This doctrine is taught in such passages of Holy Scripture as the following: 1 Cor. vi 9-10; Gal. v 19; Matt. v 28. Moreover, as we saw above, those sins are grievous which cause great harm to society or to the individual; but there is scarcely any cause so prolific of public and private evil of all sorts as sins of impurity, so that we must conclude that they are grievous even by the light of reason. Furthermore, all sins of impurity, if voluntary in themselves and fully deliberate, are mortal; or in other words, it is grievously sinful directly to seek any even slight unlawful venereal pleasure, or to consent to it deliberately even when it has not been directly sought, This doctrine is the approved teaching of theologians, and it has a rational basis, inasmuch as the tendency of men to these sins is so strong and their weakness so great, that slight indulgence in venereal pleasure almost necessarily leads to grave excesses, so that even in light matter there is the whole reason of the prohibition, and so all sins of impurity, if fully deliberate and voluntary in themselves, are mortal, and there are none that are venial merely on account of parvity of matter.

On the other hand, if venereal pleasure is not voluntary in itself but only in its cause, nor deliberately consented to when it arises, although it was foreseen that it would follow from some other action, as from reading a lascivious book, or looking at an immodest object out of curiosity, it may be only venially or it may be mortally sinful, according to circumstances. In general, if in the case in question there is proximate danger of giving consent to the impure pleasure, or if its cause is of its nature such as to occasion great venereal pleasure, this will be mortally sinful even when only indirectly voluntary; in other cases it will be only venially sinful.¹ This same principle will guide us in questions concerning the greater or less malice of venereo-sensual pleasure.

¹ Cf. Book I, p. 8.

THESE are commonly reckoned as six in number: fornication, adultery, incest, criminal assault, rape, and sacrilege. All are grave sins against chastity, and the last five contain grave malice against other virtues as well. Something must be said about each one.

Fornication is the act of carnal intercourse between persons of different sex who are not married but who are free to marry.

Holy Scripture teaches us that fornication is a grave sin, for “fornicators shall not possess the kingdom of God.”¹ “No fornicator hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”² It is a grave sin not merely because it is forbidden by positive law, but because it is intrinsically wrong and contrary to the law of nature. Innocent XI condemned the following proposition: ‘‘ It seems so clear that fornication in itself is not wrong, and is only evil because it is forbidden, that the contrary is altogether against reason.”³ This truth is sufficiently clear to unaided reason, for the human offspring requires for long years the constant care not only of the mother, but of the father as well, and so nature requires that the father should be certain, otherwise so great a burden could not be laid upon him. But the fact of paternity would be very uncertain if fornication were allowed, and so we must conclude that it is wrong in the nature of things. As St Thomas observes,⁴ the fact that in particular cases the paternity of a child born out of wedlock is sufficiently clear, and the child’s education can be provided for, does not militate against the force of the general argument, for in striving to lay down general rules of conduct we must have regard to what would happen ordinarily if such an action were lawful, not to what takes place in special circumstances.

¹ 1 Cor. vi 9; cf. Gal. v 19.

² Eph. v 5.

³ Prop. 48, condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679.

⁴ Summa, 2-2, q. 154, a. 2.

Adultery is the act of carnal intercourse between persons of different sex of whom one at least is married to someone else. Besides being a grave sin against chastity, adultery is also a serious violation of justice, which prescribes fidelity to the marriage vows as long as they exist. Even if the other party whose marriage rights were violated by adultery should - have given his consent to the sin, it still is against justice, for, like the right to life, marriage rights are inalienable, and cannot be renounced by those who own them. If both parties who sin together are married to someone else, there will be a double sin against justice committed by both of them, and the circumstance should be mentioned in order to secure the integrity of confession. This is clear, and it is confirmed by the condemnation of Proposition 50 by Innocent XI.

Incest is carnal intercourse with relatives by blood or by marriage. Besides its general malice against chastity, incest is against the special virtue of piety, which prescribes due reverence toward, and abstention from carnal sins with, those who are nearly related. With regard to parents and children at least, this law of reverence belongs to the law of nature; in other degrees of kindred up to the third, and of affinity up to the second, reckoned according to the rules of canon law, it is of positive ecclesiastical law; whether it is also of natural law in the nearer degrees is disputed. All carnal intercourse then, between relatives by blood up to the third degree, and between relatives by marriage up to the second degree, is incest either by natural or by ecclesiastical law. Community of blood and the close ties which exist between parent and child give a special and distinct malice to sins of impurity committed between them; in other degrees of kindred and affinity there is not the same community of blood nor equally close ties, and so the opinion of many approved theologians is probable that although incest in the first degree of the direct line of blood relationship is distinct in malice from the others, these latter are all of one moral species as far as the integrity of confession is concerned.

Carnal sins committed between those who are united by the ties of spiritual or legal relationship are also distinct species of incest.

Criminal assault is the using of violence against a woman to compel her to commit sins of impurity. It contains a grave and special sin against justice as well as the malice of impurity, and it is severely punished by criminal law. It is probable that there is no specific difference in the sin whether the woman be a virgin or not.

Rape is the violent abduction of a person from a place of safety for the purpose of satisfying lust. The violence may be offered to the person abducted, or to the parents, or to those who have charge of her, and it adds a special malice of its own to the sin besides the malice against chastity.

By sacrilege is here understood the violation by carnal sin of a. person, place, or object, consecrated to God. The doctrine concerning it will be sufficiently clear from what was said above under the First Commandment.

These three are numbered: pollution, or mollities; sodomy; and bestiality — concerning which we must treat in the following articles.

Pollution is the voluntary emission of human seed outside intercourse, whence it is also called the solitary sin. It is called voluntary either in itself or in its cause, to distinguish it from the involuntary kind, which can arise from various causes and especially occurs naturally in sleep to relieve a superfluity. It is called an emission of seed to distinguish it from that discharge by which a less dense fluid, of an altogether different kind, flows from the urethra in those of and under the age of puberty, whether with venereal excitement or without it.

Directly voluntary pollution is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin. This is established from Holy Scripture and from the constant teaching of the Church. Innocent XI condemned this proposition: "Self-abuse is not forbidden by the law of nature. Hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin." The same is proved from the very bad effects which follow from this vice, both to the individual, by weakening the powers of his mind and body, and to society, inasmuch as those entangled in this vice, content with solitary pleasure, would shun the grave burdens of marriage, to the ruin of the human race. In every case it is unlawful, so that no exception is admitted; for, because of men's very great proneness to this kind of sin, if it were ever permitted they would readily invent occasions of indulging themselves, to their own ruin. Hence it must never be lawful, not even to save life. Several of the older Doctors taught, probably, according to St Alphonsus, that it is lawful to expel corrupt seed without any sensation of lust. Modern writers, however, deny that seed is ever corrupted, so that the foundation of that opinion appears to be wanting.

it is lawful, and expedient, to remove what has gathered under the foreskin in order to lessen irritation,

¹ 1 Cor. vi 10.

² Theol. Mor., 3, n. 478.

Indirectly voluntary pollution is a grave sin, or a slight one, or none at all, according to the circumstances. If it arises from a cause gravely evil in the matter of lust it is a mortal sin, because in willing such a cause a man implicitly wills the pollution also. If it arises from a cause slightly evil in the matter of lust, as from the curious reading of a less than decent book, the pollution itself is more probably only venial, “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” If it is foreseen as following incidentally from an honourable action, as from riding, or from a manner of lying down adopted for a reasonable cause, there will be no sin. But if it follows incidentally from an action evil under some heading other than lust, as from drunkenness or from breaking a fast, it seems to be venial, since some fault against chastity as well is admitted when pollution is foreseen as following from an action one has no right to perform. Some excuse from all fault, even venial, a pollution which follows incidentally from an action only venially evil under a heading other than lust. As is clear, in this question we leave aside the danger of consenting to the pleasure arising from the pollution, which we have not supposed. Pollution in sleep which happens as a result of a previous mortal sin in the matter of lust is itself a mortal sin; if it follows from a venial sin in the matter of lust, or from the mortal sin of drunkenness, it is itself venial; otherwise it is no sin. If anyone awakes while undergoing a pollution, there is no obligation positively to suppress it, provided no consent is given: the mind ought to be turned to God or to other things lest it consent to the evil. Provided there is a just and proportionate cause for performing actions — as with physicians who treat women — from which a pollution is foreseen as following which is neither intended nor consented to, this will be no sin, as is clear from the principle of the double effect.

¹ St Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 3, n. 484.

² ibid.

Although women do not furnish seed but an ovum to be fertilised by seed in the conjugal act, they are nevertheless capable of a like complete pleasure in solitude, as the male sex is. Hence, just as in men the incomplete sin of immodest touch and pollution are distinguished in kind, so in women the consummated solitary sin is distinguished in kind from the non-consummated. So it seems must be held with the common opinion. Not always, however, in women who undergo a pollution

is there an emission outside the vessel, but the discharge remains within. From pollution, moreover, as is clear, the menses are carefully to be distinguished, which after puberty is reached and until the menopause nearly all women experience every month without any heat of lust.

Those under the age of puberty, who have no generative seed, are incapable of the complete pleasure which accompanies a consummated sin, and hence at least probably cannot physically commit the sin of pollution. By voluntarily taking pleasure in immodest motions those under puberty do indeed sin mortally, but probably, for the reason stated, it is only the sin of immodest touch.

We have seen that a pollution which follows from a cause only slightly evil in the matter of lust, and which is not voluntary in itself, is only a venial sin. But it is a question controverted among the Doctors whether, if because of some particular disposition or weakness of a person a pollution almost always follows from such a cause, he is bound under grave sin to refrain from performing the action — on the ground that the cause is then judged to influence the effect gravely — or only under slight sin. If there is proximate danger of giving consent, all admit that there is a grave obligation to abstain from performing the action; otherwise the opinion of many seems probable, that the obligation is only slight. For the reason assigned by St Alphonsus for the doctrine given above still holds good: “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” And the reason why the cause seems in this case to influence the effect more gravely is the subjective disposition of the agent, which is not willed, and therefore does not affect the imputability of the effect.

Sodomy is a complete venereal act in an undue vessel, and it is a most grave sin against nature. Intercourse with the same sex, with copulation through the anus, is perfect sodomy; intercourse of different sexes, with copulation through the anus, is imperfect sodomy, which differs in species from the former. If sodomy is reserved, unless something else is expressly declared by the one who reserves it, perfect sodomy is understood.

Many theologians, however, teach that sodomy consists in intercourse directed to an undue sex, so that it is indifferent by what part the act is performed, provided the male member is applied to the undue sex with pollution. This opinion is certainly probable, indeed, as some say, common; hence it is enough if the confessor understands that there was intercourse with a desire directed to the undue sex and with pollution, nor is it necessary to inquire about the manner of the act.

¹ St. Alphonsus, 3, n. 466.

Sodomy, therefore, consists in intercourse with an undue sex together with pollution; whence, if anyone pollutes himself by simply touching another who is unaware of his malice, without affection toward the person and without intercourse, it is held to be pollution and not sodomy. If the other also sins, the circumstance of complicity must be made known in confession. It is probable that the sin of the one acting and of the one submitting are not distinguished in species, if pollution was present on both sides.

Bestiality is intercourse with a beast.

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

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

AS we saw above, mortal sin is always committed whenever venereal pleasure is directly sought or deliberate consent is given to it, even though the venereal excitement be little and stop short of consummated sin. In other words, there is no parvity of matter, as theologians say, in sins of impurity when the venereal pleasure is voluntary in itself. It follows from this that non-consummated acts of impurity such as immodest touches, looks, talk, reading, will be mortally sinful whenever they are indulged in with a view to exciting venereal pleasure.

Even though the excitement of venereal pleasure be not directly intended, yet immodest touches will be more or less sinful in proportion as they are more likely to excite venereal pleasure, and there is no just cause for allowing them. If there is a just and proportionate cause for permitting immodest touches and any venereal pleasure that may ensue is not intended or consented to, then there is no sin in them. When there is no good reason for allowing immodest touches, they will be mortally sinful if, as a general rule in normally constituted persons, they tend to cause great venereal excitement; otherwise they will be venially sinful.

(a) Touches upon the immodest parts of another person of the opposite sex are mortal sins, and indeed of another person of the same sex, unless they are done lightly in jest or wantonness. (b) To touch the genitals of brute animals, or the less modest parts of another person, of itself does not exceed a venial sin.

In the same way immodest looks may be gravely or venially sinful, or perfectly lawful, according to circumstances. When there is just cause for them and no harm is intended or consented to, they are lawful. If there is no good reason for them, and of their nature they tend to cause great venereal excitement, they are mortally sinful; otherwise they are only venially sinful.

(a) To look out of curiosity upon the private parts of a person of the other sex, or upon human intercourse, is a mortal sin, unless it be done very briefly, or from a long distance, or if the one looking is old, cold of temperament, or accustomed to such things, because such persons are little moved. One who out of curiosity looks at obscene pictures, which are not wont to move so strongly, is more easily excused from mortal sin.

(b) Of itself it does not exceed a slight sin to look out of curiosity upon animals coupling, upon the less modest parts of a woman, or upon the private parts of one of the same sex.

(c) The aforesaid acts are free from fault if they are performed for a proportionate usefulness or necessity.

Similarly immodest conversation will be mortally sinful if it is about very obscene subjects between young persons, especially if they be of different sexes. It will be venially sinful if the subject be less objectionable, or if a dirty joke is made in passing. The confessor may, asa rule, presume that grown-up penitents, especially if they be married, who accuse themselves of immodest talk, are only guilty of venial sin; and so he may spare himself and them any questioning on the matter.

The reading of very obscene books without any good reason can hardly be excused from grave sin, unless by experience the reader knows that they have little or no effect upon him, and this should not be lightly presumed. Reading novels in which the passion of love is depicted in warm colours is very dangerous, especially for the young, and unless there is some good excuse for it can hardly be without some sin. This will all the more be true of novels which are suggestive of evil, and fill the mind with dangerous thoughts.

The morality of kissing and embracing is regulated by the same principles as the above. Kissing in the ordinary way of greeting or leave-taking between relations and friends, according to the custom of the country, as theologians say, is of course harmless and allowed. Even if such marks of pure affection or civility unintentionally sometimes cause venereal excitement, no notice should be taken of it.. Apart from this, kissing and embracing, especially between different sexes, naturally tends to cause venereal excitement, and is more or less sinful. Mortal sin will be committed as a rule by indulging in passionate and prolonged embraces and kisses; otherwise the sin will be only venial. Those who intend marriage and are already engaged to each other have an excuse for showing each other the ordinary signs of affection, but they should use their privilege with due caution and Christian prudence. As a rule, little harm will be done if they have a witness of their conduct, or if they only permit themselves to do what they would do if such a witness were present.

Non-consummated sins of impurity are specifically distinct from consummated sins, in the same way as attempted homicide is specifically distinct from homicide. Impure touches, however, and lascivious kisses and embraces contract the malice of the circumstances of the object, just as consummated sins do. For, just as fornication with one bound by a vow of chastity or with a relation is not simple fornication, but contracts the malice of sacrilege or incest according to the circumstances, so impure touches of the same persons would also be sacrilegious or incestuous. The reason is because sins receive their specific malice from the object, and sins of touch take their malice from the concrete object as it exists with its special circumstances.

Impure speech and looks, on the contrary, do not seem to contract the malice of the circumstances of the object, for such sins are affected by the general character of the object only, and not by its special circumstances. This, at least, is the opinion of many theologians.

It is a disputed point among divines whether impure touches, looks, talk, or reading, are specifically distinct from each other apart from any difference in the object. Would it, for example, be sufficient to say in confession, “I committed a sin [by indulging in venereal pleasure by myself,” without mentioning whether it was procured by touch, or look, or other means ? Although the common opinion is that such a general form of self-accusation would not be sufficient, and that the penitent must say whether the sin was one of touch, or look, etc., yet the contrary view seems probable, for such imperfect acts are wrong, not precisely in themselves, but on account of their tendency to excite venereal pleasure. The reason, then, and source of their malice is the same, and so they would seem not to be specifically distinct as sins, though they are physically distinct acts.

THE celibacy of the clergy rests on a positive enactment of ecclesiastical law which, nevertheless, supposes the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles about the excellence of virginity and its superiority to marriage. From the first ages of the Church it was felt that there was an incongruity between the Christian priesthood, with its duties of offering up the eucharistic sacrifice, and of whole-hearted devotion to the service of God, and the use of marriage. The example of our Lord and the counsels of St Paul told powerfully in the same direction. Already in the fourth century the law of celibacy existed which was formulated by Leo the Great in his letter to Anastasius written about the middle of the fourth century: “ Although,” he says, “ those who are not clerics may freely give themselves to marriage and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of perfect chastity marriage is not allowed even to subdeacons, so that those who have wives should be as those who have them not, and those who have them not should remain single.” All the more stringently, he goes on to say, does the same law bind the higher clergy, deacons, priests, and bishops. This law was frequently inculcated by subsequent Popes, re-enacted in many ecclesiastical synods, and at latest in the Second Council of the Lateran (1139) marriage of the higher clergy was prohibited under pain of nullity. By ecclesiastical law, then, clerics in sacred orders are bound to observe perfect chastity, and marriage attempted by them is null and void. This law is known to all who aspire to sacred orders, and so those who choose the clerical state voluntarily embrace the law of continence. Indeed, a vow of perfect chastity is by ecclesiastical usage annexed to the reception of sacred orders, so that all who are ordained subdeacons, by the very fact of receiving ordination, take a solemn vow of chastity. The discipline of the Eastern Church is somewhat milder. Clerics belonging thereto may marry before the reception of sacred orders, and if they have already done this (Can. 132, 1072) they may keep their wives, except bishops. Even in the East clerics in sacred orders cannot contract a valid marriage.

There is a dispute among theologians as to whether the obligation of celibacy, which binds clerics in sacred orders, should be ascribed immediately to ecclesiastical law or immediately to a vow of chastity tacitly taken when sacred orders are received according to the precept of the Church. The question is not of great practical importance, for in any case the obligation of celibacy is derived ultimately from ecclesiastical law, which binds all clerics in sacred orders to the observance of perfect chastity. The violation of such a law, at any rate by external act, is not morally different from a violation of a vow of chastity. The more common and more probable opinion is that the obligation of celibacy is derived immediately from a vow of chastity which every subdeacon takes tacitly according to the precept of the Church when he receives the first of the sacred orders. Tacit profession even of the essential vows of religion was admitted in certain cases until it was altogether abrogated by a decree of Pius IX dated June 12, 1858. Boniface VIII decided that the vow of chastity thus tacitly taken by subdeacons is solemn, and that it annuls subsequent marriage if attempted.

A man who was married but whose wife is dead may be promoted to sacred orders. ‘‘ Men who have a wife” are prohibited from receiving orders according to Canon 987, 2; and Canon 132, sec. 3, lays down that a married man who, without a dispensation from the Holy See has received holy orders even in good faith is prohibited from the exercise of the same.

THE Catholic Church, following the teaching and example of our Lord and of St Paul, esteems very highly the beautiful virtue of chastity. According to her teaching, the state of marriage is indeed good, and Jesus Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, but the state of virginity is better. For such as wish to follow Jesus Christ more closely and to dedicate themselves wholly to God, celibacy and absolute chastity are proposed as a counsel of perfection. There is no fear that the number who embrace this counsel will ever be so great as seriously to interfere with the proper increase of “ the population. There will always be a sufficient number left in the world to enter upon the married state. Nor is the heroic renunciation of the pleasures of married life made by religious lost upon the world. As long as there are numbers of men and women to be seen who for love of God and chastity lead solitary lives, it should be more easy for people in the world to curb their fleshly appetites so as to keep within the bounds of reason and virtue.

By the vow of chastity the religious promises Almighty God. that he will altogether abstain from all venereal pleasure, whether of thought or deed. In consequence he is bound to observe perfect chastity of body and mind, so that any act which he commits contrary thereto will be a double sin, against the virtue and against his vow. We saw, when treating of the Sixth Commandment, that sins by which venereal pleasure is directly sought or consented to are always grave, and so, when such sins are committed by religious, their grievous malice will be twofold.

One who has taken a solemn vow of chastity is incapable of contracting a valid marriage by the law of the Church, and a fortiori he cannot enter on valid espousals. A marriage contracted and consummated before the taking of a solemn vow of chastity remains valid, but by ecclesiastical law a marriage which has not been consummated is dissolved by solemn vows taken in a religious order (Can. 1119). A simple vow of chastity never annuls a previous marriage, but it makes the use of marital rights unlawful. It is a disputed point as to whether a simple vow annuls previous espousals. A simple vow of chastity certainly makes subsequent espousals invalid, as being an unlawful promise, and it renders subsequent marriage unlawful though not invalid, except the simple vow made in the Society of Jesus, which is a diriment impediment to marriage by a special privilege of the Holy See.

In order to safeguard the chastity of religious, and to enable them to lead more quiet and tranquil lives, the law of enclosure has been introduced. The enclosure in a religious house is all the space within which the religious may move freely, but which they may not leave without the required permission, and to which others are denied access.

The law of enclosure is laid down in detail in the new Code of Canon Law, Can. 597 ff.

Papal enclosure should be kept in the houses of regulars, whether of men or women, if they are canonically erected, even though less than six professed religious live there.

Enclosure should also be kept in the houses of religious congregations whether of pontifical or diocesan law. The bishop has authority in this matter, and can enforce his regulations by censure.

Even societies of men or women who live together under a superior like religious, but without vows, are subject to the law of enclosure according to Canon 679, sec. 2.

I. Notion of Chastity. Chastity is said from chastising, because it regards movements and operations which must especially be chastised or restrained (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 1). Now chastity is: a moral virtue inclining man to temper the appetite and use of venereal things.

II. Object of Chastity. 1. The remote material object is the appetite and use of venereal things; the proximate object is the acts of tempering the aforesaid.

2. The remote formal object is the reason of debt in tempering the appetite and use of venereal things; the proximate formal object is the special moral goodness shining forth in tempering them (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 2).

III. Division of Chastity. Chastity is divided:

1. By reason of the subject, into youthful, conjugal, and widowed chastity. Youthful chastity is that by which young people before marriage abstain from every venereal act. Conjugal chastity is that by which spouses exclude all venereal acts illicit for them, while prudently moderating those which are licit. Widowed chastity is that by which someone abstains from all venereal things during widowhood.

2. By reason of the object, into common chastity and virginity, according as it moderates venereal things, or, according to what will be said, excludes them.

Note. To chastity is referred modesty, which moderates acts which are ordered to venereal things, of which sort are looking, kisses, embraces, and dishonorable touches (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 4).

IV. Opposed Vices. To chastity is opposed lust, which is an inordinate appetite and use of venereal things; immodesty is also referred to it. Now of the acts of lust, some are sinful because they are not ordered to generation; others are prohibited because they are not ordered to due generation. The former are said to be done against nature, the latter according to nature. The species of lust according to nature are: fornication, adultery, incest, carnal sacrilege, deflowering, and abduction. The species against nature are: pollution, sodomy, bestiality, and unnatural intercourse with a person of the other sex.

We shall speak more fully of virginity where we treat the cultivation of virtues.

As regards the sixth precept of the Decalogue, which commands external chastity and prohibits sins opposed to it, and likewise as regards the ninth precept of the Decalogue, which regards internal chastity and the vices contrary to it, we refer to our little work pertaining to Moral Theology, whose title is De virtute castitatis et de vitiis oppositis.¹

¹ Published by Beyaert, Bruges.

IV. Chastity; concerning which several things must be noted.

1. The obligation of celibacy and perfect chastity. Clerics constituted in major orders are kept from marriage and are held by the obligation of preserving chastity in such a way that those sinning against it are also guilty of sacrilege, saving the prescription of can. 214, § 1¹ (can. 132, § 1). The aforesaid clerics attempt marriage not only illicitly but also invalidly (can. 1072). The obligation of perfect chastity also binds a married man who has been initiated into sacred order with apostolic dispensation.

The said obligation of preserving perfect chastity certainly arises from the solemn vow of chastity, which is plainly made tacitly in the reception of major order, from Boniface VIII,² from John XXII,³ and from the Constitution of Benedict XIV Inter praeteritos, § 41 (St. Alphonsus VI, 808). Likewise it arises from ecclesiastical law, insofar as perfect chastity regards external and mixed acts, so that a major cleric who had entirely been ignorant of or had excluded the vow of chastity would nevertheless, through an external violation of perfect chastity, sin both against chastity and against religion, namely because the ecclesiastical law was passed from the motive of this virtue; in a word, he would become guilty of carnal sacrilege (cf. can. 132, § 1). With respect to merely internal acts, the matter is deservedly called into doubt, since ecclesiastical law more probably cannot, and in fact is not presumed to, regard acts of this kind. Besides, note:

a) Married men, while the wife is living, are kept from receiving orders (can. 987, 2°). A married man who without apostolic dispensation has received major orders, even in good faith, is prohibited from the exercise of those orders (can. 132, § 3).

b) Minor clerics can indeed enter marriage, but unless the marriage was null by force or fear inflicted on them, they fall by the law itself from the clerical state (can. 132, § 2).

c) From can. 188, 5°, any offices of clerics are vacant by the fact itself and without any declaration, even if they have contracted only civil marriage, as they say.

d) With respect to the Eastern Church these things hold: 1° Clerics who contracted marriage before the subdiaconate can receive the remaining orders and continue married life, except Bishops, who are bound to bid farewell altogether to married life. 2° Clerics once initiated into the subdiaconate are prohibited from contracting marriage; not indeed by vow, but by prescription of the Church. Indeed, "the marriage would be not only illicit, but also invalid."

2. Means of preserving chastity; to which can. 133 refers: Clerics should take care not to keep with themselves or in any way frequent women concerning whom there could be suspicion (§ 1). It is lawful for them to cohabit only with those women in whom a natural bond allows nothing evil to be suspected, such as mother, sister, paternal aunt, and the like, or from whom proven honesty of morals joined with more advanced age removes every suspicion (§ 2). Judgment whether keeping or frequenting women in some particular case can be a scandal or bring danger of incontinence belongs to the local Ordinary, whose duty it is to prohibit clerics from this keeping or frequenting (§ 3). The contumacious are presumed concubinarians (§ 4).

3. Penal sanctions. a) Clerics constituted in minor orders, guilty of some delict against the sixth precept of the decalogue, are to be punished according to the gravity of the fault, even by dismissal from the clerical state if the circumstances of the delict advise this, besides the penalties threatened by can. 2357 for some delicts even against laymen (can. 2358).

b) Clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who are concubinarians, after warning has been issued uselessly, are to be compelled to withdraw from illicit cohabitation and to repair scandal, by suspension from divine things and by privation of the fruits of office, benefice, or dignity, with observance of cann. 2176-2181 concerning the manner of proceeding against concubinary clerics. If they have committed a delict against the sixth precept of the decalogue with minors below the age of sixteen years, or have committed adultery, defloration, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, or incest with blood relatives or relatives by affinity in the first degree, they are to be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, or function which they have, and in graver cases deposed. If they have offended otherwise against the sixth precept of the decalogue, they are to be restrained with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the case, not excluding privation of office or benefice, especially if they have care of souls (can. 2359).

c) Clerics constituted in sacred orders, or regulars or nuns after a solemn vow of chastity, and likewise all who presume to contract marriage, even only civilly, with any of the aforesaid persons, incur excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See. Besides, clerics, if after warning they have not come to their senses within the time fixed beforehand by the Ordinary according to the diversity of circumstances, are to be degraded (can. 2388, § 1). Finally, as has already been noted, any offices of clerics are vacant by the fact itself and without any declaration, even if they have contracted only civil marriage, as they say (can. 188, 5°).

¹ Can. 214, § 1 establishes: A cleric who, compelled by grave fear, received a sacred order and afterwards, once the fear was removed, did not ratify that same ordination at least tacitly by the exercise of the order, while nevertheless willing by such an act to subject himself to clerical obligations, is to be reduced to the lay state by sentence of the judge, after the coercion and the lack of ratification have been legitimately proved, without any obligations of celibacy and canonical hours.

² C. unic., De voto, III, 15.

³ C. unic., Extravagantes, I, 6.

I. Notion. The vow of chastity is a promise made to God of excluding the appetite and use of venereal things.

The remote material object is the appetite and use of venereal things; the proximate object is acts of excluding the aforesaid.

The formal object is the honesty which shines forth both in the said exclusion and in the vowing of it.

II. Effects. 1. A simple vow prohibits contracting marriage (can. 1058, § 1); a solemn vow, and likewise a simple vow to which this force has been added by a special prescription of the Apostolic See, dissolves a marriage contracted and not consummated between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party (can. 1119).

2. Concerning the manner in which both a simple and a solemn vow extinguish betrothals, see in the treatise on Matrimony.

III. Obligation. One who violates the vow of chastity sins: 1st, against religion, as is clear; moreover he commits the sin of personal sacrilege (n. 614); 2nd, against the virtue of chastity, at least if he perpetrates an act illicit in itself. It is disputed if he exercises an act licit in itself, as if a husband who has become a religious were again to use his wife.

IV. Penalties against violators of the vow; cf. our little work De virtute castitatis, 3rd ed., n. 60.

No one will deny that the matter which we shall treat in these pages is very practical; practical, I say, for confessors, to whose judgment sins opposed to chastity are especially wont to be submitted; for preachers, upon whom lies the duty of stirring up both love of chastity and hatred of lust; and finally for spiritual directors of souls, to whom, as to the Apostle, the privilege has been granted of presenting chaste virgins to Christ.

Moreover, in handing down and explaining the doctrine, we shall chiefly tread in the footsteps both of St. Thomas, whose authority no one today has called into doubt as being preferable to all others, and of St. Alphonsus, who "among the tangled opinions of theologians, whether laxer or stricter, laid down a safe way by which the directors of the souls of Christ's faithful might walk with unoffending foot"; and whose authority was held in such esteem by the Sacred Penitentiary that it did not hesitate to answer that a confessor is not to be disturbed who, in the practice of the Sacred Penitence, follows all the opinions of Blessed Alphonsus, although he does not read the works of the Blessed Doctor except in order to know his doctrine accurately, and does not weigh the arguments or reasons upon which the various opinions rest.

May God grant, through the intercession of the Immaculate Mother of God and standard-bearer of virgins, that this little work, however slight, may bring some fruit, and may prepare the way for a complete Moral Theology to be published at some time.

Wittem, 2 August 1928.

¹ Decree Urbis et Orbis, 23 March 1871, concerning the grant of the title Doctor.

² 5 July 1831.

As I am about to write on this slippery matter, I am pleased to quote this grave admonition of St. Alphonsus: "Now with difficulty we undertake to treat that matter, the very name of which infects the minds of men. Let the chaste reader pardon me, I ask, if he finds here several questions and circumstances omitted by Father Busembaum, but discussed and explained. Would that I had been able to explain more briefly or more obscurely! But since this is the more frequent and more abundant matter of confessions, and that on account of which the greater number of souls slide down into hell; indeed, I do not hesitate to assert that because of this one vice of impurity, or at least not without it, all who are damned are damned; therefore it was necessary for me, for the instruction of those who desire to learn moral science, to explain myself clearly - though as chastely as could be done - and to discuss very many particulars.

"Yet I beg students who are preparing themselves for the office of hearing confessions that they not read this treatise on the sixth precept, nor likewise the other on the conjugal debt, except... for this one end alone, casting away every curiosity whatsoever. And at that time let them often lift their mind to God and commend themselves to the Immaculate Virgin, lest, while they are striving to gain the souls of others for God, they themselves suffer harm to their own souls" (III, 413).

¹ Cf. Cajetan, Commentarium on the cited place of St. Thomas; Billuart, De temperantia, dissertations 4-6; De matrimonio, dissertation; Waffelaert, De virtutibus cardinalibus; Noldin, De VI praecepto et de usu matrimonii; Eschbach, Disputationes physiologico-theologicae; Alberti, De Sexto et Nono praecepto et Usu matrimonii; Vermeersch, De castitate et de vitiis contrariis; Duynstee, De leer der kuischheid; Merkelbach, Quaestiones de castitate et luxuria; Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis; Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoralmedizin; Von Olfers, Pastoralmedizin; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la medecine et l'hygiene.

Chastity, as will become clearer from what is to be said, can be considered in two ways, namely insofar as it regards venereal acts and insofar as it is concerned with acts which are ordered to venereal things. Considered in the former way it is especially called chastity; regarded in the latter way it is called modesty. We shall treat the matter in both respects. Therefore let there be:

(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.

I. Notion. Chastity is so called from chastising, because it regards motions and operations which especially ought to be chastised or restrained (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 1). Now chastity is: a supernatural virtue inclining man to moderate the appetite and use of venereal things. Its remote material object is the appetite and use of venereal things; its proximate material object is the acts excluding or moderating the aforesaid. The formal object is the honesty which shines forth in their exclusion or moderation (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 2). Having given this notion, it is useful, for the sake of explanation and proof, to add these points from St. Thomas:

1. Chastity is a virtue. For "in this... consists the nature of human virtue, that it be something modified according to reason" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 1). But chastity moderates the appetite and use of venereal things according to reason.

2. Chastity is a subjective part or species of temperance. For temperance "restrains the appetite from those things which most allure man" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 141, a. 2); hence its subjective parts are those which moderate some one of the pleasures which most allure man. But chastity does this; indeed, it moderates the pleasure which allures man above all others, namely the pleasure of venereal things (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 146, introduction, compared with q. 141).

3. Chastity is a virtue distinct from the other subjective parts of temperance, that is, from abstinence and sobriety. For virtues which regard motions and operations formally diverse differ one from another. But chastity regards operations formally diverse from those which abstinence and sobriety regard. For the former is concerned with the appetite and use of venereal things, by which the nature of the species is preserved; the latter are concerned with the appetite and use of foods or drinks, by which the nature of the individual is preserved; and these operations are formally diverse (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 151, a. 3).

What things have been established by the Church against those guilty of concubinage, rape, and sodomy, we have inserted in their own place. But for the sake of completeness, it is pleasing to present a complete view of the penalties decreed.

Canon 2353: One who, with a view to marriage or for the sake of satisfying libido, has carried off an unwilling woman by force or deceit, or a woman of minor age who indeed consents but without the knowledge or against the will of her parents or guardians, is held ipso iure excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts and furthermore is punished with other penalties according to the gravity of the fault.

Canon 2354, § 1: A layperson who has been legitimately condemned for the crime... of rape of impubescent persons of the other sex... is held ipso iure excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts and from any function, if he has one in the Church, the burden of repairing damages remaining firm. - But a cleric is to be punished from § 2 of the same canon with various penalties according to the gravity of the fault.

Canon 2356: Bigamists, that is, those who, with the conjugal bond standing in the way, have attempted another marriage, even only a civil one, as they say, are ipso facto infamous; and if, after the warning of the Ordinary has been disregarded, they persist in illicit cohabitation, let them be excommunicated or punished with personal interdict according to the diverse gravity of the guilt.

Canon 2357: Laypersons legitimately condemned for crimes against the sixth commandment committed with minors under the age of sixteen years, or for stuprum, sodomy, incest, or pandering, are ipso facto infamous, besides other penalties which the Ordinary shall judge should be inflicted (§ 1). - Those who have committed the public crime of adultery, or who publicly live in concubinage, or who have been legitimately condemned for other crimes against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, are to be excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts until they have given signs of true repentance (§ 2).

Canon 2358: Clerics constituted in minor orders, guilty of some crime against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, are to be punished according to the gravity of the fault, even by dismissal from the clerical state if the circumstances of the crime recommend it, besides the penalties of which canon 2357 speaks, if there is place for these.

Canon 2359: Concubinary clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, after a warning has been uselessly given, are to be compelled to withdraw from illicit cohabitation and to repair scandal by suspension from divine offices, deprivation of the fruits of office, benefice, and dignity, with the prescription of canons 2176-2181 observed (§ 1); canons 2176-2181 treat the manner of proceeding against concubinarians. - If clerics in sacred orders have admitted a crime against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with minors under the age of sixteen years, or have exercised adultery, stuprum, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, or incest with consanguineous persons or affines in the first degree, let them be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, or function which they may have, and in graver cases deposed (§ 2). - If in another way they have offended against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, let them be restrained by fitting penalties according to the gravity of the case, not excepting deprivation of office or benefice, especially if they have care of souls (§ 3).

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

We are considering especially those who are given to lust, especially to pollutions. Remedies, however, are distinguished as natural and supernatural.

I. Natural remedies are, for example: 1. to use tonic foods, light and of easy digestion, but by no means exciting foods and drinks; 2. to avoid idleness and solitude, and to be occupied with useful work, which work, insofar as it can be done, it is expedient to assign; 3. to lie in a harder bed,¹ on the side, not on the back, with the arms crossed over the chest; to use a light covering and not to indulge in too much sleep;² 4. when using baths, to be washed with cold water; 5. finally, certain medicines seem useful for tempering venereal things, such as lupulin, heroin;³ likewise the so-called chaste tree.⁴ The Salernitan aphorism also is known: "Camphor through the nostrils castrates males by its odor"; which, however, Gemelli does not admit.⁵

II. Supernatural remedies, besides flight from occasions, frequenting of the sacraments,⁶ and prayer, are: 1. a firm persuasion concerning the gravity and harms of the evil, which the confessor should endeavor to instill into him, fatherly indeed, but seriously and effectively; 2. courage added to the miserable sinner, and the raising up of his mind and heart for battle; 3. a manly resolution, and this renewed from time to time, especially morning and evening; 4. filial devotion toward the Blessed Virgin Mary, with the added custom of reciting daily, morning and evening, three times the Angelic Salutation together with the invocation enriched with indulgences: "Through thy Immaculate Conception, O Mary, render my body pure and my soul holy" (indulgence of 300 days, Pius X, December 5, 1904); 5. chastisement of the body and fasts, but account should be taken of the persons; 6. diversion of the mind to another object as soon as temptation first arises; likewise invocation of the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary; 7. if there is question of a more cultivated person, the incitement of the mind toward noble duties and duties useful for the common good; 8. finally, marriage is commonly to be urged most of all (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, nn. 15, 16).⁷

¹ "The body should never rest on feathers, which warm, provoke itchings, even touches: frequent causes of pernicious habits. The bed should be rather hard than soft" (Bossu, in Eschbach, op. cit., p. 532).

² "Sleep lasts six to eight hours, as an average term. Habit has the greatest influence on this state of the economy." "Rising early preserves health and holiness" (St. Francis de Sales). (Brachet, in Eschbach, loc. cit.).

³ Gemelli, Non moechaberis, c. 5, p. 171 sq.

⁴ "Agnus castus was formerly celebrated; we ourselves have sometimes advised its use, and despite the assertion of modern physicians who deny it all efficacy in this kind, we have received the most satisfactory reports about its employment." (Catechisme du V. Cesar de Bus, annotated by Bonhomme, t. II, p. 354).

⁵ Loc. cit.

⁶ "I scarcely think that there is any other effective remedy, except very frequent confession with one and the same confessor ... for this sacrament is the greatest bridle, and one who does not use it should not promise himself amendment except by a miracle." Thus St. Alphonsus (VI, 464) with Toletus.

⁷ If the means have remained ineffective, "recourse must be had," says Antonelli, "to amputation of the clitoris, that is, clitoridectomy, in women, even adults. This operation is very easy and altogether harmless ... It is true that some doctors by no means approve this operation, because through it the woman is deprived of the chief place of pleasure. But this reason must be counted as nothing, because, if there is question of a married woman, normal intercourse with pleasure and fecundation is in no way impeded; but if there is question of an unmarried girl, this operation removes the cause of so many sins and brings only great advantages to her health" (Medicina Pastoralis, I, n. 504). To these things I note: Apart from the fact that an amputation worthy of note is lawful only for the direct good of the whole, in this case the clitoris as such, that is, insofar as it is the seat of venereal pleasure, is amputated. But the clitoris as such, since it regards the good of the species, cannot be amputated for the good of the individual.

There are twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost enumerated by St. Paul (Gal. v, 22-23). (a) Some of these acts grow out of the indwelling Spirit, and are delightful to the spiritual taste because they perfect the agent in himself. Charity, joy, and peace indicate that the soul is rightly disposed as to what is good; patience and longsuffering, that it is not disturbed by evils. (b) Others of these Fruits give spiritual delight because they perfect the agent in his relations to his fellows. Good will and kindness show that one is well-disposed towards others; meekness and fidelity, that injury does not overcome him, or make him deceitful. (c) Still other Fruits are delightful because they order a man’s life rightly as to external actions or internal passions, such as modesty, continency, chastity.

The Parts of Temperance.—(a) The subjective parts or species of temperance are two, since there are two distinct objects of the virtue. These objects are the two delights of touch that are ruled by the virtue, namely, those associated with the nutritive and those associated with the generative function. The first subjective part of temperance includes abstemiousness as to food and sobriety as to drink; the second part includes chastity, as regards the principal sexual act (copulation), and decency or pudicity, as regards the secondary acts (kisses, touches, embraces, etc).

(b) The integral parts are also two, since there are two conditions for the perfect exercise of temperance. These conditions are the fear and avoidance of what is disgraceful (shamefacedness, reserve, or delicacy) and the love of what is honorable (virtue of propriety or refinement). Shamefacedness is a passion, but, as physical fearlessness is a disposition for moral courage, so is the fear of incurring reproach a preparation for virtue. Hence, this delicacy is a laudable passion, and is ascribed chiefly to temperance, whose opposite is chief among things disgraceful. Propriety is also assigned to temperance, because it is an attraction towards that which is spiritually good and beautiful, a habit most useful for temperance, which must subordinate the delightful to the good, the carnal to the spiritual.

(c) The potential parts of temperance are its minor or servant virtues. They resemble temperance inasmuch as their chief praise is in moderation, but they are inferior to it inasmuch as that which is moderated by them is less recalcitrant than the sexual or gustatory appetites. First among these potential parts are those whose task of moderating, while not of the greatest difficulty, is yet more than ordinarily difficult; and here we have continence, which calms a will agitated by immoderate passion, and meekness, which governs the passion of anger. Next among the potential parts are those whose task of moderating offers less or ordinary difficulty, because they keep in order matters less removed from reason. All the virtues of this second group are given the common name of modesty. They are reduced to four: humility and studiosity, which moderate the internal appetites of excellence and of learning respectively; modesty of bearing and modesty of living, which regulate respectively the external acts of the body and the external goods of food, drink, clothing, furnishings, etc.

The Virtue of Purity.—As abstemiousness and sobriety preside over the pleasures of the self-preservative instinct, so purity governs those that pertain to the species-preservative instinct. Purity is an inclusive name for the virtues of chastity and decency or pudicity, and its office is to regulate proximately the internal movements of the soul (thoughts and desires) and remotely the external words and acts that have to do with sexual delights.

(a) Chastity in its strictest sense is a virtue that moderates or chastens through reason venereal pleasure, chiefly as to its principal or consummated act (i.e., intercourse, semination) or as to its principal bodily centers (i.e., the genital organs). Hence, there is a twofold chastity, conjugal and celibate: conjugal chastity abstains from unnatural pleasure, and uses the natural reasonably in marriage; celibate chastity abstains from all venereal pleasure, as being unlawful in the single state.

(b) Decency (pudicitia) in its strictest sense is a virtue that moderates by the sense of shame venereal pleasure chiefly in its secondary or non-consummated external acts (e.g., looks, conversations, touches, embraces, kisses), which are related to the principal act as being an enticement to it, its preparation, or its external sign and accompaniment. The conjugal act, though lawful, occasions a feeling of shame, and the same is true of the non-consummated acts; but decency is especially concerned with these latter, because they are usually more openly performed than the consummated act. Decency means, then, that manifestations of carnal desire should be conducted with a sense that this desire arises from a lower and rebellious passion, removed in itself farthest from reason, and not more suited for unrestrained expression or public exhibition than other lower animal acts. The sense of shame and decency is a protection to the virtue of the unmarried and the married, restraining the former from the unlawful and holding the latter to moderation in the use of the lawful.

Complements of the Virtue of Temperance.—(a) The Gift of the Holy Ghost that perfects temperance is fear of the Lord. The virtue of temperance makes one abstain from unlawful pleasures because to do so is reasonable; fear of the Lord inclines one to the same abstinence from reverence. The Gift of Fear looks first to the greatness of the Heavenly Father, before whom the nations are as a drop in the bucket and are counted as the smallest grain of the balance and the islands as but a little dust (Is., xl. 15); and in this respect it represses presumption and serves the virtue of hope (see 1041 sqq.). But secondarily it looks to the insignificance of every delight that is apart from God, and sees that these inferior joys are passing, insipid and bitter, like dust blown away by the wind, like a thin froth dispersed by the storm, like smoke scattered by the breeze (Wis., v. 15), like a sweet poison that turns to gall and destroys (Job, xx. 12 sqq.); and in this respect fear of God sustains temperance, which must regulate the cravings of the flesh and lower appetites. Fear of God, then, makes one fly from those things which chiefly allure one to offend Him, and hence the Psalmist (Ps. cxviii. 120) prays: “Pierce Thou my flesh with Thy fear.”

(b) The Beatitude that corresponds to the present Gift is the second: “Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Those who have the fear of God perceive the true nature of illicit joys and the evil end that awaits those who chase after them. They prefer, then, to be sorrowful, that is, to deprive themselves of every wicked pleasure and love for the sake of the love of God in this life and the enjoyment of God in the life to come: “Your sorrow shall be changed into joy” (John, xx. 16).

(c) The fruits of fear of the Lord are modesty, continency and chastity. Like a good tree that produces a rich harvest of delightful fruits, filial reverence for God brings forth acts of virtue that have in them a delicious savor more enjoyable and more lasting than the fruits of the flesh. These goodly and pleasant fruits of the spirit of fear of God are modesty in words, deeds and external things, continency of the single and chastity of the married in thoughts and desires.

The Obligation of the Three Principal Vows.—(a) Poverty is a renunciation of the independent use of external corporal goods, such as money and lands and chattels (simple vow), or also of the radical dominion (see 1697) or right of ownership of such goods (solemn vow). Grave matter in the unjust violation of poverty seems to be the same as in other acts of unjust damage or acquisition, and hence in thefts from outsiders a less amount is grave matter, in domestic thefts from the monastery a greater sum is required (see 1900, 1903). Grave matter in the violation of poverty that is not unjust (e.g., in use of money without permission) seems to be the same as absolutely grave matter for thefts, unless the constitutions rule otherwise; but grave matter here does not coalesce from many small violations. The virtue, but not the vow, of poverty is offended by purely internal acts (e.g., attachment to wealth), and there is no offense at all in dominion over spirituals (such as fame, good reputation) which are not renounced by the vow of poverty, and in certain acts of disposition (e.,g., acceptance of deposit, distribution of alms) or proprietorship (e.g., of manuscripts) permitted by rule.

(b) Chastity is a renunciation of all venereal pleasure, internal and external, lawful and unlawful. Grave matter is the same as for the virtue of chastity, but the vow could be violated without the violation of the virtue (e.g., in the use of marriage by one simply professed). For the protection of this vow the Church has made the law of cloister, which forbids under certain conditions the entrance of outsiders into a religious house or the egress of the religious (Canons 547, 598, 600-604, 679, 2342).

(c) Obedience is the renunciation of one’s own will with the duty of submission to commands of a Superior given according to the rules and constitutions. There is grave matter against the vow if one disobeys in an important matter imposed by the Superior in the name of obedience and according to the rite prescribed by the rule or constitutions (see 2364). The virtue, but not the vow, is offended by internal insubordination (see 2357); neither virtue nor vow is offended when a Superior commands what is above the rule (e.g., the accomplishment of the impossible, heroic acts that do not pertain to the nature of the institute), or against the rule, unless he has power to dispense, or probably what is beneath the rule (such as things manifestly ridiculous and useless). Since obedience is vowed to the precepts of the Superior, the vow is not broken by transgression of points of the rule not expressly included under the vow, nor by transgressions of the general precepts of God and the Church.

What is lust? - Lust, which is opposed to chastity, is the inordinate appetite of a venereal thing. Inordinate; venereal things are ordered to the generation of offspring, and they are had licitly only in marriage. Therefore those things are inordinate which are not ordered either to generation or to this in marriage. Lust is grave by its whole genus if it is deliberate and directly willed. Hence it does not admit smallness of matter. For the use of venereal things by its nature has been instituted for the conservation of the human race, which is a great good of men, and an external good of God; consequently he who abuses it gravely offends God, and injures human society. If it is deliberate and directly willed; for if deliberation and willing are concerned only with its cause, then smallness of matter can be given in this matter. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 153; L. 71. Cf. here 37 seqq.

What is temperance, what are its parts, and what vices are opposed to it? - R. To the first. Temperance is the virtue which moderates concupiscence and delight of sensible goods, especially in the delights of taste and touch, of which some regard conserving the individual, others conserving the species. Insensibility and intemperance are opposed to temperance. The former consists in this, that someone flees delight so much that he therefore omits even those things which are necessary for the conservation of nature. But the latter is the sin of excessive concupiscence. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 141 seqq.; Quodl. 12, a. 22.

R. To the second and third. The integral parts of temperance are shamefacedness and honorableness. Through shamefacedness someone flees shamefulness contrary to temperance. Through honorableness someone loves the beauty of temperance. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 143; q. 144; q. 145.

The subjective parts of temperance are: Abstinence, which moderates delight in the use of foods and non-intoxicating drink; and gluttony is opposed to it, cf. 329. - Sobriety, which moderates delight in the use of drink able to intoxicate; and drunkenness is opposed to it, cf. 332. - Chastity, which moderates according to right reason the principal delight of coitus itself; and lust is opposed to it, cf. 325. Modesty, which moderates surrounding delights, for instance in kisses, touches, embraces, looks. Sometimes, however, one is put for the other. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 143, 146 seqq.

The potential parts of temperance are: Continence, which contains man in the good of reason against the pleasures of touch, especially venereal pleasures; and incontinence is opposed to it, which impels toward those delights and yields to them. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 155, 156. Meekness, which moderates the passion of anger according to right reason; and anger is opposed to it by excess, cf. n. 341 seq.; by defect, lack of anger, which does not stir up anger when it is required by charity or justice, by correcting and punishing. It does not have malice diverse from that of the omitted office to be fulfilled from charity or justice. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 143, 157, 158. Clemency, which is proper to Superiors, inclines one to impose lesser punishments than by right he could, because of kindness toward neighbor and the decorum of a Superior. Cruelty is opposed to it by excess, which from harshness of soul exacts punishments beyond measure; but by defect, excessive lenity, which mitigates punishments beyond measure or remits them altogether. Cruelty is distinguished from savagery, according to which someone in inflicting punishments does not consider any fault of the one who is punished, but only this, that he delights in the torment of men. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 143, 157, 159.

Modesty, by which someone moderates his internal and external motions and the arrangement of his things, by a measure fitting to him. Hence under modesty the following four virtues are numbered. Humility, which moderates the motions of the soul toward lofty things, and inclines us to profess our lowliness by internal and external signs. To humility is opposed by excess pride, cf. n. 321 seq.; and by defect excessive abjection of self, which inclines to immoderate self-abjection. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 143, 160 seqq. Studiousness, which moderates the zeal of knowing according to the dictate of right reason. To it by excess is opposed curiosity, by which someone is impelled to applying superfluous diligence of knowing, from affection for knowledge alone. But by defect negligence is opposed to it, by which someone omits to acquire owed knowledge. Curiosity and negligence per se are light, per accidens grave, for instance if the former impels you to extort a secret from another, the latter incites a confessor to omit the study of Moral Theology. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 166 seqq.

Modesty of manners, which moderates the external gestures and motions of the body according to the norm of reason, so that namely they agree with the person, both in himself and considered with all circumstances of things. To modesty of manners is opposed by excess petulance, by which a foreign mode is assumed, not agreeing with one's own condition, or an overly common mode is shown; but by defect rusticity of manners, which does not preserve a fitting mode. Each is per se light. A species of modesty of manners is eutrapelia, which imposes due mode on games and places. By excess and by defect one can also sin in play, by scurrility and excessive austerity. - S. Th. 2. 2. q. 168. Modesty of dress moderates the arrangement of external things according to the prescription of reason. For it is fitting that in human society each one wear clothing convenient to his own condition. Likewise by excess and by defect one can sin in this matter, which per se is only light. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 169.

The end of the precept is charity, through which we are induced to loving God and neighbor. Among the vices opposed to temperance, adultery seems especially to be opposed to love of neighbor, and therefore it is chiefly prohibited by the precepts of the Decalogue not only in deed, but also in heart, the sixth and ninth. - But virtues annexed to the virtue of temperance, as to their effects, can likewise rightly regard charity toward God and neighbor; as, for example, from anger, which is opposed to meekness, someone proceeds to blaspheming God, or to killing a man. And thus a precept is also present concerning these virtues, implicitly in the Decalogue, explicitly in other places of Scripture. As to the integral parts of temperance, shamefacedness and honorableness, cf. 1 Cor. 14:40; 1 Tim. 2:9. As to the subjective parts, abstinence, sobriety, chastity, cf. Num. 6:3; 1 Pet. 5:8; Col. 3:5. As to the potential parts, continence, clemency, meekness, modesty, humility, cf. Ecclus. 10:31; 30:24; Col. 3:12; 2 Tim. 2:24. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 170. Therefore the various precepts of the Decalogue contain precepts of moral virtues. But in the first precept, I am the Lord thy God, the precepts of the theological virtues, faith, hope, charity, are also presuppositively and implicitly contained.

What vows are reserved to the Pope? - By custom everywhere received and from Canon Law itself, besides the vows of religion and those annexed to them, are these five: 1. The vow of entering an approved religion. 2. The vow of perpetual and entire or total chastity. 3. The vow of pilgrimage to the sepulcher of the Lord in Jerusalem. 4. The vow of pilgrimage to the thresholds of the Apostles Peter and Paul. 5. The vow of pilgrimage to visit the relics of St. James of Compostela. Hence in a general concession of dispensing in all vows, those five vows are not comprehended, although they are not expressly excepted. The reason is that those things which are specially reserved require a special concession. R. 81, de R. I., in 6; Struggl 48; L. 258.

Note: This reservation, as being odious, must always be interpreted strictly, and therefore reservation is not had: 1. If they are not perfect by reason of the vow, for example, if they are emitted under light obligation. 2. If they are not perfect by reason of affection toward the thing promised, for example, if you make a disjunctive vow, say of religion or fasting; or if you make a vow of chastity under a condition, even when the condition has been fulfilled, or a vow of going to Rome to visit the sepulcher of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, or of going to Palestine to serve pilgrims, the sick, etc. 3. If they are not perfect by reason of liberty, for example, if they are emitted from fear, even light fear inflicted by another. 4. If they are not perfect by reason of matter, for example, a vow of not marrying, or a vow of chastity as to external acts only and not also as to internal acts, of a non-approved religion, or of a religion in which solemn vows are not made.

But although vows are reserved, nevertheless their circumstances are not reserved, for example, of making a pilgrimage by begging, of entering religion immediately, etc. Struggl 49 seqq.; L. 258, 261; cf. here 616. Bishops, and those having similar jurisdiction, can rightly dispense in reserved vows in urgent necessity, for instance if access to the Pope is not easy, and in delay there is danger of grave harm, either spiritual, as of violation of the vow, scandal, quarrels, or temporal, one's own or another's, namely grave infamy of a woman and similar things. The aforesaid faculty, which is probably granted to Bishops and to others to whom the power of dispensing in reserved vows has been communicated by them when necessity is urgent, is not granted to Confessors in the Jubilee who have from the Pope the faculty of dispensing in simple vows. But Mendicants have it. Moreover the aforesaid dispensation is not to be granted except insofar as necessity obliges; hence, if it is enough that the vow be suspended, it cannot be dispensed. Struggl 56; L. 258, l. 6, n. 987; Diana, tr. 1, de Dubiis Regular., r. 277.

A Bishop can dispense a spouse from a vow of perpetual chastity, emitted both before and after marriage, in order to asking the debt; because he can dispense from every impediment impeding the exercise of the conjugal act. Mendicant Confessors can do the same, and indeed both within and outside confession. L. 258, l. 6, nn. 986, 987. Although the faculty of dispensing from an oath is usually equated with, indeed associated with, the faculty of dispensing from a vow, nevertheless an oath of chastity, religion, etc., is not reserved. L. 259. Cf. 569.

What are the sixth and ninth precepts of the Decalogue? - The sixth and ninth precepts of the Decalogue are: You shall not commit adultery... You shall not desire his (your neighbor's) wife. Ex. 20:14, 17. By the sixth precept of the Decalogue are prohibited all things which are contrary to the ordered propagation of the human race. For all these in their own way are reduced to moechia, or adultery, as to the primary act contrary to this ordered propagation. But by the ninth precept every interior concupiscence of those external works which had already previously been prohibited by the sixth precept is prohibited. Therefore each of these precepts prohibits lust, which is: the inordinate appetite or use of venereal things. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 1; L. 412, 414.

What is the malice of lust? - The malice of lust consists in this, that man inordinately uses venereal things, that is, the commotion of the genital parts and seed, which by nature and God, as author of nature, is ordered to the due propagation of the human race, for pleasure or another perverse end. Inordinately, that is, outside marriage, or against the laws of marriage in marriage.

Is lust a grave sin? Lust of whatever genus or species is, per se, a grave sin. The reason is: 1. Because it gravely fights against nature. For the use of the venereal thing by its nature is instituted and necessary for the conservation and propagation alone of the human race; therefore it cannot be usurped outside marriage; indeed, not even in marriage except in the due mode, without grave disturbance of the right order. 2. Because it is prohibited under grave obligation by God, the Author of nature, as is clear from innumerable places of Sacred Scripture; thus Gal. 5:19: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, ... of which I foretell you, as I have foretold, that those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. L. 14; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, aa. 2, 3.

Does directly voluntary lust admit lightness of matter? Directly voluntary lust in whatever genus never admits lightness of matter. The reason is that any pleasure directly sought necessarily induces a subversion, in a most grave matter, of the natural order established by the Creator. This is also clear from prop. 40 condemned by Alexander VII. Sporer de Matrim. nn. 689, 699; L. 415, 416; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 153, aa. 2, 3; E. M.

Does indirectly voluntary lust admit lightness of matter? - R. Affirmatively, because then there is no consent or direct intention in venereal pleasure, but only in the cause, which is lightly or gravely sinful according as it lightly or gravely influences the pleasure. L. 482, 483; Cf. here 37-40.

To what virtue is lust opposed? - Lust is directly opposed to chastity, which, taken generally, is a moral virtue which moderates the inordinate appetite and use of venereal things. Cf. 349. A part of chastity, and its most perfect part, is virginity, which imports two things, namely integrity of body, and integrity of mind, or the purpose of preserving that integrity of body in perpetuity. Indeed, a threefold chastity is to be distinguished: conjugal, widowed, virginal. Conjugal chastity is that which in marriage moderately uses lawful pleasures. Widowed chastity is that which after the death of the spouse, or after virginity has otherwise been lost, by a firm purpose thereafter abstains from the appetite and use of venereal things. Finally, virginal chastity is that which proposes perpetually to abstain from all carnal pleasures, both unlawful and lawful in marriage. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 151-153.

How is virginity lost? - Virginity is lost physically in a girl through the opening or breaking of the virginal enclosure, and in a male through the emission of seed; but morally it is lost both by a female and by a male through voluntary pollution. Nevertheless as to political state, and in the face of the Church, a girl remains a virgin as long as the enclosure of virginity has not been violated by intercourse, and a male as long as he has not carnally known a female. Tambur. Explic. Decal. l. 7, c. 5, nn. 2, 3; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, nn. 7-9; Sporer after tract V, in append. ad 6th Precept, n. 6; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 152.

How many kinds of pleasure are distinguished here? - In this matter a twofold pleasure is to be distinguished, one venereal, which is also called carnal, the other sensible. Venereal pleasure is felt in the genital parts through the commotion of the same genital parts and seed; on the contrary, sensible pleasure is felt in the other senses from their application to their object, and from the proportion of the object to the proper sense. Sensible pleasure is manifest in two ways; one is purely such, another is sensible-venereal. Sensible pleasure purely such is that which arises from an object which precisely of itself is not apt to move to venereal pleasure, as, for example, the pleasure which arises from the touch of silk, the smell of a flower, the hearing of music, the taste of sugar. Sensible-venereal pleasure is that which arises from an object which of itself is in some way apt to move to venereal pleasure, as, for example, the pleasure which arises from touch, from the embrace of a woman, from her kiss, etc. Cf. n. 291; L. 412, 413-415.

Is venereal pleasure lawful? - Deliberately voluntary venereal pleasure between persons to whom intercourse is unlawful pertains properly to lust, and is a grave sin from its whole genus, admitting no lightness of matter, as is clear from n. 765. The reason is that venereal pleasure is excited from the commotion of the parts serving generation. But commotion of this sort is a kind of begun pollution, or is a motion to pollution. E. M.

Is purely sensible pleasure lawful? Purely sensible pleasure, as such, does not properly pertain to lust, but to sensuality, and of itself it is not evil, but indifferent. Nor indeed can any other malice be found in it except that which generally is in an act which is not referred to a rational end; such indeed it would be if someone not only acted with that pleasure, but also because of that same pleasure, by positively excluding a further honorable end of the work.

Is sensible-venereal pleasure lawful? Sensible-venereal pleasure either from its nature proximately disposes to venereal pleasure, or only remotely. If proximately, per se it is a grave sin, because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. If remotely, per se it does not exceed venial sin, if it is directly intended, because of the inordination which is directly intended in it, yet not grave, since the proximate danger of venereal pleasure is absent. Struggl 4, 7; Tambur. Expl. Decal. l. 7, c. 8, n. 1 seqq.; Sporer de Matr. 686-688, 691; L. 416.

How is lust distinguished? - One lust is interior, another exterior. The former is the voluntary occupation of the imagination, intellect, and will by joy, morose pleasure, or desire of a venereal thing for the sake of pleasure. The latter is the very use itself of venereal things for the sake of pleasure; and it is multiple in species: for one is in acts not consummated, another in consummated acts, which differ in species from them; and both this, which is in consummated acts, and that, which is in acts not consummated, are subdivided into other species according to the specific diversity of objects. But consummated acts, in this matter, are those acts which reach all the way to the emission of prolific fluid. Acts which do not reach this term are not consummated acts, which properly are acts of sensuality and immodesty. Cf. 349. Acts of lust not consummated are base looks, hearings or speeches, to which base readings are counted, base smells and tastes, finally touches.

S. Th. 2. 2, q. 151, a. 4; q. 154, a. 1 ad 5; q. 155, aa. 2, 3, 4; L. 412. Vivid and morose imagination and thought of obscene things is a cause per se gravely influencing base effects. It ordinarily precedes, accompanies, and follows acts of lust not consummated, and therefore from these it has its proper gravity, as also from a grave object, from a depraved intention, from danger of consent in a gravely base thing.

What about obscene looks? - A voluntary and deliberate look at very obscene things, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal pleasure, unless it is done from a just cause, is, speaking per se, a mortal sin; but a look at less obscene things, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal pleasure, unless it also is done from a just cause, speaking per se, is only a venial sin. The reason of the 1st part is that one acting thus exposes himself to the proximate danger of venereal pleasure, which is gravely sinful; and therefore he sins gravely. The reason of the 2nd part is that although the object is in some way dishonorable, and therefore action about it is unlawful, nevertheless it does not bring proximate danger of venereal pleasure; hence that action is not gravely unlawful. L. 420 seqq.

You will resolve: Looks at obscene pictures, if they are done in passing, and from mere curiosity, and if proximate danger of consent in base pleasure is absent, are not held as mortal sins. And this can more easily be admitted because of custom as regards images and sculptures representing angels naked or nearly naked, as many are displayed in Christian temples. A morose look at the same pictures does not seem able to be excused from grave sin, because per se it gravely influences base pleasure. Indeed, there are many things in this matter which, if done in passing, only lightly excite carnal pleasure, but if they are continued with long delay, they gravely stir it, by reason of imagination and thought which lingers in that base thing. L. 429. Speaking per se, and bad intention or danger of consent being excluded because of special frailty, to look from lightness and a certain curiosity at the base parts of animals, and at animals coupling, does not exceed venial sin. Struggl 12; L. 419. A look at one's own genitals is not mortal if it is done briefly; otherwise, if it is done studiously and morosely. L. 419. "It is not mortal of itself, short of danger of venereal consent, to look at the pudenda of a person of the same sex, unless the one looking were very inclined to sodomy, or unless a beautiful youth were looked at naked," L. 420, 421, or again, unless it is done studiously and morosely. Looks at the honorable parts of a person of a different sex, even a beautiful one, per se are not sins. Therefore if a look of this sort is done from simple courtesy, or another honorable cause, there is no sin at all. But if they are done from curiosity or with some moroseness, per se they are venial sins. But lengthy looks are not excused from mortal sin if they involve proximate danger of consent in base concupiscence, especially if commotion of the spirits rises up, and a fortiori if the person is loved with inordinate love. L. 422; Sanch. l. 9, d. 45, n. 20.

Looks at less honorable, but not base, parts of a woman, namely the chest, arms, legs, are not per se mortal sins if they are done in passing, always with proximate danger of depraved consent excluded. But if looks are done studiously and morosely, so that there is proximate danger of venereal pleasure, it is grave. Therefore generally they are not to be excused from mortal sin who, without cause, look with notable delay at the naked breasts of a beautiful woman, because of the danger annexed to such a look. But they do not sin gravely who, with special danger excluded, look at mothers or nurses nursing infants, or fix their eyes on the uncovered chest of a woman, old or younger but not yet formed. L. 423; Sanch. l. c. and d. 40, n. 26. Looks at the shameful parts of the different sex, or at neighboring parts, ordinarily are mortal sins, unless perhaps the vision is made from afar and for a very brief time; because lengthy looks of this sort per se gravely influence base pleasure. Nor are you excused from grave sin if you look at base parts through a very thin and translucent veil, because almost such a look increases lust rather than diminishes it. They make exception: 1. If the one looking is a child or very frigid, because these are little moved. 2. If the eyes are fixed on a little infant, because it moves little. Hence maidservants and nurses who thus look at children committed to them are not judged to sin gravely, unless they do this morosely, or repeated times, and with depraved affection.

Likewise it is grave sin deliberately to look at a person of the other sex wholly naked, unless the look were done only lightly, in passing, or from afar, or to look at married persons coupling. Sanch. l. 9, d. 46, nn. 23-25, 29; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, nn. 10, 14; Struggl 12; L. 420, 421. All the aforesaid looks, which are lightly or gravely sinful, lack all fault if they are done from proportionate utility and necessity, such as is given, for example, in a physician or surgeon, when he must treat these parts. Diana tr. 6 de aliq. Cas. circa mater. lux. r. 19; L. 419, 420.

What about base speeches? - "Of itself it is not evil to utter or hear base words." L. 426. Of itself, for, practically speaking, very obscene words, with continued conversation about these matters, which from their nature proximately dispose the speaker or hearers to venereal pleasure, unless they are done from a just cause, are mortal sin. But less obscene words, or words spoken in passing, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal pleasure, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, are only venial sin. The reason is the proximate or remote danger of venereal pleasure which is had by conversations and words of this sort. L. 426, 427, 428.

Note: What has been said about speeches must also be said, with the same proportion, about immodest songs and readings. L. 426.

You will resolve: They sin gravely who, before unmarried persons, especially of the other sex, mingle speeches among themselves about insemination, carnal intercourse, and other things which, with attention paid to the circumstances of the persons, of the thing said, and of the manner of saying it, can proximately dispose the speakers or hearers to venereal pleasure. Nor, speaking per se, are they excused from grave sin who, under the pretext of joking, with equivocal but sufficiently known words, mix speeches about these things and hold conversation; make exception unless something of this sort is said by mere jest and in passing. For that jest and equivocation not only does not remove, but rather increases, because curiosity has been excited, the danger of venereal pleasure. Likewise, to read altogether obscene books without just cause is mortal sin, even if this seems to be done from curiosity or for the sake of recreation, because per se this reading greatly provokes to lust. Make exception perhaps unless readers, from curiosity alone, because of advanced age and a frigid temperament, or because of the custom of treating venereal matters, do not incur grave danger of lust. But it is certain that those who compose, and also those who sell, notably base books can in no way be excused from grave sin, because of the scandal of others, although not intended; nor can gain, however great, excuse. L. 426, 428. It is not per se mortal to utter base things indeed, but not gravely obscene, if it is done briefly, through joking or vain consolation, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. Hence commonly base jests which are uttered by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers, are not grave, because they are ordinarily said and heard for mere joking. Nor indeed are tender conversations, otherwise honorable, with persons of the different sex always to be held as mortal sins, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are lengthy, often repeated, or done in solitary places. What therefore is to be judged concerning loves, as they call them, especially among the younger? Not all are indiscriminately to be condemned of mortal fault; although often a proximate occasion of lethally sinning will with difficulty be absent, at least in progress and when certain circumstances are added, as if the lovers meet entirely alone, especially for a rather long time, or at night, etc. Likewise to read amorous and lightly dishonorable books per se is not mortal sin, although in practice it is very dangerous, especially for the young. But those who compose or sell lightly obscene books indeed sin, even lethally, if they do this to excite lust; but if only to obtain gain, or because of another motive not gravely depraved, the sin will be only venial, since books of this sort can be read without grave danger. Yet clerics and religious, speaking per se, do not seem able to compose or spread books of this sort without grave scandal. L. 422, 426; Prax. 63.

To read obscene books for a just cause, for example, for forming and perfecting style, for learning the truth of history, for informing superiors, for correcting morals, etc., is no sin, provided one does not consent to the base things.

Note: From those things which have been said, nn. 774, 776, judgment can be made concerning theaters and cinematographs, and also concerning illustrated cards, namely whether those who are present at them and look at these things sin. For if they sin, they can sin only because of base looks or base things heard. L. 427, 428.

What about base touches? Very base touches, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal pleasure, unless they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are mortal sin; but less base touches, which from their nature do not dispose proximately, but only remotely, to venereal pleasure, unless likewise they are done from a just cause, speaking per se, are only venial sin. The reason is that one touching himself or another person in the former way exposes himself or the other person to proximate danger of venereal pleasure; but in the latter way, only to remote danger; nor is there present a reasonable cause for either touch, making it honorable. Therefore. L. 415, 416, 417, 418; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4; q. 156, aa. 2, 4.

You will resolve: To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. But to produce these touches all the way to the emission of seed is probably mortal, because it is an action most vehemently exciting to venereal pleasure. Nevertheless, if someone did this from mere lightness and curiosity, and experienced that he was not moved venereally at all from it, he could not be condemned of mortal sin. Tamb. Explic. Dec. l. 7, c. 8, n. 5; Sporer de Matrim. n. 697; L. 419, 420. Touches of one's own body do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being excluded, they are had only in passing and from mere lightness or curiosity, because they are not very much incentives of lust. L. 419. Touches on the shameful parts of another person of the same sex, or neighboring parts, even over clothing, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from petulance, jest, lightness, and in passing. L. 420.

It does not exceed venial sin to touch honorable parts, for example, fingers, hand, face, of a person of different sex, if these things are done from mere lightness, and no special danger of venereal pleasure is present by reason of the mode in which these touches are done. L. 415, 416, 417, 418. Touches on less honorable parts of a person of different sex, such as the chest, legs, arms, if they are done from mere lightness, curiosity, jest, etc., also do not exceed venial sin, always with the special danger of venereal pleasure excluded by reason of delay or mode in which these touches are done. And thus it is grave to press the foot of a young girl, to pinch the arm, and also to twist the finger, because of the proximate danger of carnal pleasure. L. 415, 430. Touches on base parts, that is, on the genital parts or those which are near them, of a person of different sex, had even for a brief time, whether they are done immediately or mediately, or over clothing, regularly cannot be excused from grave sin, because they contain the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. Nevertheless maidservants who touch the pudenda of infants while they clothe them probably are not to be accused of grave sin, even if from lightness or a certain curiosity; but otherwise, if this were done studiously and morosely, because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure. L. 420, 430. As other incomplete acts, about which in the preceding numbers, so also touches are not evil from their intrinsic nature, as is clear from the reason constantly brought forward, but only extrinsically, namely because of the proximate danger of venereal pleasure, because of the proximate danger of consent in it. And indeed all these acts from their intrinsic nature do not pertain to lust or the venereal matter, which is contained only in coition, pollution, and carnal pleasure which disposes to these, or follows them in the genital parts; but they per se look to sensuality and modesty, as is clear from what has already been said above. Cf. 773. Therefore all the aforesaid touches are altogether lawful from proportionate necessity and utility. Hence physicians touching from necessity the pudenda of a person even of different sex do not sin, granted that per accidens they suffer involuntary pollution. Nor do they sin per se who touch themselves for wiping away the filth of the body, or for soothing itching, or for curing infirmities. Yet if the itching is tolerable, it is to be suggested that they abstain from touches insofar as they can without grave annoyance. Yet the confessor must use great discretion in these things. For doubts of this sort are accustomed to trouble especially persons of timid conscience. L. 417, 419, 420; H. A. n. 3; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4. Itching can come from infirmity, in which a physician is to be consulted. It can also come both in men and in women from uncleanness; for preventing and removing this, washings with common, simple water, or mixed with soap, suffice. Antonelli vol. 1, p. 2, on the 6th Precept of the Decalogue, c. 2.

Note: From those things which have been said about touches, it is clear what must be said in particular about kisses, embraces, and dances; these can be gravely base, lightly base, and honorable, according to the various mode in which they are done. L. 417, 429, 430; E. M.

Do the aforesaid touches differ in species from the consummated act of pollution and intercourse, and from other incomplete acts? R. To the 1st: Affirmatively; and this response holds both for touches and for other incomplete acts, about which the discussion has hitherto been. The reason is that an inchoate act differs in nature from a consummated act. Therefore when similar acts precede the venereal act completed in the same passion, or accompany it, or immediately follow it, such as kisses, touches, etc., they constitute with the completed venereal act one sin in number, and they are not necessarily to be explained distinctly in sacramental Confession; but when they are exercised without a completed venereal act, they are a sin distinct from this, yet one or several in number, if they are exercised in the same movement of passion, or in several. Hence in such a case they are a certain incomplete lust, and are to be explained in sacramental Confession.

R. To the 2nd: The first and more common opinion affirms. The reason is that these acts, considered in themselves, proceed from distinct and diverse faculties, and are ordered to distinct and diverse objects. Hence it follows that "the desire of looking basely, touching, kissing, fornicating, are distinguished in species not only from morose pleasure concerning those objects, but also each from the other, because they tend to those objects as they would be placed on the part of reality; but if they were placed on the part of reality, they would be distinguished in species, as is clear. Hence he who once was delighted by thought about intercourse, and once desired intercourse, does not satisfy by saying, twice I had a base thought, but he must say, once I was delighted in intercourse, and once I desired it. Similarly, he who once desired to look, once to kiss, once to touch, once to fornicate, does not satisfy by saying, four times I desired to do something base, but he is bound to express those objects." La-Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 1032. The second opinion denies. The reason is that although acts of this sort physically proceed from faculties really distinct and diverse, and tend to objects really distinct and diverse, nevertheless, morally considered, they do not contain grave intrinsic malice; but the grave malice which they contain they have from venereal pleasure, to which they proximately dispose, and which is the same in species for all these acts. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4. Hence it follows that, once in Confession the venereal pleasure which followed, to which someone consented, has been explained, it is not necessary to explain whether he procured it for himself by looking at or touching himself, or even by looking at or touching another person, abstraction nevertheless being made from the sin of cooperation and scandal, certainly to be explained if they were present. Likewise, once the interior pleasure of the will, or desire as regards venereal pleasure, has been explained, it is not to be explained whether that pleasure and desire of the will was immediately terminated to base looks or touches. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 15, section III, Note and following, has these things: "Franc. Henno teaches that pleasures concerning look, touch, kiss, etc., differ in species among themselves, and ought thus distinctly to be accused... because, he says, looks, touches, kisses, are distinguished in species among themselves... but nevertheless he admits that the practice of confessors and penitents is contrary. Besides, I think that his foundation is false, namely that touches, kisses, looks are distinguished in species in the genus of lust. For since they are not evil per se, as has been said, but only by reason of commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, to which they excite and tend, they have the same species of malice among themselves, namely either of carnal commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, etc. Hence in my judgment the penitent would satisfy who would say, so many times I excited in myself or in another carnal commotion, or pollution, while saying nothing whether by touches, or looks, or kisses, provided that he explains the conditions of himself and the accomplice. A fortiori he would satisfy by saying, so many times I was carnally delighted concerning such or such a person, without explaining whether concerning touches, or kisses, or looks; but indeed if there was pleasure concerning intercourse or pollution, because these differ in species from immodesty and are to be distinctly accused, so too are the pleasures concerning them." S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4 ad 3, speaking of kisses and touches, says: "That things of this sort are not sins according to their species." And ib. ad 2 he says: "From lust they have the nature of sin." And in c.: "Things of this sort, insofar as they are lustful, are mortal sins."

783bis. Note: An act exciting simple venereal pleasure differs in species from an act of pollution; and therefore in confession the nature of the act is, per se, to be explained distinctly. "Nevertheless, as Genicot notes here, ed. 4, vol. 1, n. 396, 3, that distinction often is not accused by the penitent; nor are questions about most shameful matters to be made by the confessor without true necessity. It is lawful to follow the rule set down by Bouvier, Diss. in 6 Dec. praec. p. 76: 'Once touches or lustful motions have been discreetly known, let the confessor abstain from immodest interrogations.' And Berardi writes, Prax. conf. n. 851: 'When the penitent says, I touched myself, if it is evident that he truly touched himself maliciously, it is to be presumed that he carried the act through to its natural end; hence, whether the matter concerns men or women, I would say that interrogations about that matter can be omitted. It is true that some interrupt the act, although they have maliciously begun it, but from this confessors cannot be obligated to add further interrogations to all and each who confess that they touched themselves, concerning this very interruption.'"

Do touches and other incomplete acts, when they are grave sin, contract malice diverse in species because of the various circumstances of persons? - As regards touches, kisses, and embraces, this is commonly affirmed. And the reason is that in moral estimation touches more than other acts regard the individual person, and approach most closely to intercourse.

Hence just as the specific circumstances of persons are to be explained in intercourse, so also in touches. L. 417, 453, 459. As regards looks, the Salmanticenses apud St. Alphonsus 421 likewise affirm; and both as regards looks and also as regards base words whether said or heard, Sanchez de Matrim. l. 9, d. 46, nn. 17, 18, 30, 45 also affirms in almost the same way as regards touches, because of an altogether universal reason, namely because all these acts are ordered to coition and participate in its moral malice. But St. Alphonsus, having reported the opinion of the Salmanticenses, adds these things as regards looks: "But La-Croix more truly contradicts this doctrine, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1030, where he says that he who looks venereally at a person without any desire is not bound to say what sort of person it was. For how would a woman, by looking basely at a priest... commit sacrilege, which consists in the violation of a sacred person, when no violation intervenes there? And how would someone, by looking basely at a relative, commit incest?" l. c. But these things also hold as regards base words said or heard, as is clear per se.

S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 4 ad 1, ad 2; L. 415, 416, 417; Gur. Cas. 146; Laym. l. 3, s. 4, n. 13. Hence he who by the sight of some person or by conversation is voluntarily excited to pollution commits one sin of pollution, since the aforesaid acts do not put on the species of intercourse with the person who is looked at, or with whom someone converses.

In touches which someone has with himself or with others, must the sex be declared, whether the person be male or female? R. Speaking per se, negatively; for this of itself is merely material. Cf. 811.

As regards touches, must the parts of the body which one sinning gravely in this matter has touched be explained? R. La-Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 1031 has these things: "He who without desire of venereal pleasure touched a girl, according to Diana, satisfies by saying that he touched basely so many times, saying nothing about the parts in which he touched. Others say with probability that it must be expressed if he touched a base part."

How are the sins of consummated lust distinguished? Some are according to nature, namely when they are exercised in that mode which is not opposed to the generation of the human species, if namely in intercourse, per se apt for generation, diverse sex, the same species, and the natural vessel and mode are preserved; others are against nature, if seed is so poured out that it cannot serve generation, that is, if the things just enumerated are not preserved, whether this is done outside intercourse, or in intercourse from which generation cannot follow. St. Thomas enumerates six species of consummated lust, which are: fornication, defilement, abduction, adultery, incest, vice against nature. L. 412, 432; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 2, 11, 12.

What is fornication? Fornication is the intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent. Of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, free from the bonds of marriage, kinship or affinity, and vow. Fornication is intrinsically evil, and mortal sin, so that it is never lawful. Proof of the 1st part: 1. from prop. 48 condemned by Innocent XI. 2. Because fornication and vague intercourse are opposed to the good education of offspring, which cannot be done 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 offspring is nourished, but much more also the care of the father, by whom thereafter the offspring is to be instructed, defended, and advanced to a state in which it can provide necessary things for itself. Proof of the 2nd part: 1. because in Sacred Scripture fornicators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven, 1 Cor. 6:9; Eph. 5:5; Gal. 5:19 seqq. 2. Because fornication gravely opposes the good of offspring, and the due propagation of the human race; for if fornication and vague intercourse were lawful, males doubtful about the ownership of offspring would not acknowledge it and would not devote care to due education; but females thereafter deserted by males would procure abortions, abandon infants, or plainly kill them.

Moreover fornication is mortal sin, even if a rich man wished to care for the due education of fornicated offspring; for if fornication were lawful in such a case, very many would arrogate similar license to themselves, would omit marriages, and fornication would successively become common against the due propagation of the human race. Trid. s. 24, C. 8 de R. M.; s. 25, C. 14 de R.; Struggl 23; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 2, 3; L. 432, 435 seqq.; E. M.

Note: "He who only begins intercourse, but does not complete it, nor emits seed, must explain this very thing, because although then there is fornication begun and in affection, nevertheless it is not fornication in reality; but it is an immodest act, and the extreme of immodesty. Much more, he who begins the same intercourse, and then recoils after nature has already been excited, and scatters seed, must explain; because there is already a double malice, namely fornication begun and in affection, and consummated softness, as is clear per se." Sporer 575, 576; Struggl 25; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 237 seqq.; L. l. 6, n. 916. Concubinage does not differ in species from fornication; it is habitual and continued fornication. Nor does meretriciousness, which only designates the condition of the woman who is prepared to grant the use of her body to all. These conditions are to be explained in Confession, not by reason of a diverse species of sin, but by reason of custom and occasion of several sins.

What is defilement? - Defilement is sometimes taken for every illicit intercourse; but more commonly by this word a special sin of lust is designated. Theologians, however, do not agree among themselves concerning the nature of this sin. Fr. Gury 425 says defilement is the violation or oppression of a woman against her will. But others hold that the proper nature of defilement consists simply in the illicit deflowering of a virgin; while 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 virgin in each opinion is understood not she who has so preserved the virtue of virginity 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. L. 101 de Verb. sign.; L. 443; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 6, 7; Laym. l. 3, s. 5, tr. 3, p. 3, c. 13, init. If a woman, unwilling, outside marriage, is overcome by force by a man, it is lawful for her not to receive the seed of the man who has entered her. And the same they permit, though not all, to a woman who had previously consented, because she is bound not to continue the sin. But if a woman oppressed by force has already received the seed, more probably she cannot eject it or render it infertile by injection of cold water, since this is against the nature of generation, which has already been begun. Lugo de Iust. et Iur. d. 10, n. 197; L. 394; l. 6, n. 954.

It is certain among all that violent deflowering of a virgin, besides grave sin against chastity, also involves grave sin against justice, necessarily to be explained in Confession, because of the most grave injury inflicted on the virgin, and on her parents, if the virgin is under their guardianship. Inst. l. 4, t. 4, section 2. And this circumstance of violence, as is clear per se, is to 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, such as fraud and fear; likewise importunate prayers and blandishments, which according to the judgment of prudent persons, especially in this matter, are morally reputed violence; such are those which are accompanied by great promises, kisses, touches, incentives of Venus, and in one word all those by which a noble woman cannot easily resist." Billuart de Temper. Diss. 6, art. 3, Dico 1; Struggl 28, 29. But although force or violence is not had, certainly notable fraud is had, and therefore special malice against justice to be declared in Confession, if someone should fornicate with a woman insane, drunk, or sleeping, because she is violated without her consent, and therefore a grave injury is inflicted on her. Sporer 606; Laym. l. c. n. 1; S. Th. 1. 2, q. 154, a. 6; L. 430, 433. But whether illicit deflowering of a virgin freely consenting is a species of lust distinct from simple fornication is disputed, and each opinion is at least extrinsically probable. The negative opinion seems more probable. The reason is that that circumstance of physical virginity or integrity is merely material with respect to the virtue of chastity, and therefore the sin against chastity is not changed in species. Hence, which is consequent, this circumstance of virginity in any sins whatever committed by a female or male, virgins, will not be necessarily explained in Confession, unless perhaps on the occasion of reservation, or censure, or another extrinsic circumstance, for instance if it culpably became known, and disgrace and damage came about, which must be repaired. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 1, 4; Laym. l. c. An inflicted injury demands satisfaction; inflicted damage, if it follows, demands restitution. But for repairing the inflicted damage, if no promise of marriage intervened, the defiler is bound either to marry the girl, or to dower her sufficiently or sufficiently increase her dowry, so that she may marry another as equally as if she were a virgin. C. 1, 2 de Adult. et stupr.; C. B. 825. Cf. 1376; L. l. 3, nn. 640-612, 648; Laym. l. c. nn. 2, 4; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, s. 4, section 7; C. I. Poen. 331 seqq.; C. G. 331 seqq.

If the deflowered virgin consents, does defilement 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 deflowering, using her own right, much less does the deflowerer inflict it. Only she will sin, and consequently also the violator, against piety owed to the father, and also against obedience, if she has had an express prohibition from the father concerning such a crime, as Lugo says, n. 226." L. 641; l. 3, n. 641.

What is abduction? - Abduction can be taken in two ways. First it can be taken as it is a diriment impediment of marriage, and it is the violent leading away of any woman from the home or paternal or quasi-paternal power to another place for contracting marriage, under the power of the abductor. In another way, however, it is a species of lust; and this is the carrying away of any person, whether male or female, whether virgin or corrupted, whether married or unmarried, from place to place, force being brought either against the one abducted or against those to whose power the person is subject, namely parents or guardians, or husband, but not if they are brothers and the woman is of her own right, for the sake of fulfilling lust. Inst. l. 4, t. 4, section 2. Therefore in the first way the person is carried away for the sake of contracting marriage; in the other way, for the sake of lust. Abduction in the 1st way is discussed in the treatise on Marriage; here we deal with abduction in the 2nd way.

Moreover it is clear how abduction thus taken differs from defilement. For defilement has place only with an unwilling virgin, but abduction with any person; defilement involves only violence or fraud, abduction also the leading away from place to place; defilement brings violence only to the virgin, abduction to the person abducted, or to those to whose power the abducted person is subject, or even to both. "Hence you see that abduction of a virgin, the base effect having followed, differs from defilement only very accidentally." Sporer de Matr. 603. Yet if someone departs voluntarily with a lover, the parents not knowing, there will not properly be abduction, but flight, not adding malice distinct in species to fornication. Therefore the proper malice of abduction consists in the injury which is brought in violent carrying away for the sake of lust. Therefore, just as defilement perfectly such, so abduction, besides the sin of lust, contains a sin of injustice; and that injustice is both against the person herself who is violently carried away, and also against parents or any other persons whatever in whose power that person is constituted. From Trent, s. 24, C. 6 de R. M., the abductor is bound "to dower decently, at the judgment of the judge, the woman abducted, whether he has married her or has not married her," unless the woman is a prostitute or of bad reputation. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 7; L. 444; C. I. Poen. 349 seqq.; C. G. 354 seqq.; C. B. 826.

What is adultery? - Adultery is intercourse with another's spouse. It is a grave sin, distinct in species from others, Heb. 13:4. Besides the sin against chastity, it includes another against justice. For it violates in a grave matter the inalienable right of the other spouse; hence such malice does not cease, although that spouse consents. L. 445; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 8.

The degrees of gravity of this sin are: 1. Grave, when an unmarried person sins with a married person, because besides fornication he sins against the right of a third party only by cooperating. 2. More grave, when a married person sins with an unmarried person, because besides cooperation in fornication he sins against the fidelity given by himself to his own spouse, and violates the right acquired by the spouse in his body. 3. Most grave, when a married person sins with a married person, because he himself sins against justice, violating the right of his own spouse, and cooperates in the sin against justice of his accomplice, likewise violating the right of his own spouse. Hence the state of each is altogether to be declared in Confession. The adultery of a wife is more grave than the adultery of a husband, because of the most grave damage to the family and to the legitimate heirs, willed in the cause, which circumstance introduces another species of malice. Sporer 529; L. 445; C. I. Poen. 353 seqq.; C. G. 336 seqq.; C. B. 823, 821.

"Adultery is committed by a married person in every species whatsoever of lust, at least external, not only natural, with an unmarried person, a married person, a relative, a sacred person, etc.; but also against nature, by bestiality, sodomy, softness, and likewise by kisses and touches even with unmarried persons; and therefore a married man or married woman doing such things is bound to explain the state of his or her marriage. Most common of the doctors: Sanchez l. 9, d. 18, n. 4; Lugo, Tamburini. The reason is because in all these things an injury is always done to the spouse, according to the Apostle: The husband does not have power over his own body, etc. And conversely." Sporer 529.

Spouses also contract the malice of adultery or quasi-adultery when sinning against nature by sodomy or softness, when mutually or separately they pollute themselves. For thus their flesh is most truly divided against the fidelity of marriage. But they must necessarily explain that that sin was committed with their own spouse; otherwise they will never explain the sin committed by themselves. Sporer 526; L. 446; Diana tr. 6 de Matr. r. 186, n. 4; E. M.

If a spouse only is morosely delighted concerning imagined intercourse with another, does he also contract the malice of mental adultery, necessarily to be explained in confession? "Vasquez 2. p. tom. 1, d. 112 with others affirms. The reason is that the faith of marriage obliges not only the body, but also the mind not to place itself upon another base object; and therefore one so morosely delighting sins not only by the sin of lust, but also of mental adultery, just as by the consent of all a religious, priest, or another bound by a vow of chastity is bound in Confession of morose venereal pleasure to explain the circumstance of his vow or state, because he sins not only against chastity, but also truly against the vow and the virtue of religion. A probable opinion, and without doubt the safer. But Hurtado apud Tambur. l. 15 Decalogi n. 6 denies, not improbably, in these words: 'Vasquez teaches that a married man who is venereally delighted concerning fornication with one not his own sins not only by the sin of lust against chastity, but also by the sin of adultery against the faith of marriage. Yet this is proved with difficulty and without sufficient foundation, because it is said with difficulty and without foundation that in marriage faith is furnished to the spouse of not placing the mind in another. These things Hurtado says sufficiently probably. Certainly, without sufficient foundation and urgent necessity or reason, the sacrament of penance is not to be burdened. The reason is different concerning one bound by a vow of chastity. For one vowing chastity to God, the inspector of hearts, without doubt principally vows and obliges himself to internal chastity also, without which external chastity is worth nothing; but one contracting marriage with a human person is asserted without foundation also to oblige his mind to that person, lest it tend lustfully to another object.'" Sporer n. 523.

What is incest? Incest is intercourse with blood relatives or relatives by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage. Incest is a grave sin, and differs in species from other sins of lust. For it is not only against chastity, but also against the piety and reverence which those joined owe mutually to themselves. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 9; L. 448; C. I. Poen. 337; C. G. 333 seqq.

Do not only intercourse, but also all immodest touches among relatives put on the nature of incest, necessarily to be explained in Confession? R. Affirmatively. For these acts also are contrary to the reverence due to relatives. L. 453, 469; Billuart Diss. 6, art. 6, 9; Cf. here 784.

Is incest present among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty? R. Affirmatively, and Sporer 613 hands this down as certain. But it is incest less strictly such. The reason is that incest is among blood relatives and those related by affinity. But among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty there is neither kinship nor affinity strictly such. Therefore. L. l. 6, n. 469.

1. Candida, seized by a grave disease, is placed in proximate danger of life unless she undergoes excision of the ovaries. Fearing for this reason to lose virginity, she refuses to undergo that surgical operation. But, opening the matter to her confessor, she asks of him whether, having undergone that operation, she herself remains a virgin. The perplexed confessor asks what he ought to respond.

R. The confessor in the case can rightly respond that virginity is not lost for this reason. "For evidence of this, it is necessary to see what is required for virginity. The first of these is principal and formal, namely the choice or intention of the will, as in all moral things; whence this is required of necessity for virginity: that there be present to someone a constant will never to experience venereal pleasure. The second is material, namely a passion of the sensitive appetite, that is, the pleasure which someone experiences in the venereal act, the privation of which is required for perfect virginity materially, for sensitive passions are the matter of moral virtues. But if this happens apart from the choice of one's own will, for instance when someone is polluted in sleep, or when a woman is oppressed by an enemy through violence, the virtue of virginity does not perish.... The third is as it were per accidens and concomitantly related to virginity, namely bodily integrity. Hence, if the barriers of modesty are corrupted otherwise than through the venereal act, for instance if a midwife or physician cuts with an iron instrument for healing, nothing is lost to virginity." St. Thomas, Quodlibet 6, a. 18; 2. 2, q. 152, a. 1.

2. Maevius often has depraved thoughts against chastity. Thinking that he is not obligated under grave obligation to resist them positively, he conducts himself merely negatively, and consequently permits those thoughts to remain longer in the mind and to represent depraved things more vividly. Hence it happens that, as the imagination of depraved things grows according to the occasion, frequently, and almost always, he experiences depraved motions and pollution. Nevertheless, because he himself refuses every consent to these depraved effects; indeed, he says, this displeases me greatly; he never made confession concerning this matter, because he thinks himself immune from every sin. Has Maevius sinned gravely?

R. Affirmatively, of itself, and with good faith, or simplicity, or rudeness, and a cause sometimes rendering honorable this manner of conducting himself negatively, being excluded. Cf. I. M. 58, 295-297. The reason is that someone is held under grave obligation to remove causes which of themselves gravely influence venereal pleasure and pollution; such certainly is a morose and long thought of shameful things. Besides, practically speaking, proximate danger of consent is present. Hence St. Alphonsus, l. 5, n. 7, says: "When venereal pleasure supervenes, we are held under grave obligation to resist it positively, because commotions of this sort, when they are vehement, generally, if they are not positively repelled, at least by an act of simple displeasure, draw with themselves the consent of the will." - G. 22, 143; Lig. l. 3, n. 426, 482; l. 6, n. 914; Sanch., l. 9, d. 45, n. 19, 24, 25; Lessius, De Iust. et Iur., l. 4, c. 3, dub. 14, n. 102; Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 12. Hence you will collect long-lasting cases, Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 780.

Appositely Lessius, l. c.: "When the cause is privative, namely negligence in removing an involuntary positive cause, for example, a shameful thought, man is held to shake off that apprehension and transfer the mind elsewhere as much as he can. But if he omits this, that omission will be the voluntary cause of the effect; just as the negligence of the shipmaster is the cause of the sinking of the ship, which indeed in the physical genus is a cause per accidens; nevertheless in morals it is judged as per se, because interpretative intention lies underneath.

Yet here note: If that work, from which that shameful imagination arises beyond the intention, is licit, you are not held to omit it in order to avoid that imagination, provided danger of consent is absent.... But if it is not licit, we are held to omit it even on account of that effect arising per accidens; nevertheless not under mortal sin, unless the work is mortal and of itself pertaining to lust; but under venial sin, as when the work of itself does not pertain to lust, or, if it does pertain, is only venial.... For you are not held more to avoid such an imagination than pollution; since that is only the means and way, but this is the end and terminus. Hence, just as one is not held under mortal sin to avoid those actions on account of the danger of pollution to follow beyond the intention, so neither on account of the imagination and pleasure thence rising beyond the intention; nevertheless, danger of consent being set aside in all things.

Yet if by another reason, the prior work not being discontinued, you can easily drive away an imagination of this sort and the pleasure of the sensitive part, you are held to do it, and indeed under mortal sin. Hence you cannot then conduct yourself negatively, that is, in a middle way without consent and positive displeasure. The reason is that, by not driving it away when you conveniently can, you interpretatively consent to it. Wherefore, since the object of itself is grave, it will be a deadly sin. Nor here is there merely consent in the cause, as when the cause is not removed, but it is immediate consent in the pleasure itself, because even while the cause remains, you can easily remove or impede it.

The same must be said concerning pollution. But whether, when it cannot be removed except by removal of the cause, and we are not held to remove the cause under mortal sin, because it is a remote cause or one per accidens, we can conduct ourselves negatively concerning that pleasure, so that by this one does not sin by a new sin, or at least not mortally, can be doubted.

I respond briefly: it will not be a mortal sin if danger of consent is absent. The reason is that then to conduct oneself negatively is in no way to consent except in the cause, which consent we posit from what has been said not to be deadly. It is confirmed: because it cannot be driven away except by removal of the cause, as is supposed; therefore I am not held to try to drive it away otherwise, for I am not held to try what is morally impossible for me; therefore neither am I held to have positive displeasure of it. For this will be ineffectual for driving away the effect, and from the other side it is by no means necessary for impeding consent. In practice, however, because the frailty of man is great and easily, while pleasure lasts for a long time, he is drawn into consent, this subtlety must be avoided, and detestation of that pleasure must be excited as soon as possible."

Sanchez, l. c., also to the matter: "Fifth, it is inferred among... the unmarried... that no act has mortal malice because it is the cause of foreseen and not intended pollution, unless, with that danger of pollution set aside, it would be mortal against the sixth precept of the Decalogue. Because only such acts are a notable cause of pollution. And, when they would notably influence of themselves, and notable necessity would excuse from pollution, it would similarly excuse from fault against the sixth precept.... Except, however, unless in venereal pleasure the will conducts itself negatively, neither admitting nor rejecting. For although it is most probable that it is not mortal, when danger of consent ceases, nevertheless, if there is danger of pollution, although there is not danger of consent, it is mortal. Because man is held under mortal sin to remove causes notably concurring toward pollution; such is this. Indeed... then to resist tepidly is mortal, the danger having been foreseen. But the will is held to conduct itself more fervently, by which it may avert that cause of pollution."

3. Ioannes, a traveler, visiting the museums of the city, walking through their halls, out of mere curiosity looks at the nudes of paintings and statues that present themselves; nevertheless, when motions arise, he denies consent. Likewise, walking through the public streets, he curiously looks at women nursing infants or bearing the neck somewhat uncovered, since in his own country he had never observed anything of this sort.

Q. 1. Are immodest looks always a grave sin? 2. What must be thought concerning Ioannes?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 774, 775. - To the second. St. Alphonsus, 424, speaking of pictures, says: "To look at obscene pictures only out of curiosity is not mortal, if shameful pleasure and its danger are absent. But in practice I think that a man morosely looking at the pudenda of a depicted woman is with difficulty excused from mortal sin, because here he will with difficulty be able to free himself from shameful pleasure, or from its probable danger, unless he were looking for a very brief time and at a great distance." Hence the same seems to be said concerning the look at statues. Wherefore someone sins gravely if their nudes are total, and the looks are made deliberately, closely, and with notable delay. For then, without sufficient reason, he posits a cause gravely influencing of itself toward shameful motions and proximately exposes himself to danger of sinning. But it is otherwise, of itself, if the looks are made in passing and from afar, or also if the art in the painting or statue is not eminent.

As to the other look at nursing women, someone is not excused from grave sin if this look is so long and with commotion of the spirits that it then brings in proximate danger of pollution, or of shameful motions, or of consent. The same must be said concerning the other look at women who bear the neck somewhat uncovered, if likewise it is morose or long, with commotion of the spirits, so that proximate danger of pollution, or of depraved motions, or of consent is had, as easily happens in one looking who is very prone to venery. But it will be only a light sin if such looks are made in passing or without such danger. In practice, however, great caution must always be used to avoid especially too long looks at immodest things and even less modest things; for in this corruption of nature, it cannot be long before concupiscence sharpens its stings. L. 422, 423, 484; Sanch., l. 9, d. 45, n. 19, 20, 24; d. 46, n. 23-26; Lessius, De Iust. et Iur., l. 4, c. 3, dub. 14, n. 98-102; Billuart, De Temper., dissert. 6, art. 16; Colliges 11°, Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 792-795.

As regards Ioannes, since in the case his looks are said to have been from mere curiosity, and from the other circumstances it sufficiently appears that they were made only in passing, and that he denied every consent when motions arose, he seems to be immune from grave sin. It is sufficiently established that Ioannes was led by mere curiosity from the fact that he was struck by the novelty of things outside his own country; whence he could also be moved somewhat by the diverse manner of morals.

4. Nicolinus, indeed a good Christian, but, from love of knowledge, greedy for reading, rather often reads books which, although they are not depraved in themselves, nevertheless everywhere appear somewhat less chaste. While reading, he sometimes experiences some less chaste thoughts and motions of concupiscence, which he despises; and, with consent firmly denied, he continues the reading begun. But afterward, agitated by the stings of conscience, he hastens to the confessor and asks of him whether, notwithstanding the temptations which arise, he can indulge in readings of this sort.

Q. 1. Are immodest readings gravely prohibited? 2. Has Nicolinus sinned?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 776-778. To the second. Negatively. The reason is that, although he placed a cause influencing toward depraved motions lightly at most, nevertheless he did this not from curiosity or from natural pleasure, but from an honorable and useful reason, namely from the desire of acquiring knowledge; and he at the same time studiously elicited an act of displeasure toward the depraved effect. Billuart, De Actib. hum., diss. 1, art. 1; G. 10. - But if he reads from curiosity, he indeed sins, but of itself only venially, because the cause is only venial, with danger of consent always excluded. - But if, besides, without cause he reads very shameful things, he sins gravely, at least on account of the proximate danger of complacency. Perhaps except if one reading from curiosity alone, on account of advanced age, cold complexion, or another peculiar reason, does not incur grave danger of lust. L. 1, 3, n. 426; G. 21.

5. Medardus, since from his condition as a physician he must often converse with persons of every kind and treat them, feels a greater propensity toward dealing with women and curing them than toward dealing with men and curing them.

6. Anatolia, exercising commerce, is accustomed to show herself pleasing, courteous, and familiar with customers, so that she may increase their frequenting of her shop and receive greater profit from it. Nevertheless she is anxious, because she fears lest perhaps several internally sin on occasion of her.

Q. Do Medardus and Anatolia sin?

R. Medardus must be excused from sin, provided that he acts honorably with all and resists temptations arising. "Nor does it matter that Medardus seems to himself to feel a greater inclination of nature when he understands that he is being called to succor a woman than to succor a man; both because to succor a woman also is not evil, but rather good, and if not owed from justice, at least owed from charity; and because a prurience of nature of this sort is not moral and free, but rather natural, especially after the fall of Adam. Therefore it is not formally evil, although it must be confessed that it can be rather troublesome to a chaste mind, indeed even dangerous, and therefore it must be advised to Medardus that he strive to repress it through reason as far as possible, and to strengthen his mind by contrary protestations." Elbel, De Act. hum. 15.

"Anatolia did not sin by this, that she showed herself more familiar toward the customers flowing in, provided that she did not exceed the limits of honesty or give scandal. The reason is that to show oneself familiar, indeed more familiar than others, yet within the limits of honesty, is not evil, but of itself indifferent. But a means indifferent of itself we licitly embrace in order to a good end, as was that intended by Anatolia." Elbel, l. c., 75. Hence neither does she, of herself, provide any scandal, if, as appears, that courtesy and familiarity stands within the limits of mere urbanity and honesty, nor is referred to anything else than conducting the business affairs of commerce well. G. 24, 25.

7. Livonia advised her daughter, who was aspiring to very favorable nuptials, that she show herself cordial toward the bridegroom, and flatter him, and by no means refuse conversations, kisses, embraces, or other allurements, for the end that she may capture his love and the marriage not be impeded.

Q. 1. Are kisses and embraces gravely illicit? 2. Have Livonia and her daughter sinned gravely?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 782; V. 2, n. 946-948; E. M. 765. - To the second. Livonia sins gravely both against piety and against chastity, by reason of the scandal given to her daughter, since without any discrimination she indifferently advises her daughter things honorable and dishonorable. But her daughter also sinned gravely against chastity if, therefore lest she be abandoned by the bridegroom, she in reality permitted acts gravely shameful to her bridegroom. And although perhaps she had already become pregnant, she ought altogether to abstain from these things. For one must not continue in sin, but must altogether cease from it. Let her strive by other honorable means and honorable signs of love to gain the mind of the bridegroom. Marriages obtained by illicit means generally obtain an unfortunate outcome. - Elbel 74, 76, 77, 308; G. 26.

8. Gaudentia, a mother of a family, permits, indeed commands, her daughter Honorata to be taught by a master in the art of playing various musical instruments, singing, and dancing. But it often happens that Honorata must dance at various gatherings which are held in the paternal house, even with young men of different sex who are relatives, neighbors, and friends. Honorata does this, seeing or grasping nothing evil in it. Hence her confessor, learning the matter, indeed exhorts her by way of counsel that, as much as she can, she abstain from dances, but imposes no obligation on her.

Q. 1. What must be held concerning dances generally? What as to the case?

R. To the first. Dances of themselves are not illicit, even among persons of different sex. Nevertheless they can be illicit if they are done in a less honorable manner, by reason of nudities, looks, and touches, likewise by reason of danger and scandal which can be present in them. Hence dances generally are indeed to be dissuaded, as having more or less danger; but their illicitness and grave or light sin cannot be affirmed absolutely unless the various circumstances occurring in practice are attended to. The necessity which someone can have of assisting at dances must also be attended to. For not rarely the faithful are impelled by a grave cause and moral necessity to be present at dances. Nearly the same must be said concerning spectacles, which of themselves are not evil, and therefore not illicit. Nevertheless they can be evil and illicit if shameful things are represented, if words and songs are immodest, if dress is indecent; likewise if danger of grave sin is had from various circumstances which furnish foment to vices, or scandal is had, which especially can be had in small cities, since individuals are there known by all. - I. M. 777, 782; G. 233 seqq.

To the second. Gaudentia, speaking of itself, cannot be accused of sin, especially grave sin, if she applies the means which prudence suggests in such a case, namely that the master be an honorable man, and that she herself be present, or at least watch through another prudent person. Honorata likewise is not to be blamed for grave sin especially, since there is no danger for her and she sees nothing evil in those dances; whence it must be concluded that they are only honorable. But whether she is to be accused at least by reason of cooperation in the sins of others is not established; nor can it be affirmed, since she herself places an act not evil but indifferent in itself, and she altogether does not know whether others are present who suffer scandal on occasion of her. Nor indeed does a certain necessity of dancing seem to be lacking for her from the fact that those dances are instituted in her own house by her parents. Wherefore the confessor acts well by exhorting Honorata, and by not reproving her importunately or erroneously obligating her. - G. 233 seqq.

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.

You shall not commit adultery. - You shall not desire his (your neighbor's) wife. Exod. 20. 14.

410. • It is useful, first of all, to report and make our own the words of St. Liguori at the beginning of the Treatise on the sixth Precept:

Now with difficulty we approach the treatment of that matter, the very name alone of which infects the minds of men... Would that I had been able to explain myself more briefly or more obscurely! But since this is the more frequent and more abundant matter of confessions, on account of which the greater number of souls slips down to hell, hence it was necessary for me, for the instruction of those who desire to learn moral science, to explain myself clearly (although as chastely as could be done), and to discuss very many particulars. Yet I beg students who are preparing themselves for the office of hearing confessions that they read this treatise, as also the other concerning the conjugal debt..., for this one end alone, casting aside altogether every curiosity, and at that time often raising the mind to God, and commending themselves to the Immaculate Virgin, lest, while they strive to acquire the souls of others for God, they themselves suffer detriment of their own.

411. • The sixth precept of the Decalogue prohibits any external lust, that is, lust committed by deed. - But the ninth precept prohibits also merely internal lust, namely immodest delights and desires.

Lust is the disordered appetite of a venereal thing, and consists in venereal delight voluntarily admitted outside marriage. But venereal delight is a delight arisen from the commotion of the spirits serving generation. Therefore it is not to be confused with delight merely sensible, which arises from the proportion of a sensible object to some sense, for example of a visible object to sight, of an audible object to hearing, etc. Therefore the matter or object of lust is one thing, that of sensuality another. Sensible delight either is free from fault, or does not exceed venial fault, at least for the most part and per se ¹.

¹ In this matter different distinctions are found among different Authors. For besides the distinction of venereal delight into sensible venereal and spiritual venereal, which Roncaglia (tr. 12, q. 3, p. 295), after the Salamancans (tr. 26, c. 3, n. 31), admitted with some others (in the preceding edition it was erroneously read: "which St. Alphonsus admitted after Roncaglia"; which error the VV. usefully noted, p. 286), some again distinguish venereal delight into venereal simply, and sensible venereal (see Sanchez, De Matr., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 4); some seem to take carnal venereal and sensitive venereal as one and the same (see Laymann, lib. 1, tr. 3, cap. 6, n. 6-8); others, distinguishing sensitive and sensible altogether from venereal, again divide that into purely sensible and carnal sensible (see Croix, lib. 5, n. 93); finally others, as also the Author, use a simpler two-membered distinction into venereal and sensible delight, which they also call natural. While some pay little attention to these various distinctions, and therefore to the various definitions of the same among different Authors, they have fallen into the inconvenience that they ascribed to some Authors those opinions which those Authors had not even thought of in a dream.

Meanwhile, as regards sensible or natural delight, as it is taken by the Author and others, namely that which arises from the proportion of the object with the organs of the senses, the question about its guilt is easily solved. For it is the same thing as to ask what guilt there can be in a delight which is perceived, for example, from smelling a flower, from looking at the sky, or from a draft of cold water. Therefore deservedly La Croix (lib. 5, n. 94), to whom Viva subscribes (on proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, n. 20), after saying that it is not evil in itself, nor can any other malice be found in it except that which is found generically in an act which is not referred to a reasonable end, sends the reader to n. 210 of the same book, where he treats generically of the end which renders human acts honorable; which argument, however, he handles unhappily, namely not wholly avoiding the confusions introduced into this matter by the Jansenists. See above n. 32 and note a, p. 26.

Moreover, since sensible delight has the character which we have described, it will indeed seem strange that St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 416) sets up the question: Whether smallness of matter is given in sensible or natural delight; and that he adds that the negative opinion must be held, calling in favor of it the suffrage of several authors, whom he says were alleged by the Salamancans (De VI Praec., cap. 3, n. 40).

But one will scarcely grasp the true sense of St. Alphonsus unless he goes to the Salamancans, whose doctrine he exhibits in compendium. Therefore the Salamancans do not treat of any sensible delight whatsoever, but expressly handle the question about that which is sought and perceived from kisses, touches, and embraces even of an adult person and of a different sex (see l. c., n. 34). And although (ibid., n. 41) they assert that speculatively the true and probable opinion is that acts of this sort, if they are done precisely on account of natural and purely sensitive delight, which corresponds to the sense of touch because of proportion with its sensible object, such as is given in the touch of a smooth and pleasant thing, stopping there and with the further danger of carnal and venereal delight removed, are free from mortal fault; because such delight of itself is not morally evil, but indifferent, just as the touch itself, which according to itself names an indifferent act, as St. Thomas teaches, 2. 2, q. 154, art. 4, and the Theologians commonly, and thus it can be done for some honorable end; nevertheless they deservedly add (ibid., n. 48) that, because of the corruption of human nature, acts of this sort can hardly be reduced to practice on account of sensitive delight without carnal and venereal delight being joined; therefore there will almost always be an occasion and danger of mortal sin, unless these things are done from a just cause, as will be said in the following note. And indeed (ibid., n. 40) they expressly warn that the authors who condemn these acts as grave fault (whom namely St. Alphonsus later alleged, as it were, for the guilt of sensible delight) speak not of merely sensible delight, but of carnal and venereal delight, and therefore are alleged altogether beside the point in the question concerning purely sensible delight.

Therefore the doctrine proposed by St. Alphonsus is to be called back hither; who besides skillfully warns in the same place that it is one thing to act on account of delight, another to act with delight. For the hypothesis concerning kisses, embraces, and touches which are had on account of merely sensible delight arising precisely from them, seems scarcely to have place in practice. Indeed, both that precision is too difficult, and in reality he who studiously seeks delights from touches of this sort, etc., will certainly be carried further both by the interior mind and often also by exterior acts. But if delights of this sort are not sought, for the most part the question will return to acts which are done not on account of delight (at least one advertently and expressly sought), but with delight. Then judgment concerning guilt will have to be formed after looking both at the nature of the cause which induces these acts and at the danger of consent in the effects, as will be said in the next note.

** Through twenty-six columns (pp. 283-296) the VV. are occupied with this Note, yet in such a way that it is hardly apparent what they wanted for themselves, unless perhaps to place before the eyes of readers some appearance or shadow of refutation. For after so many circuits, they finally concede the things which are suggested in the Note, while they seem to reprehend and deny the same things. Therefore it will be enough to have responded briefly to some of their complaints.

Therefore they reprehend, 1. that in the Note it is said to be strange that St. Alphonsus proposes such a question, and they add (p. 287) that in this way a foolish opinion is attributed to the holy Doctor.

Resp. The Salamancans (tr. 25, cap. 3, n. 34), from whom St. Alphonsus took these things in compendious form, expressly set up the question concerning sensitive and natural delight which is taken from touches, embraces, and kisses. On the contrary, St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 416), asking nothing concerning kisses, etc., asks in the most generic words, which are extended most broadly: Whether smallness of matter is given in sensible or natural delight, namely if someone is delighted by the contact of a woman's hand, as by the contact of a smooth thing, say of a rose, of silken cloth, and the like. Therefore it is added in the Note that, to grasp the sense of St. Alphonsus, the Salamancans must be gone to, whose doctrine he exhibits in compendium. Moreover, does it not of itself present something strange that, when the question is proposed so generically, it is added that smallness of matter is not given?

2. Contrary to what is said in the Note, the VV. (p. 287) state that the holy Doctor most rightly cites the authors alleged for his opinion.

Resp. The Salamancans, after they had brought forward (l. c., n. 34-37) both reasons and authorities for the opinion which maintains that sensitive and natural delight is free from grave fault, then (n. 38-40) set forth both reasons and authors condemning delight of this sort as grave fault; nearly all of which they themselves transcribed from Sanchez (De Matr., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 7). But truly the Salamancans themselves (n. 34) expressly warn that Sanchez (l. c.) speaks of venereal delight, not of natural; and again (n. 40) they warn that, except for Abulensis, the rest (of the authors) speak of touches on account of venereal delight. Now St. Alphonsus alleges the same n. 40, and the authors there reported, who speak of venereal delight, so that he may condemn as grave sin a delight not indeed venereal, of which they treat, but delight merely sensible and natural. How then do the VV. wish to persuade us that St. Alphonsus most rightly alleged those authors?

3. The VV. note (pp. 293-294) that in the last part of the Note a rule not to be admitted is proposed. For there it is said that, if those delights are not sought, for the most part the question will return to acts, etc. But, they say, sensitive delight arising from kisses, embraces, and touches is regularly joined with proximate danger of falling into libidinous delight. Hence they conclude that judgment concerning guilt must not be taken from danger, which must always be supposed to be present, but from the nature alone of the cause, which, if it is grave, can render licit the act by which one exposes himself to danger of lethal fault, and by which otherwise he would sin gravely. If, for example, a physician touches a woman for the sake of healing, etc. And to that matter they bring forward the things which St. Alphonsus has (lib. 5, n. 63) concerning the danger of a surgeon in healing women.

Resp. Therefore the rule sins because it is said "for the most part," when it should have been said "regularly" or "commonly." Truly, let it be committed to the judgment of others whether this question is fit to furnish serious matter of disputing through four columns. It ought rather to be answered, 1. I deny the supposition. The particle "for the most part," in that most general question, removes cases concerning which no controversy is usually set up as to guilt, for example concerning kisses which a mother imprints on a little son; therefore all those things heaped together through four columns are beside the matter. But it can be answered, 2. I deny that in every occasion of some sensible delight not sought there is danger of falling (add also, and of consenting) into libidinous delight. 3. Let it be known from the VV. whether they approve or not this reasoning: Danger is present as regards surgeons in healing women (it would have to be added, on account of merely sensible delight not sought); therefore every merely sensible delight, even from taking hold of a boy's hand, introduces danger which we are bound to avoid under grave sin?

4. Finally the VV. reprehend (p. 287) that it is said in the Note that La Croix treated unhappily of the relation of works to an end; and they refer to those things which they themselves had written on pp. 133 and 146.

Resp. The things which the VV. wrote on p. 146 pertain nothing hither. But the things which they had written on p. 133 have their response in those things which are had above, note b, p. 29.

The species of lust are various, according as its objects are diverse. Thus immodest touches and looks differ in species; solitary acts, and acts exercised with others; consummated acts, and non-consummated acts; likewise consummated acts according to nature, and consummated acts against nature. These species, moreover, also contain under themselves other subordinated or inferior species, as will be evident from what is to be said. Lust is one thing when directly sought, another when indirectly. The former is had when carnal pleasure is intended precisely in itself; the latter, when something else is intended from which carnal pleasure arises besides the intention, as happens in less chaste looks or readings had from curiosity or another end.

412. General Principles. - I. Lust of any kind or species is per se a grave sin. The reason is, 1. because it fights gravely against nature. For the use of the venereal thing by its nature was instituted and is necessary for the sole preservation and propagation of the human race; therefore it cannot be usurped outside marriage (indeed not even in marriage except in the due manner) without grave disturbance of the right order; 2. because it is prohibited under grave sin by God, the Author of nature, as is clear from innumerable places of Sacred Scripture; thus Gal. 5. 19: The works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust..., concerning which I foretell you, as I have foretold; because those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

II. Lust directly voluntary in any kind never admits smallness of matter. The reason is that any delight directly sought necessarily brings in the subversion of the natural order established by the Creator. This is also clear from proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, with danger of further consent and pollution removed, is only venial.

III. But lust indirectly voluntary admits smallness of matter; because then there is no consent or direct intention into venereal pleasure, but only into the cause, which is lightly or gravely sinful according as it lightly or gravely influences the delight ². - Thus all.

² Concerning the causes of carnal motions and of the connected delight (which motions indeed can reach even to the ultimate effect of pollution), for the sake of clarity a threefold hypothesis must be made.

The first will be when someone aptly and deliberately, intending these motions, places their causes so that he may enjoy the proper delight of them. And then already you have lust directly voluntary, concerning whose guilt nothing is to be doubted.

The second, plainly opposite hypothesis will be when motions of this sort are stirred up spontaneously and naturally, with no voluntary cause given to them by him who then merely suffers them. And then there is no reason why we should seek guilt in the will as their cause.

Finally, the third, middle between the preceding, will be when some action is voluntarily placed which furnishes some cause, proximate or remote, for stirring up those motions; and yet one does not place the action for this end or intention, that he may stir up such motions in himself, or enjoy them. But then the principle is valid which from St. Alphonsus we reported elsewhere (note to n. 176), namely that in these effects, since they are voluntary only in the cause, there is only so much guilt as there is in the cause itself. Hence St. Alphonsus concludes (lib. 3, n. 484): "The common and more probable opinion teaches that pollution is not mortal unless it proceeds from a cause per se mortal in the genus of lust.... The reason is that since pollution is not willed except in the cause, it will be evil in that degree in which the cause itself is evil." And indeed he says watchfully, "from a cause per se mortal in the genus of lust"; for if the cause, although gravely culpable in itself, is outside the genus of lust, as for example drunkenness or eating meat on Friday, or indeed is in the genus of lust but lightly culpable, as for example curious reading venially base, then the efficacy of causality is lacking, and (as St. Alphonsus says, l. c.) "since the cause concurs lightly toward pollution, there is no grave obligation of avoiding that cause on account of pollution which happens besides the intention."

Indeed, since not all actions which bring grave fault in the genus of lust have of themselves that efficacy, nor even have equal efficacy as to all men, but one plainly diverse according to the diverse weakness of persons; hence, by reason of the effect, grave fault can be absent even when grave fault was present in the act which furnished occasion for the motions, which for that reason are then judged to follow per accidens. Hence the Salamancans conclude (tr. 26, cap. 7, n. 41): "If in some body, by reason of weakness... or of another cause, there is a positive indisposition to Venus, although causes be applied to him which otherwise of themselves gravely influence pollution or carnal delight with respect to others...; nevertheless with respect to him... they will not be gravely influencing, but only lightly or even in no way, or they will be causes materially only in the genus of lust; wherefore commonly... by reason of their influence on pollution he will not sin mortally."

But all fault can be absent when the action is per se licit and honorable, although wicked motions to follow are foreseen, which nevertheless one in no way wills or intends. Hence St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 483): "If the aforesaid actions" (which otherwise in n. 482 he had said were causes gravely influencing) "are placed from a cause necessary, or useful, or suitable to soul or body, then... pollutions proceeding from them, even foreseen, are not sins, provided danger of consent is absent. Thus commonly Sylvius, Croix, and others with the common opinion and St. Thomas." And in reality the Angelic Doctor says thus (3, q. 80, art. 7): "Previous lascivious thoughts sometimes can be wholly without sin, for example when someone, for the sake of reading or disputation, is compelled to think of such things. And if this is without concupiscence and delight, they will not be unclean thoughts, but honorable; from which, however, pollution can follow, as is clear from the authority of Augustine..." But the words of Augustine (De Gen. ad litt., lib. 12, cap. 15) are: "since this happens as much without sin as it is said without sin by those who are awake."

But of acts which, by reason of necessity, are without fault, St. Alphonsus adds these examples (lib. 3, n. 483): "Hence, even when involuntary pollution is foreseen (and a fortiori these things ought to be valid concerning wicked motions of lesser moment), it is lawful for pastors and also other confessors to hear the confessions of women, and to read treatises on base matters; for surgeons to look at and touch the parts of a sick woman, and to study medical matters... to serve in baths.... It is lawful for someone who suffers great itching in the private parts to drive it away by touch, even if pollution follows." But examples of actions free from fault by reason of a certain propriety he has these (ibid.): "It is lawful for others to address, kiss, or embrace women according to the custom of the country... and the like." Finally (ibid.), as regards actions which, notwithstanding pollution foreseen, are lawfully exercised as suitable to soul or body, he adds these three examples: namely, that it is lawful, 1. to ride a horse not only for the sake of necessity and utility, but also recreation; 2. to lie down in a certain position of the body for resting more conveniently; 3. to take hot foods or drink moderately, and to lead honorable dances. - And indeed to all and each of these things St. Alphonsus observes that opinions of this sort pertain to the doctrine commonly received.

Nevertheless, the limitation must be kept before the eyes which St. Alphonsus (l. c.) appends from the common opinion: "provided danger of consent is absent," namely into wicked motions and the delight that has arisen. Indeed the obligation of avoiding the danger of sinning is sufficient for an action to become illicit which otherwise would be dishonorable neither by reason of itself nor precisely by reason of the motions which it induces.

But if it is asked of what sort the danger ought to be which renders the cause of motions gravely illicit, let it suffice for the present to have suggested that the norm can be taken from those things which are customarily handed down in the Treatise on Penance concerning the proximate occasion of sinning, since this must therefore be removed or fled because it induces the danger of sinning. Therefore that frequency of falls, and the other adjuncts which according to the common doctrine constitute a proximate occasion, necessarily to be removed, will constitute this same danger on account of which someone is obliged to abstain from placing the cause of carnal motions.

Sins of this genus are kisses, touches, looks, base conversations, and readings.

Here we must treat only of external sins; for concerning internal sins, or concerning lingering delight and wicked desire, it has already been said in the Treatise on Sins, n. 167 and following. Hence we shall speak, 1. of sins not consummated; 2. of consummated sins.

You shall not commit adultery.

Nor shall you desire his wife (your neighbor's).

Exod. 20:14, 17.

1. By the sixth precept of the Decalogue all things are prohibited which are repugnant to the ordered propagation of the human race. For all these, in their own way, are reduced to adultery, as to the primary act repugnant to this ordered propagation. But by the ninth precept all interior concupiscence is prohibited concerning those external works which already had been previously prohibited by the sixth precept. Each of these precepts prohibits lust, which is: the inordinate appetite or use of venereal things. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 1; L. 412, 414. Therefore the malice of lust consists in this: that man uses venereal things, that is, the motion of the genital spirits and semen, which by nature and by God as author of nature is ordained to the due propagation of the human race, inordinately for pleasure or for another perverse end.

Inordinately, that is, outside marriage, or contrary to the laws of marriage within marriage.

Now then: 1. Lust, of whatever genus or species, is per se a grave sin. The reason is: 1. Because it fights gravely against nature. For the use of the venereal matter from its nature was instituted and is necessary for the conservation and propagation alone of the human race; therefore it cannot be usurped outside marriage; indeed, not even in marriage except in the due mode, without grave disturbance of right order. 2. Because it is prohibited under grave obligation by God the Author of nature, as is clear from innumerable places of Sacred Scripture. And thus the Apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:19, says: manifest are the works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust... which I foretell to you, as I have foretold: that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. - L. 414; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 153, a. 2, 3.

2. Directly voluntary lust in any genus never admits smallness of matter. The reason is that any delectation directly sought necessarily introduces subversion, in a most grave matter, of the natural order established by the Creator. This is clear also from proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: It is a probable opinion which says that a kiss had for carnal and sensible delectation, which arises from the kiss, is only venial, the danger of further consent and of pollution being excluded. - Sporer, de Matrim., n. 689-690; L. 475, 476; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 153, a. 2, 3.

3. But indirectly voluntary lust admits smallness of matter, because then there is no consent or intention toward venereal pleasure, but only toward the cause, which is lightly sinful, since it influences venereal delectation only lightly. G. 412 (Gury, Comp. Theol. mor., t. 1, n. 412); L. 482, 483. And indeed, since that cause per se influences that pleasure only lightly, and therefore ineffectively, there is had indeed a permission of it, in no way a willing of it. But if someone not only permits that venereal pleasure, but also actually wills and intends it, in that cause, he will be guilty of grave fault; because in reality he wills and intends a venereal thing, which is gravely illicit.

4. Moreover, lust is directly opposed to chastity, which taken generally is: the moral virtue which moderates the inordinate appetite and use of venereal things. A part of chastity, and indeed the most perfect part, is virginity, which imports two things: namely integrity of body, and integrity of mind, or the purpose of preserving that integrity of body forever. Virginity is lost physically in a girl by the opening or breaking of the virginal cloister, and in a male by the effusion of semen; but morally it is lost, more or less, both by a woman and by a male, through voluntary pollution, or merely venereal delectation, or only through consent to these, although in reality neither pollution nor venereal delectation takes place. Yet as regards the political state and in the face of the Church, a girl remains a virgin so long as the cloister of virginity has not been violated by intercourse, and a male so long as he has not carnally known a woman. Whence "a nun who before profession or consecration voluntarily polluted herself, although she loses, as was said, virginity according to virtue, nevertheless since she does not lose it according to state, because she rejoices in an intact virginal cloister, needs no dispensation for making profession and for receiving the veil granted only to virgins. And for the same reason, the same woman can without scruple accept a legacy left to virgins alone, and pronounce herself a virgin in order to marry, etc. Azor, citing Bonac. and others, teaches that a virgin secretly violated in the cloister cannot put herself forward for requesting the veil of consecration, even if from this she is going to incur infamy; but that she can exercise the offices proper to a virgin, indeed offer herself for them, lest she be defamed; because, he says, ecclesiastical institutes do not oblige with so much rigor. But with peace to Azor, a most learned man, this reason proves that in a similar danger of infamy she can not only put herself forward for the aforesaid offices, but also request the veil of consecration, as he holds, citing Suarez and Pell., because that likewise is from an ecclesiastical institute." Tamburini, Explic. Decal., l. VII, c. 5, n. 2, 3; Sporer, after tr. V, append. ad VI praecept., n. 6; Struggl, tr. 7, q. 4, art. 1, n. 2; Billuart, tr. de Temper., Dissert. 4, de Cast., etc., art. 1, 2, 5; Dissert. 5, de Luxur., art. 1, 2; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 152.

2. Note 1. In order that the object of lust be rightly understood, in this matter a twofold delectation must be distinguished: one venereal, which is also called carnal, another sensible. Venereal delectation, or delectation concerning a base thing, can be either merely spiritual, namely that which is in the mere will, without any base commotion in the body, or not merely spiritual but at the same time carnal, as if there is present a base commotion in the body. La-Croix, l. 3, n. 890-892. This venereal and carnal delectation is felt in the genital parts through the commotion of the genital spirits and semen; on the contrary, sensible delectation is felt in other senses from their application to their own object, and from the proportion of this object to its proper sense. If venereal delectation is intended either directly in itself, or indirectly in the cause, it is called sought; but if, after it has followed besides the intention, free consent of the will is added, the delectation is called admitted.

Sensible delectation is twofold: one is purely such, the other is sensible-venereal. Purely sensible delectation is that which arises from an object which of itself precisely is not apt to move to venereal delectation; as, for example, the delectation which arises from the touch of silk, the smell of a flower, the hearing of music, the taste of sugar. Sensible-venereal delectation is that which arises from an object which of itself in some way is apt to move to venereal delectation, as, for example, the delectation which arises from touch, from the embrace of a woman, from her kiss, etc. L. 412, 413, 415.

Venereal delectation deliberately voluntary among persons to whom intercourse is illicit properly looks to lust and is a grave sin from its whole genus, not admitting smallness of matter. The reason is that venereal delectation of itself is ordained to the generative act and the propagation of the human race, which is a most grave matter; and if besides it is notable, it contains from its intrinsic nature the proximate danger of pollution, which is directly repugnant to generation. This is confirmed from proposition 40, condemned by Alexander VII, already cited in n. 1, 2. For that condemnation of the proposition is to be understood: 1. of warmer and lingering kisses, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal delectation; by no means, however, of lighter kisses and those transitorily impressed, which only remotely dispose to venereal delectation; 2. of even lighter kisses, but had for the sake of carnal or venereal delectation. For in that proposition carnal and sensible are joined, so that by the name sensible delectation you understand carnal delectation itself, or delectation which is sensible and at the same time carnal. If, therefore, those kisses are grave on account of the proximate danger and on account of the intended end of venereal delectation, venereal delectation of itself is grave. Hence "he sins gravely who spontaneously consents to light carnal motions spontaneously occurring." L. 415.

Purely sensible delectation, as such, does not properly pertain to lust, but to sensuality, and of itself it is not evil, but indifferent. Nor indeed can another malice be found in it except that which generally is in an act which is not referred to a rational end; such certainly would be the case if someone not only acted with that delectation, but also for the sake of that same delectation, positively excluding a further honest end and resting in it.

Finally, sensible-venereal delectation either from its nature proximately disposes to venereal delectation, or only remotely. If proximately, it is a grave sin on account of the proximate danger of venereal delectation. If remotely, it does not per se exceed venial sin, if it is directly intended, on account of the inordination which is directly intended in it, yet not a grave one, since the proximate danger of venereal delectation is absent. Whence, from some sensuality only, to look at a beautiful woman, to touch her face or hand, or to give her a light kiss, another depraved intention or danger of consent to another grave thing being excluded, is only a venial sin. Struggl, tr. 2, q. 2, n. 15, 4, 5, 6, 7; Tamburini, Expl. decal., l. 7, c. 8, n. 1 et seqq.; Sporer, de Matr., n. 686, 688, 691; Billuart, Dissert. 5, de Luxur., art. 1, 2; Ithurriaga, Cas. 51, n. 3 seqq.; Cas. 18, n. 1 seqq.

The theologians commonly warn, however, as regards practice, that "from sensual delectation to venereal, especially in the sense of touch or sight, the progress is easy." Billuart, de Temp., diss. 5, art. 2; L. l. 3, n. 416; l. 6, n. 854.

3. Note 2. In order that it may also be rightly understood how virginity is a part, and indeed the most perfect part, of chastity taken generally, and is not confused with it, a threefold chastity must be distinguished: conjugal, vidual, virginal. Conjugal chastity is that which in marriage moderately uses lawful pleasures. Vidual chastity is that which, after the death of a spouse or after virginity lost from some other source, thenceforth abstains from the appetite and use of venereal things by a firm purpose. Finally, virginal chastity is that which proposes perpetually to abstain from all carnal pleasures, both illicit and those lawful in marriage. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 151, 153.

4. Note 3. Finally, that what has been said concerning the nature of virginity may be rightly understood, it must be known that some place the virginal cloister in women in a certain membrane, which is called the hymen and is situated at the entrance of the vagina, and this, having been torn by male intercourse or by another extraneous cause, is abolished; but others wish it to be nothing other than the compression or folding together of the orifice of the female vessel, which is dilated by the congress of a man or by another extraneous cause, and thus the vessel is opened. But although the hymen is commonly found in virgins, nevertheless its presence or absence is not indeed a certain sign of virginity; for several cases of virgins are cited who have lacked it. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 3; Milne Edwards, Lecons sur la Physiologie, Paris 1870, tome 9, pag. 59, 65, 66; Debreyne, Moechialogie, l. P., ch. 1, art. 2, sect. 2; Longet, Physiologie, Paris 1850, t. 2, pag. 139; Ant., p. 113, 115 (Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, second edition, pag. 113, 114, 115).

5. Lust is one kind interior, another exterior. The former is the voluntary occupation of fantasy, intellect, and will through joy, morose delectation, or desire concerning a venereal thing for the sake of pleasure. The latter is the very use of venereal things for the sake of pleasure, and it is multiple in species; for one kind is in non-consummated acts, another in consummated acts, which differ in species from the former; and both this kind, which is in consummated acts, and that which is in non-consummated acts, is subdivided into other species according to the specific diversity of objects. - But consummated acts in this matter are those acts which reach all the way to the effusion of prolific humor. Acts which do not reach this term are non-consummated acts, which properly are acts of sensuality and immodesty. - St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 151, a. 4; q. 154, a. 1, ad 5; q. 155, a. 2, 3, 4; L. 412.

We shall explain these various species of lust step by step here in various chapters and articles.

6. The non-consummated acts of lust are base looks, hearings or conversations, to which base readings are reckoned, base smells and tastes, and finally touches.

7. Proposition. A voluntary and deliberate look at very obscene things, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal delectation, unless it is done from a just cause, is, per se speaking, a mortal sin; but a look at less obscene things, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal delectation, unless it also is done from a just cause, per se speaking, is only a venial sin. - It is proved. The reason of the first part is that someone so acting exposes himself to the proximate danger of venereal delectation, which is gravely sinful; and therefore he sins gravely. The reason of the second part is that although the object is in some way obscene, and therefore the action concerning it is illicit, nevertheless it does not bring proximate danger of venereal delectation; and therefore that action is not gravely illicit. - Billuart, Diss., art. 16; L. 420 seqq.

8. Corollaries. 1. Looks at obscene pictures, if they are made in passing and from mere curiosity, and if the proximate danger of consent to base delectation is absent, are not held as mortal sins. But a man looking lingeringly at the private parts of a depicted woman does not seem able to be excused from mortal sin, because a look of this kind per se gravely influences base delectation; unless it is done for the briefest time, or at a great distance, or unless the age of the picture has diminished the force of the art, or if the pictures represent only infants, because painted things do not move as natural things do; unless perhaps on account of the frailty of the one looking one must judge otherwise. And this can more easily be admitted on account of custom as regards images and sculptures representing angels naked, or almost naked, as many are in Christian temples. - Therefore those sin gravely who paint or publicly expose obscene images, that is, with the private parts uncovered or covered with a thin veil; it is otherwise if, with other parts uncovered, the private parts are covered. Yet except if something of this kind must be painted for teaching or learning anatomical or obstetrical science, or for another similar just cause. - G. 415, 418, 5; 247, 249; L. l. 2, n. 56; l. 3, n. 424, 428; Struggl, tr. 4, q. 5, n. 27.

2. Per se speaking, and with bad intention or danger of consent because of special frailty excluded, it does not exceed venial sin to look from levity and a certain curiosity at the base parts of animals and at animals copulating. Struggl, Theol. mor., tr. 7, q. 4, art. 2, n. 12; L. 419.

3. "It is not mortal of itself, without danger of venereal consent, to look at the private parts of a person of the same sex (a fortiori of oneself, because one's own things move less than those of another), unless the one looking were very prone to sodomy, Salm., Sanch., etc., or unless, I would add, a beautiful adolescent were looked at naked," L. 419, 420, 421; Billuart, l. c.; or unless the look is made studiously and lingeringly. - But here it must be observed that women are sometimes found who use a mirror so that they may look at themselves immodestly, which circumstance afterwards they do not dare to disclose in confession. Yet it does not necessarily have to be declared in confession.

4. Looks at the honorable parts (that is, those which are open to all) of a person of the other sex, even a beautiful person, per se are not sins. But if they are made from curiosity or with some lingering, ordinarily they will be venial sins. But prolonged looks are not excused from mortal sin if they involve proximate danger of consent to base delectation, especially if a commotion of the genital spirits arises, and a fortiori if the person is loved with inordinate love. Therefore if this look is made from simple urbanity or another honorable cause, there will be no sin. Nor indeed, in order to avoid sin in this matter, is it necessary to walk with eyes lowered and to look at no one; naturally, surely, and without any effort, the just mean must be held. - L. 422; G. 418, 3; Bouvier, Diss. in 6 dec. praec., c. 4, art. 2, sect. 3; Billuart, l. c.

But to avoid scruples in this matter, which often hold timorous men anxious, it is helpful to note these things: 1. An excessive fear of sinning must be guarded against, since it can increase temptations, and even deter from looking at holy Images. 2. Certainly the same modesty is not required from all, but it is to be determined from the state, office, and other circumstances of persons and places. 3. There is a certain grade of modesty which regularly can be observed by all. It consists in this, that especially upon the face of persons of the other sex someone not fix his gaze lingeringly. 4. If someone from a special inspiration and grace of God wishes to preserve greater modesty, he will certainly do a thing of great merit before God and of great edification before men; the Saints have furnished us most splendid examples of this. But let him do it sweetly, with no anxiety of soul.

5. Looks at the less honorable but not base parts of a woman, namely the breast, arms, and legs, are not per se mortal sins, yet with the proximate danger of depraved consent excluded; otherwise this will easily be present if the look is lingering and prolonged, or if the one looking is very prone to venery; but it is less easily present among those accustomed by the custom of their country. - Generally you will not excuse from mortal sin those who without cause look with notable delay at the bare breasts of a beautiful woman, on account of the danger joined to a look of this kind. But they do not sin gravely who, with special danger excluded, look at mothers or nurses nursing infants, or fix their eyes on the uncovered breast of an old woman, or of a younger woman not yet formed. - L. 423; G. 418, 4; Billuart, l. c.; Bouvier, l. c.; Scavini, etc.

6. Looks at the shameful parts of the other sex or at neighboring parts are ordinarily mortal sins, unless perhaps the vision is made from afar and for the briefest time; because looks of this kind, if lingering and prolonged, per se gravely influence base delectation. Nor will you excuse from grave sin if you look at base parts through a very thin and translucent veil, because almost such a look increases lust rather than diminishes it. They except: 1. If the one looking is a child or very old, or very cold, because these are moved little. 2. If the eyes are fixed on an infant, or one worn out by old age, because they move little. Whence maids and nurses who thus look at the boys committed to them are not judged to sin gravely, unless they do it lingeringly or repeatedly and with depraved affection. G. 418, 2. - Hence it is also a grave sin deliberately to look at a person of the other sex wholly naked, unless the look were only light, in passing, or from afar; or to look at married persons copulating. - Struggl, 12; Billuart, l. c.; L. 420, 421; Salm., tr. 26, c. 3, n. 12.

7. All the aforesaid looks, which are lightly or gravely sinful, lack all fault if they are made from proportionate utility and necessity, such as is given, for example, in a physician or surgeon, when he must heal in these parts. - Hence physicians also are excused, as it seems, who receive a stipend from the government to inspect public prostitutes each week and to exclude those laboring with venereal disease from the companionship of others. Likewise young men are excused who cannot learn the art of painting unless they assist at academies or gatherings where naked persons are presented as models, unless, however, their salvation is endangered, as not rarely happens. - Diana, tr. 6, de aliq. Cas. circa mater. luxuriae, Resol. 19; L. 419, 420.

9. "Feminine adornment," says St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 169, a. 2, "provokes men to lasciviousness, according to that saying of Prov. 7: Behold a woman meets him, prepared with the adornment of a harlot to deceive souls." But the same Holy Doctor soon shows in the same article that this very fact, that feminine adornment is provocative to lasciviousness, nevertheless is not imputable to fault unless it proceeds from a depraved intention.

Cajetan explains this very well in the Commentary on that place of St. Thomas. Moreover, Cajetan first distinguishes a fourfold adornment: "1. For the support of the body; and this is of necessity, and on account of this God made tunics for the first parents. 2. For honesty; and this too is of necessity on the part of the soul, as the first on the part of the body. For it is shameful for a rational animal to carry the private parts manifest, as natural shame testifies; and on account of this the first parents made perizomata for themselves, providing first for the soul rather than for the body. 3. For adornment either of honor or of beauty. And adornment of honor, although it is not altogether common, since those dead to the world are exempt from care of this adornment, can nevertheless by reason of ministry be common to all. But every apparatus which is made so that a man may proceed decently and according to state is adornment of honor. But right reason dictates this, that anyone, as befits him, proceed honorably in this life, in which external things are certain testimonies of internal things. But adornment of beauty seems almost proper to women, since it is fitting that they be loved as beautiful, in order to have or preserve well-disposed husbands."

Then, indeed, concerning this adornment of beauty, about which the whole controversy is, he immediately adds these things: "Since art imitates nature, and a beautiful woman by her own nature is provocative to desire of herself, hence it happens that feminine adornment according to itself is provocative to concupiscence or lasciviousness, insofar namely as it makes for the apparent beauty of the woman. But because nature surpasses art, and the natural beauty of woman is much more provocative to concupiscence of the woman than artificial beauty, therefore just as every natural beauty of a woman is without fault, so every artificial beauty is without fault according to itself, so that it is to be imputed to neither according to itself as fault that it is provocative to concupiscence of the woman. And on account of this both are explained in the text: both that feminine adornment is provocative of men to lasciviousness, and that to be provocative is not imputed to adornment as fault unless from another fault, for example from the intention of provoking." - St. Thomas, Quodl. 10, a. 14.

10. Corollaries. 1. There is per se no sin, whether grave or even light, in adornment, if the custom of the country and the condition of state are observed. Yet they sin mortally if they adorn themselves with the mind of provoking to lust; but only venially if from vanity, levity, or boasting.

2. Superfluous adornment beyond the custom of the country and the condition of state is per se a venial fault.

3. Yet women lawfully add something of adornment that they may please their husbands, lest occasion of sinning with others be given to them; likewise women lawfully add something of adornment that they may find a spouse.

4. Cosmetics will be mortal sin if they are applied for lasciviousness; venial if merely for feigning beauty; but no sin if for hiding some defect.

5. "Know," says Cajetan, l. c., "that to use another's hair for fitting adornment, not for lying that it is one's own, seems no less lawful than to use wool from sheep and linen from the earth. And because this adornment makes a woman truly beautiful before men, by supplying a defect of nature in her adornment, therefore this act does not seem properly to look to cosmetics."

6. "For women to uncover their hair, whom the Apostle also commands to veil the head, does not befit even married women. Yet in this case some could be excused from sin when this was not done from any vanity, but on account of a contrary custom, although such a custom is not laudable." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 169, a. 2. "To have the head uncovered and the hair curled according to introduced custom is either no sin, or only a venial sin... otherwise one must speak of those who would introduce the custom." Bouvier, Diss. in 6 dec. praec., de orn. mul., 5.

7. Women who wear garments so constricted that the form of the breast plainly appears, indeed also those who add to themselves fictitious swelling breasts, sin only venially if they do this merely from vanity, with danger of lust and scandal excluded. Craisson, Notiones circa 6 Dec. pr., C. 2, n. 233.

8. "Because the breast in some places is carried bare by women for the sake of comeliness, and through this is reduced to the adornment of beauty, adornment also having such a condition, namely of the uncovered breast according to the custom of the country, is not mortal according to itself... But where there is no custom, it would have to be inhibited and quickly rooted out lest it grow." Cajetan, l. c. In the Summa, v. Adornment, the same Cajetan has these things: "A disordered quality of adornment commonly introduces venial sin, if it is indecent and less chaste, as the adornment of women showing the middle of the breasts. Nevertheless, where the custom is already accustomed, it seems to be without sin." St. Alphonsus raises the question whether women showing their breasts for their adornment sin gravely, and responds: "When I performed the office of preacher, several times I strove strongly to reprove this pernicious usage; but since here I perform the office of Writer concerning moral science, I must say what I judge according to truth and what I have learned from the doctors. I do not deny, first, that those women who would introduce this custom somewhere would certainly sin gravely. I do not deny, secondly, that the denudation of the breast could be so immoderate that per se it could not be excused from grave scandal, as gravely provoking to lasciviousness. I say, thirdly, that if the denudation were not so immoderate, and somewhere a custom were present that women should thus go forth, it would indeed be reproved, but not altogether condemned of mortal sin. Thus most commonly." L. l. 2, n. 55. "A fortiori, those who uncover or lightly cover arms, neck, and shoulders according to the custom of the country do not gravely sin per se. But those who introduce such customs are judged by the cited authors to sin mortally." Bouvier, l. c., 8.

“40. The opinion is probable which says that a kiss given on account of the carnal and sensible pleasure which arises from the kiss is only venially sinful, when the danger of further consent and of pollution is excluded.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 18 March 1666. Cf. no. 82 and the following number.

“48. It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice, and is evil only because it is forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“That a woman’s kiss, since nature does not incline toward this, is a mortal sin; but the carnal act, since nature inclines toward this, is not a sin, especially when the one performing it is tempted.” Condemned as an error by Clement, Ad nostrum, 3, On Heretics.

“25. He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: ‘I committed a grave sin against chastity with an unmarried woman,’ without explaining the intercourse.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery; and therefore it is sufficient in confession to say that one has committed fornication.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“49. Masturbation is not prohibited by the law of nature. Hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI. Cf. the following number.

“24. Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it is sufficient to say in confession that one procured pollution.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

Cf. no. 823

Since in some Seminaries those things which pertain to chastity are explained only to deacons or subdeacons, we treat of these separately and briefly, handing on only those things which are necessary for the confessor, so that he may be able to understand the confessions of penitents and to give them opportune counsels for cultivating this virtue. Therefore we shall speak: 1. concerning the nature and excellence of chastity; 2. concerning sins opposed to it; 3. concerning the means of preserving and cultivating chastity.

¹ St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 151-156; St. Alphonsus, l. III, n. 412-485; Lequeux, De virtutibus, Paris, 1843, second part; Craisson, Notiones theologicae circa sextum, Paris, 1888; Capellmann, Medicina Pastoralis, Aachen, 1896; Eschbach, Disputationes physiologico-theologicae, Rome, 1901; Noldin, De sexto praecepto, Innsbruck, 1902; Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, Rome, 1905; Debreyne and Ferrand, La theol. morale et les sc. medicales, 6th ed., Paris; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la medecine, Paris, 1900; Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine, Paris, Letouzey, t. iv.

1. 1. Concerning chastity itself. Chastity, which is referred to temperance (above, n. 1077), is a moral virtue moderating or excluding the appetite of venereal delectation, according to each one's state and condition.

(A) For the understanding of this, it must be known that venereal delectation is that which arises from acts serving human generation. For God willed that, in the present order of things, the human race should be propagated through the sexual union of male and female. Wherefore, creating the first parents, "male and female He created them, and God blessed them, and said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."² But that they might more easily apply themselves to the procreation of children, He attached a special delectation to those acts which serve human generation, and this is called venereal, or carnal, or libidinous.

² Gen. 1:17-18.

This, therefore, is distinguished from merely sensible or sensual delectation. (a) Sensible delectation is that which arises from the perception of an object suitably proportioned to the sensitive power, such as that which is perceived from hearing harmony, from the smell or sight of a flower, from drinking wine, from touching a smooth thing, etc.; for in these the sensitive appetite is delighted without the organs serving generation being necessarily moved. (b) This sensible delectation is sometimes called sensual, namely when it arises from sight, touch, or conversation with a person loved with sensible affection: for then the heart and blood are more vehemently moved; and, although this delectation of itself is not venereal, nevertheless it easily excites carnal commotion and tends toward venereal pleasure.

2. (B) Chastity moderates the appetite of venereal delectation in spouses, and excludes it among the unmarried. For God wisely willed that men should not beget children outside legitimate matrimony. For offspring once born is by no means sufficient to itself, but for many years needs both parents in order to receive physical, intellectual, and moral education; but this cannot properly be done unless the man and woman who intend to beget and educate children enter a society firm and indissoluble of itself, live together, and mutually help each other in nourishing, supporting, and rightly instructing the offspring.³

³ This has been proved in the dogmatic part of the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 61.

3. Wherefore, among almost all Nations, vague and concubinary unions are held as dishonorable, and also as contrary to the good of offspring and of the whole society; but, on the contrary, legitimate matrimony is considered not only honorable, but also as bearing before itself something sacred. - But how spouses ought to moderate venereal delectations, and to preserve the bed unspotted from filth and uncleannesses, we have explained elsewhere, in the Supplement to Marriage.

From this it follows that the unmarried, namely the younger before they have duly entered matrimony, and widowers who have not contracted new nuptials, must abstain from every venereal delectation. For since this is lawful only insofar as it is ordered to the generation of offspring, and, moreover, the procreation of children outside legitimate matrimony is unlawful, they are held to abstain from every voluntary carnal delectation.

4. (C) Therefore a threefold chastity is usually distinguished: (a) youthful chastity, which abstains from every venereal delectation until the time of nuptials; (b) conjugal chastity, which moderates the appetite of pleasure in spouses and excludes whatever is unlawful in the use of matrimony; (c) widowed chastity, which, after matrimony has been dissolved, contains itself from every carnal pleasure either perpetually or until second nuptials. Here we treat of youthful and widowed chastity, since speech is had of conjugal chastity in the Treatise on Matrimony.

5. 2. Concerning virginity. (A) Virginity, as a virtue,⁴ is nothing other than perfect chastity, i.e., abstinence from every venereal delectation perpetually preserved, or the firm purpose of the will of perpetually abstaining from all venereal delectations, even those which are lawful in matrimony. Therefore it excludes not only external acts, but also internal acts by which consent is furnished to carnal delectation presented to the imagination. True and formal virginity, however, is preserved even if the integrity of the flesh is injured against the will, for example through involuntary pollution, or when a woman is oppressed unwillingly.

⁴ Virginity also designates integrity of the flesh, which is lost in men through voluntary pollution, or effusion of seed; it is lost in women through voluntary rupture of the membrane which is called the hymen or virginal enclosure, whether this is done through carnal copulation or through touch. - Material virginity, or integrity of flesh, can therefore subsist after formal virginity has been lost through internal sins. - When a vow of virginity is emitted, the intention of the one vowing must be examined, in order to know whether he wished to vow perfect chastity, or only abstinence from that first act by which material virginity is lost. Concerning this see the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 250.

Virginity is distinguished from perfect chastity in this, that it has been preserved perpetually, while chastity, even perfect, can be preserved by him who previously furnished consent to carnal delectation. - Nevertheless, according to the common manner of speaking, these two are often taken promiscuously.

6. (B) That virginity cultivated for God is not only lawful but laudable, and of itself more excellent than matrimony, we proved in the dogmatic part of the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 17; that the same is not contrary to the health of body or mind has been demonstrated in the Treatise on the Various Obligations of States, n. 93 (1064).

(C) Sometimes virginity is called continence, because namely it contains itself from carnal concupiscences. Of itself, indeed, a word of this kind extends more widely and designates the struggle of the mind against all disordered sensible movements; but by antonomasia it designates virginity insofar as it repels the more vehement concupiscences of the flesh.

Sometimes also it is called pudicity. Yet pudicity, in the proper sense, designates that virtue by which we flee all those things which excite shame, or modesty, and therefore all external acts which can allure to venereal delectation, such as looks, touches, kisses, and other things of this kind.

7. Chastity understood in the aforesaid sense, insofar as it restrains the disordered appetite of venereal delectation, greatly promotes the good of the whole society, of the family, and of the individual.

1. It promotes the good of society. For chastity was prescribed for this reason, that the human race might be rightly propagated and educated. For experience has made it known that those who immoderately indulge lust are sterile, or at least little fruitful, or beget weak offspring liable to many diseases, and at the same time are unfit, or at least less suitable, for the good education of children.

8. (A) For those who from childhood touch themselves shamefully, frequently indulge pollution or fornication and other vices of this kind, not rarely become impotent, especially because of weakness of nerves and disturbance induced by these shameful things.¹ Now in this matter frequent abuse is most easily incurred, as soon as the first acts have been voluntarily committed, because of the vehement inclination toward venereal acts innate in most men. Therefore unless chastity is sedulously preserved by the young, the fecundity of marriages is diminished. - Besides, the custom of seeking pleasure alone against the order of right reason often generates another abuse in spouses themselves, namely onanism, by which the procreation of children is voluntarily impeded.² - Moreover, not a few, by having carnal intercourse with prostitutes, contract the syphilitic disease, and from this head either become impotent or beget weak offspring infected with syphilitic disease.³ - For the rest, it is sufficiently evident that parents addicted to lust are little suited to educate offspring rightly.

¹ Concerning this see Lassegue, Etudes medicales, Paris, Asselin, 1884, t. II, pp. 353-354; Surbled, La Morale dans ses rapports avec la medecine, Paris, 1900, t. II, pp. 35-37.

² Concerning this elsewhere, in the Supplement to the Treatise on Matrimony, n. 39.

³ E. Duclaux, L'hygiene sociale, Paris, Alcan, 1902, pp. 237-240; Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine, Paris, Letouzey, s. d., pp. 202-304. E. Legouve graphically describes an example of this matter, Les Peres et les Enfants, Jeunesse, Paris, Hetzel, 5th ed., pp. 196-227.

On the contrary, those who in their youth contain themselves, and use matrimony according to the rules of temperance, generally generate numerous and strong offspring, whom they instruct with good morals; thus they contribute greatly to the preservation and right education of the human species.

9. 2. It promotes the good of the family. For unless young persons remain chaste before they marry, and spouses inviolably preserve the fidelity mutually given to each other, peace can scarcely reign in families.

(a) Indeed the bridegroom generally intends to take a virgin bride in marriage, and if he finds her already corrupted, he can scarcely restrain indignation, and not rarely seeks divorce. Why should he himself indulge lust with impunity before nuptials? Are there two weights and two measures? Is he not ashamed to join unclean flesh to a virgin? - This indeed is more horrible if, infected with venereal disease, he has contaminated the bride: for then love is turned into hatred or contempt, and nothing remains for the wretched spouses except to lead a most miserable life. To avert this danger, there is no efficacious means except chastity; for the syphilitic disease can be contracted by one impure contact, and once contracted can suddenly infect the body again at any time of life, and pass into descendants. - The same must be said of conjugal chastity: for if adultery is committed even once by either spouse, the danger of contamination is incurred. Moreover justice itself demands that both spouses preserve inviolate the fidelity mutually given to each other.

(b) But besides, when adulterous loves or other shameful acts are fostered, how many dissensions arise, how many envies, how many quarrels, how many homicides or suicides! For love despised is easily turned into fury, and the more intense it had been, the more anger is enkindled, as soon as the other spouse has become unfaithful.

(c) Moreover, unless children are chastely instructed, soon they too fall into vice, and bring shame and sadness to their parents. Now how will they remain chaste, unless good example in this matter is given to them?

On the contrary, when the betrothed have wisely contained themselves before nuptials, and pursue each other only with modest love, seeking nothing except to beget children legitimately and to instruct them with the best morals, and preserve inviolate fidelity to each other in adversities as well as in prosperity, they obtain peace and joy, with God's help.

10. 3. It contributes very greatly to the good of the individual. In order that man may rightly order his life according to the principles of reason and faith, it is necessary that he subdue the passions which delay or remove him from spiritual good. Now among the passions, none is more tyrannical than the love of venereal delectations; for it so blinds the mind and invades and moves the whole soul, that the voluptuous man postpones health of body, human dignity, intellectual progress, and the eternal salvation of the soul to lust.⁴

⁴ To the point Augustine (De Civitate Dei, lib. XIV, c. 16, P. L., XLI, 424): "Although, therefore, there are lusts for many things, nevertheless when lust is named, and the thing of which it is the lust is not added, scarcely anything is accustomed to occur to the mind except that by which the obscene parts of the body are excited. But this claims for itself not only the whole body, nor only externally, but also internally, and moves the whole man, with affection of soul joined and mingled with appetite of flesh, so that that pleasure follows, than which none is greater among bodily pleasures: so that at the very moment of time at which one arrives at its extreme, almost every edge and, as it were, watchfulness of thought is overwhelmed."

For, as St. Thomas rightly observes,⁵ when the lower powers are vehemently drawn toward their objects, it follows that the higher powers are impeded and disordered in their acts. But through the vice of luxury the lower appetite tends most intensely to its object, on account of the vehemence of passion and delectation; hence the higher powers, namely reason and will, are most easily distracted and disordered from their object. Thus the intellect, ensnared by pleasure, often judges of things without mature consideration of motives, the impulse of passion driving it, and therefore not rarely is deceived; soon reason is clouded and gradually blinded, since it no longer approves what is honorable, but what appears delectable. The will labors under weakness and inconstancy, because it seeks the honorable good, even when approved by reason, only slowly and reluctantly, and soon, conquered by lust, deserts the path of virtue. A little afterward, with the desire of pleasure growing, love of God and of heavenly things is diminished; thence sometimes hatred of God is born, insofar as He prohibits the desired delectation, and also despair, because while one is too much detained by carnal delectations, he loathes spiritual things and does not care to obtain them. Thus step by step man is turned away from God, becomes carnal and animal, and falls into the mire of vices.

⁵ St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 153, a. 5; cf. q. 46, a. 3.

Therefore chastity is most excellent, for it submits that untamed passion to the yoke of right reason and faith; thus it preserves man's true liberty immune from unclean tyranny, adds strength and beauty to his body, increases the keenness of the intellect, strengthens the will, makes us more human, and orders the whole soul to God.

11. Wherefore Scripture often praises chastity: "Grace upon grace is a holy and modest woman. But every weight is not worthy of a continent soul... O how beautiful is the chaste generation with glory: for the memory thereof is immortal, because it is known both with God and with men."⁶ Hence, Augustine testifying, all, even the vicious, admire chastity:⁷ "For so great is the force of probity and chastity, that every human nature, or almost every human nature, is moved by its praise; nor is it so vicious through baseness that it entirely loses the sense of honesty."

⁶ Ecclus. 26:19-20. - Wis. 4:1.

⁷ St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, lib. II, c. 26, P. L., XLI, 75.

12. Sins opposed to chastity are called by the general name of luxury (from the word luxus). Before we explain the individual sins, a general principle concerning their gravity must be established.

General principles concerning the gravity of luxury. There are two, according as venereal delectation is directly or indirectly willed.

13. First Principle: Venereal delectation properly so called, directly willed, with full deliberation, outside legitimate matrimony, is a mortal sin from its whole genus, or does not admit smallness of matter. Thus commonly against Caramuel and a few others who excuse from mortal sin a slight venereal delectation deliberately sought.

It is explained. (a) Here there is question of venereal delectation properly so called, which arises from the movement of the organs serving generation, but not of merely sensible, or organic, delectation, which according to many theologians of itself does not exceed venial fault. "Whence," says Billuart,¹ "as one who hears a sonorous voice, who tastes savory food, precisely on account of the organic or sensual delectation arising therefrom, sins only venially; so he sins only venially who looks at a beautiful woman, or touches her hand or face, precisely on account of merely organic or sensual delectation, consisting, as I have already said, in a certain proportion and conformity of the thing seen or touched with the organ of sight or touch; so that it is nothing other than delectation concerning a beautiful thing which is seen, or concerning a pleasing, soft, tender thing which is touched, without any other delectation of any shameful thing whatever." Nevertheless the wise author observes that from sensual delectation to venereal there is an easy progress, and therefore in practice one must not linger over these organic delectations.

¹ Billuart, De temperantia, diss. V, art. 2.

(b) There is likewise question of venereal delectation directly willed, namely which is expressly intended as an end or means (above, n. 168); and indeed with full deliberation and perfect consent: for these conditions are required for every mortal sin (n. 474-475).

14. It is proved. (a) For from what has been said (n. 1), venereal delectation has been ordered by the Author of nature to the propagation of the human race, and therefore is unlawful outside legitimate matrimony. But this prohibition is grave; for the end of the law is of the greatest moment, namely the propagation of the human race; and besides, unless it obliged under grave sin, it would be ineffective. For since man is most inclined to carnal delectations, and lust, once voluntarily admitted, clouds the mind and easily draws the will to worse things, it can scarcely happen that someone deliberately consent to venereal pleasure without incurring the danger of falling into the worst corruption: for one who, placed on a precipice, wishes to descend a few steps, is exposed to the proximate danger of sliding farther; and he who loves danger will perish in it. Therefore it is necessary that every deliberate delectation of this kind be prohibited under grave sin, lest man rush headlong into the vices of the flesh and thus frustrate the end intended by God. - In reality venereal delectation, deliberately admitted, easily induces or prepares the effusion of human seed. Now, unless such disorder were prohibited under grave sin, many men would refuse the burdens of matrimony, and would seek pleasure outside conjugal intercourse, and would not care for offspring to be begotten and educated.

(b) It is established from the condemnation of this proposition 40 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 is only venial, with the danger of further consent and of pollution set aside." This proposition was condemned because it falsely supposes that a kiss had on account of carnal delectation, that is, venereal,² does not induce danger of consent into graver acts: for one who expressly seeks venereal delectation in a kiss, from things commonly occurring, does not stop here. Wherefore there is the greatest difference between honorable kisses, which are signs of friendship, and those which are done for the sake of lust.

² Carnal delectation signifies the same thing as venereal; sensual delectation, although by some it is distinguished from venereal, is taken by others for it: hence the sense must be determined from the context. Cf. Viva, on this proposition.

15. Second Principle: Venereal delectation only indirectly voluntary is not mortal from its whole genus, but admits smallness of matter. Thus commonly against the few who assert that there is not smallness of matter in luxury even indirectly voluntary.

It is explained. There is question of one who by no means intends venereal delectation, but places an action from which he foresees that some delectation of this kind will arise, although he does not wish to consent to it; e.g., concerning an adolescent who reads a book otherwise useful, foreseeing that from its reading carnal commotion will follow.

16. It is proved. For carnal delectation directly sought is said to be gravely sinful insofar as it induces proximate danger of further consent; but such danger often does not exist when an action honorable of itself is placed, from which indeed some venereal delectation is foreseen, but not intended; and therefore often there is either no sin, or the sin is only venial, according as there is or is not a proportionately grave reason for placing that action from which venereal delectation is foreseen. - But if at the same time it is foreseen that consent will accede to this pleasure, he commits mortal sin, because he truly wills to sin gravely.

17. For the rest, these principles will be understood more clearly from what is to be said below concerning the individual sins of luxury. - Sins of this kind are called consummated when voluntary and culpable effusion of seed is present;³ non-consummated when this effusion is not had. Sins are called naturally consummated if semination occurs in the mode by which generation can be obtained; consummated against nature if it happens in the mode which is opposed to the generation of offspring.

³ In women there is not properly effusion of seed, but only of some mucous fluid which is not prolific; but since this vaginal mucus is emitted with pleasure and erection of the organs, it is also called pollution, as in a man, and is held as a consummated sin of luxury when it happens voluntarily. Cf. Antonelli, t. I, n. 559-563.

Sins of this kind are internal or external.

18. From what has been said above (n. 499), there are three internal sins in general, namely morose delectation, desire, and joy; the principles explained there are easily applied to luxury.

¹ Morose delectation is had when the imagination depicts something shameful or obscene, or the mind thinks about a venereal matter without legitimate cause, and at the same time the will deliberately takes complacency in the pleasure arising therefrom. This is mortally sinful when there is full deliberation and full consent concerning the venereal delectation itself: for then it is directly intended, and moreover, from what has been said, in this matter smallness of matter is not admitted. - Delectation takes on the malice of the object as it is represented in the mind (n. 501).

But if the delectation falls only upon the knowledge of a shameful thing, e.g., when someone by office studies physiological matters, or upon the ingenious manner in which a sin was committed or is narrated by another, or upon the good effect following from an evil act, e.g., the relief obtained from pollution, there is not properly venereal delectation, and therefore not sin. But since there is a very easy passage from delectation concerning the knowledge or manner to delectation concerning the shameful thing itself, it is not lawful without reason to linger over these thoughts, because of the danger of sinning (above, n. 502-503).

Often these imaginations are accompanied by carnal movements of the organs serving generation. Generally it is not necessary to declare these in confession, unless they induce proximate danger of pollution, because the confessor knows that these usually follow from morose delectation.

For practice likewise the confessor must recall to memory what was said above, n. 443, concerning the distinction between suggestion, delectation, and consent: for not a few penitents labor under anxiety concerning shameful thoughts to which in reality they did not furnish consent.

19. 2. Depraved desire is had when someone depicts for himself venereal delectation as future, and deliberately wishes to enjoy it. Now the absolute desire of a gravely unlawful act is a mortal sin. This is clear from the words of Christ: "Whoever shall look on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."¹ Besides, desire includes all the malices which it apprehends in the object; hence if someone wishes to have copulation with a married woman, his sin takes on the malice of adultery.

¹ Matt. 5:28.

The same must be said in practice concerning conditioned desire; for from what has been said, n. 505, in those things which are intrinsically evil, as venereal delectation outside matrimony is, the condition added does not remove the malice of the act.

But among unlawful desires must not be counted those which spouses foster of legitimately using matrimony, and therefore of enjoying the venereal delectation annexed to marital intercourse: for this is lawful for them, provided the danger of pollution outside legitimate intercourse is absent. Indeed, a betrothed man can of itself desire future intercourse; but because in such desire there is also danger of consenting here and now to venereal delectation, the betrothed are to be exhorted diligently to turn away from themselves thoughts of this kind.

20. 3. Evil joy is free complacency concerning an unlawful venereal act as past; it is gravely sinful, just as morose delectation is, with this difference, however, that it more easily takes on the malice of the circumstances of the object depicted in the mind, because past things offer themselves more concretely to the imagination. - Sometimes also sadness arises concerning an evil not carried out, e.g., concerning intercourse not had when an occasion was given; this is very close to depraved desire, and gravely sinful if perfect consent is furnished to it.

Spouses can indeed rejoice concerning intercourse lawfully had and the delectation annexed to it, with the danger of pollution excluded; wherefore, if one spouse is absent, a vivid thought of the joy experienced in intercourse is very dangerous, and in practice to be avoided (Supplement on Matrimony, n. 38).

21. Disputed question. Here, moreover, it is asked whether it is a mortal sin to behave passively and negatively with respect to venereal delectation which arises from depraved thoughts. (a) Certain theologians, such as Cajetan and Navarrus, say that this manner of acting is indeed a venial sin, because it includes some disorder, but not grave, provided the danger of furnishing positive consent is absent. (b) But most other theologians teach that it is a grave sin not positively to resist these movements of concupiscence: for it belongs to the will to restrain and repel the disordered movements of the other faculties; moreover, one who, after full advertence, behaves wholly passively exposes himself to the danger of furnishing consent.

This second opinion is more probable, and in practice far safer: for from things commonly occurring, unless delectation of this kind is strenuously and quickly repelled, it soon grows and allures the will to consent. But it is not necessary, nor opportune, directly to withstand these temptations; rather, after briefly invoking divine help, it is better to turn the mind away from these matters, seriously applying it to an honorable thought or action. - Indeed, it is expedient to repel not only shameful and obscene imaginations, but also sensual ones, as full of danger, so that chastity may be preserved whole.

22. Preliminary notes. The acts of which there is question are not of themselves directly opposed to chastity, but to pudicity, which flees everything that excites shame and allures to lust. Wherefore, with depraved affection excluded, they are acts rather immodest than venereal. Therefore their malice proceeds from the fact that sometimes they arise from libidinous affection, or induce a more or less proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation. And so here one must recall to memory what we wrote concerning proximate occasions in the Treatise on Penance, n. 451-469.

(A) For judging the gravity of sins of immodesty, there are certain general rules:

(a) The intention of the one acting must be attended to: if someone acts from libidinous affection, deliberately pursuing venereal delectation, the external acts, even if by their nature they seem honorable, are mortal sins and take on the malice of the evil act which is ultimately intended. Thus to look at a woman and to touch her hands with the intention of seducing her and fornicating with her is a mortal sin which is reduced to fornication; for external acts take their malice from the internal affection. - From this it is given to understand how many sins are committed by those who, giving themselves wholly to luxury, seek nothing else in conversations, looks, or touches, except to indulge lust; concerning whom Peter says:² "Having eyes full of adultery and of unceasing sin."

² 2 Pet. 2:14.

23. (b) With depraved affection set aside, it must also be attended to whether the action, not only considered in itself, but also with respect to the one operating, proximately and gravely moves to lust; if the matter so stands, to place the external act without sufficient cause, deliberately and morosely, is commonly a grave sin, because of the proximate and grave danger of consenting to venereal delectation. Indeed, if the act is of itself apt gravely to excite the lust of others, it will be a mortal sin of scandal. - But if there is a sufficient reason for placing the act, there is no sin, provided consent is absent; thus physicians and surgeons can look at and touch the dishonorable parts of a person of the other sex when true necessity is present, even if, apart from the intention, venereal delectation should arise from it. - But if the acts, although of themselves apt to excite lust, are done from levity or curiosity, and briefly, generally they are not grave sins, because they do not influence the shameful movements proximately and gravely.

(c) When external acts, neither from the intention of the one acting nor from their nature, tend notably toward venereal delectation, but are only apt to excite some commotion of the flesh, they are venial sins if they are done without a reasonable motive; they are excused from every sin if they are exercised for a sufficient reason.

24. (d) For rendering a judgment concerning the malice of external acts, customs of places, education, temperament, and the psychological dispositions of the one acting must also be attended to. Thus young men reared in cities, where nude statues or paintings are publicly displayed, generally can look at them, with depraved affection set aside, without sinning; whereas those who were educated in villages and have never seen anything nude are gravely moved as soon as they look at nude statues. Likewise, by force of education and temperament, certain persons are much more affected than others by the reading of novels. Wherefore the confessor must ask penitents about the manner in which matters of this kind influence them in exciting depraved imaginations.

25. (B) For judging the species of the sin committed, the following rules are handed on:

(a) Looks and touches are of diverse species, according to the moral estimation of prudent persons, because they attain their object in a diverse manner.

(b) Looks at persons of different sex are likewise held as sins of diverse species, because, from common estimation, they are referred to acts diverse in species.

(c) Touches, and therefore kisses and embraces, are of diverse species according to the diverse circumstances of persons; and therefore of itself in confession it must be opened whether someone has touched a person of different sex, a married person, a blood-relative, etc., because the sin takes on a special malice from these circumstances. Nevertheless, some do not advert to this malice except confusedly, especially when they by no means intend to proceed further. These things being posited, let us briefly run through the principal acts of immodesty, in order to investigate their malice.

26. 1. Concerning kisses. Kisses and embraces can be done on account of venereal delectation, on account of sensual delectation, or for the sake of civility and friendship.

(A) If they proceed from venereal affection, fully deliberate, they are mortal sins from what has been said. - Say the same if they are done upon dishonorable or less honorable parts, such as the breasts, because they usually excite grave carnal movements, and moreover suppose libidinous affection, since honorable persons are not accustomed to kiss these parts. - Generally also grave sins are kisses which are morose, repeated often, with great affection, between mature persons of different sex, especially when the tongue is introduced into the mouth: for these of themselves tend to move concupiscence and can scarcely be done without depraved affection.

27. (B) Decent kisses, which are had for the sake of sensuality, on account of sensible love, without reasonable cause, do not exceed venial sin: for on the one hand they are not free from fault, because a reasonable cause is lacking, and on the other hand the fault is not mortal, because libidinous affection or proximate danger of exciting carnal delectation is lacking. But because from sensual love and delectation to pleasure there is an easy passage, especially among mature persons of different sex, kisses of this kind, if they are done frequently and morosely, soon reach mortal sin.

(C) Kisses, embraces, touches of the hands, which are done according to the custom of the country, for the sake of civility, friendship, or kinship, even among mature persons of different sex, without depraved affection, are lawful, even if by accident a carnal movement should sometimes be excited therefrom, provided the danger of consenting to venereal delectation is absent.

28. 2. Concerning touches. Almost the same must be said as concerning kisses.

(A) To touch the body, whether one's own or that of others, from venereal affection, is mortal; thus to touch the genitals of others,³ especially of different sex, even mediately over clothes, with the case of necessity set aside (as happens to physicians, surgeons, and others having care of the sick): for this provokes lust and can scarcely be done without depraved affection.

³ Antonelli notes (op. cit., t. I, n. 391) that women's breasts, and precisely their apex, are the seat of pleasure, and that excitation of these carries with it vehement commotion of the genitals, so that it is a grave sin morosely to touch the breasts, apart from the case of necessity.

Mothers and nurses, however, are excused from mortal sin when they briefly touch the organs of little children from curiosity or levity, because then generally the danger of venereal delectation is absent; but if they do this often and morosely, even for quieting children, they generally sin gravely, since from this children sometimes contract the habit of touching themselves shamefully. - To touch the dishonorable parts of beasts briefly, from curiosity or sensuality, generally does not exceed venial sin, because it does not gravely move lust; but to do this for a long time, even to the pollution of beasts, is generally a grave sin, because it induces danger of one's own pollution.

29. (B) To touch a person of the same or of different sex in less honorable parts, e.g., on the breast, without venereal affection, but without usefulness, from a certain curiosity or from sensible love, is not free from fault; if it is done briefly, from jest or levity, generally it does not exceed venial sin; but if morosely, and with grave commotion of the organs, especially if there is question of a person of different sex, it can scarcely be excused from grave sin, because of the proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation.

(C) To touch oneself in dishonorable parts, for the sake of necessity or usefulness, e.g., to drive away itching, to wipe away filth, to cure infirmity, is not sin, provided consent to the delectation which can arise from it is excluded. But every depraved affection, indeed disordered curiosity, must be diligently avoided; and therefore it is expedient to turn the mind to good things or at least indifferent things. - But if someone touches himself in dishonorable parts without just cause, from levity or curiosity, without depraved affection, he sins venially, because he imprudently exposes himself to the danger of causing carnal movements. Those who are prone to pollution, moreover, must altogether abstain from these touches.

(D) Here it can also be asked whether it is lawful to admit touches or kisses which are known to arise from libidinous affection. - (a) If the touches are of themselves dishonorable, and are done without necessity, it is not lawful, because thus there is cooperation in the sin of another without just cause. (b) If there is question of a kiss or touch honorable in itself, before others who do not know the depraved intention of the other, it can be admitted lest the other be defamed, with the danger of one's own consent set aside; if it is done secretly, so that it can be prevented without grave inconvenience, it cannot be permitted, since it is not lawful without grave cause to cooperate in the mortal sin of another.

30. 3. Concerning looks. Although immodest looks move lust less than touches, nevertheless they are very dangerous.

(A) Those who, without necessity, morosely and deliberately look at the private parts of another sex,¹ sin gravely of themselves, or also of the same sex if they are prone to sodomy; or who look at a man and woman exercising gravely immodest acts upon one another; or at individual persons polluting themselves. - The same must generally be said of those who morosely look at the wholly nude breasts of a woman.

¹ In most academies of painting or sculpture, nude persons are proposed as models (modeles), because, as they say, studies on the nude body are necessary for the perfection of art. This certainly is not lawful for painting or sculpting obscene things. But if this is judged truly necessary, in certain circumstances, for the perfection even of honorable art (concerning which let Christian directors of Academies judge), Berardi, Praxis, t. I, n. 804, establishes these things: "Directors of academies of this kind certainly can tolerate that women, according to the custom already introduced, be used as a model, with the private parts nevertheless covered and precautions used lest disorders follow. - Young men who learn the art are excused, provided they are cautious." But honorable girls are with difficulty excused from sin if they exhibit themselves in these academies. But those who have already become accustomed to these things are in lesser danger and can be excused if true necessity is present. Hence those sin who, without necessity, enter this slippery way. - And indeed it is to be lamented that, in Christian regions, studies on the nude body are considered necessary. - Cf. Ball. P., t. II, n. 984; Genicot, t. I, n. 407; Noldin, n. 56.

As regards statues or paintings, they indeed move the passions less than persons do; nevertheless, some are so obscene that it is not lawful to look at them without sin, the gravity of which depends on the danger itself of consenting to depraved delectation; but others, although nude, do not vehemently excite lust unless they are looked at morosely from disordered affection; hence to look at them briefly is not a mortal sin, unless from experience it is established that this is a proximate and grave danger for certain persons; indeed there is no sin with respect to those who experience no temptation from this look.

31. (B) To look at the less honorable parts of a person of different sex, if it is done briefly from curiosity, generally does not exceed venial sin, because it is not accustomed gravely to excite the passions. The same can be said of looking at the coupling of animals, without libidinous affection, from curiosity; if a cause is present, there will be no sin.

(C) To look at one's own private parts from curiosity or levity, without cause, but without depraved affection, of itself does not exceed venial sin; if some reason of usefulness is present, there is no sin. The same must be said concerning the look at a nude person of the same sex, if it is done briefly from mere curiosity. In regions where men are accustomed to swim nude, such a look is generally free from every fault, with depraved affection set aside, because it does not excite lust; but it is more consonant with Christian modesty that private parts be covered, as is done in most Christian regions.

From this it is lawful to infer that those sin mortally who expose to the eyes of others gravely obscene objects which bring grave scandal; those sin venially who display something indecent, which of itself offends pudicity, even if it does not vehemently provoke to lust.

32. 4. Concerning conversations. (A) Those sin gravely who speak shameful things from libidinous affection, or with the intention of seducing others or gravely scandalizing them, or have conversation about entirely obscene matters, at least before the unmarried,² e.g., about the conjugal act, about means of impeding generation or of polluting oneself: for these things induce a proximate danger of sinning mortally, both in the one speaking and in those hearing, and therefore they include a twofold malice. The same must be said of those who narrate grave sins perpetrated by themselves in very obscene words, apt to excite lust.

² Shameful conversations among the married, although diligently to be avoided for the sake of pudicity, are rarely mortal sins, with depraved affection set aside, because, since these are accustomed to these matters, they are moved less gravely by them.

33. (B) But if the words are only lightly indecent, or indeed gravely so, but for the sake of jest and briefly, among persons accustomed to these matters, generally they do not exceed venial sin, because they do not induce grave danger of sinning. - To speak decently about venereal matters, for true usefulness, is not sin.

(C) To hear shameful conversations, without cause, with a certain complacency, is a grave or light sin according to the danger which is incurred of consenting to depraved delectation; generally it is a light sin if someone hears these only from curiosity or human respect, without depraved affection, especially when he cannot morally leave. Finally, to hear these with displeasure, when it is morally necessary, is no sin, provided means are used to drive away evil thoughts, e.g., by praying or by turning the mind to other things.

In practice it is altogether to be avoided to speak about these matters, even for the sake of jest, but one ought to turn the conversation to other things whenever this can be done: "But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as befits saints."³

³ Eph. 5:3.

34. 5. Concerning the reading of books and attendance at theaters. These two excite the passions more or less, according as they display matters more or less luxurious, and at the same time according to the diverse persons who read the books or attend the spectacles.

Hence (a) to read shameful books from a libidinous intention, or books so obscene that there is proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation, is a mortal sin. Say the same of spectacles. (b) With shameful affection and proximate danger of sinning gravely excluded, to read shameful or dangerous books without cause, from curiosity, is a venial sin; if a just cause is present, there is no sin, provided all consent to carnal delectation is guarded against.

Today not a few young persons are corrupted by reading depraved books or by frequenting spectacles of the lowest kind; wherefore parents must take care lest in this matter they furnish evil example to their children.

35. 6. Concerning dances. Dances (danses, bals) of themselves are not sins, but often become an occasion of sin by reason of nudities, songs, gestures, touches, etc. Hence dances are of themselves lawful, provided they are done with honorable persons and in an honorable manner, namely by avoiding nudities and touches and other things of this kind which provoke lust; but, since they are dangerous, let them be done rarely and cautiously, not for the sake of pleasure, but for the sake of usefulness.

Some hold that dances called waltz, polka, mazurka, schottische, etc., can never be permitted; nevertheless in practice women, even honorable ones, today take part in these and contend that they do nothing evil, because they attend so much to rhythmic movements and music that they do not think of sensual pleasure.⁴ Wherefore the matter cannot be prohibited in a general and absolute manner, but in individual cases, according to the circumstances of persons, the custom of places, the manner of dancing, etc., it must be judged whether dances of this kind are, for a determined person, a truly proximate occasion of sin or of scandal; nor can they be permitted unless both dangers have been removed.

⁴ Berardi, De Recidivis et occasionariis, 5th ed., 1897, t. II, n. 188; Ami du Clerge, t. XIX, 1897, pp. 401, 663, 1064, 1069.

Another and greater danger is had when, after the dance has been had, young men lead girls home, as happens in certain regions: for while they walk or ride together, alone with alone, there is a much more proximate occasion of sinning; wherefore parents must not tolerate this practice, at least regularly.

Concerning dances St. Francis de Sales rightly writes:⁵ "Ordinarily they include danger, dissipate the spirit of devotion, weaken spiritual powers, render charity cold, and excite six hundred kinds of depraved affections in the soul; wherefore they can be frequented only circumspectly and with the greatest prudence." - Where the custom of dances does not flourish, pastors will take care that this not be introduced; where it exists, they will prudently strive to restrain abuses, by private rather than public admonitions; by promoting works of sincere piety and the frequentation of the sacraments, sometimes they will be able to remove the matter from the midst, or at least to free it from many dangers.

⁵ St. Francis de Sales, Introduction, part III, c. 33.

36. N. B. In all these things we have tried to establish what is prohibited under grave or light sin, the morals of the present day being attended to. But true Christians, not content with these things, must change morals for the better; this indeed they will accomplish not only by furnishing good example to others, but also by establishing associations and leagues by which chastity and pudicity are promoted, according to the things to be said below, art. III.

There are two genera, according as they are according to nature or against nature.

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.

So much for the interior disposition of the minister. Now for the act of administration. As the minister acts in the name and by authority of the Church, the first rule is that he must comply with her directions. Sancta sancte tractanda. Hence it is a mortal sin knowingly to employ the wrong matter or form, or, except in case of necessity, a matter or form of doubtful validity; since this would endanger the Sacrament. In cases of necessity (iusta causa) a doubtful matter or form may be employed, because the Sacraments are instituted for the sake of men (sacramenta propter homines). It is likewise sinful (mortally or venially, according to the circumstances of each case) to alter or mutilate the words of the form, to utter them inarticulately or without devotion, or to omit important rites or ceremonies prescribed by the Church. If this is done out of contempt for Christ or the Church, or if it causes grave scandal, the minister commits a mortal sin, and even when the motive is mere negligence, a mortal sin is committed every time the object is materia gravis.⁶ 2. The faithful have a right to the Sacraments, and hence all duly appointed ministers of the Church are bound in justice to administer the same whenever they are asked, and should always be ready and willing to comply with every reasonable request, nay exhort their people to make frequent use of the divinely appointed means of grace.⁷ It is a mortal sin for a priest entrusted with the care of souls to refuse to administer a Sacrament without good reason, or to administer it with manifest reluctance. Such conduct is apt to deter the faithful from the reception of the Sacraments and easily causes scan- dal. The duty of administering Baptism and Penance, in particular, binds even when there is danger of contracting a contagious disease or incurring grave risk to life or limb.⁸ Of course, all reasonable precautions may and should be taken in such cases. The duty just mentioned does not bind priests who are not officially engaged in pastoral work, though all are bound to respond to urgent calls when there is grave necessity, as, e. g., on the field of battle, or when some one is seriously ill or dying and no other priest can be had. The same rule applies to a pastor in his conduct towards those not under his care. We need hardly add, however, that no true priest will confine himself to what is of strict duty in matters of this kind.

⁶ Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VII, De Sacr., can. 13 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 856); Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., tit. 1, n. 11.

⁷ Cfr. Concilium Trident., Sess. XXIII, De Ref., c. i; Rit. Rom., De Administr. Sacram., n. 5.

⁸ John X, 11-13. —Benedict XIV, De Synodo Dioecesana, XIII, c. 19, n. 8.—Cfr. I. Chapeauville, Tract. de Necessitate et Modo Ministrandi Sacramento, Tempore Pestis, Mayence 1612.

The intellectual and the material aspects of human labor as a factor in the advancement of civilization and culture are aptly summarized in the ancient Benedictine adage: "Ora et labora —Pray and work!"⁷

⁷ See Anonymus, Die Regel des hl. Benedikt, pp. 345 sqq.

1. In the present introduction we intend nothing other than to prepare a surer and clearer attainment of the end which we keep before our eyes throughout the whole work on chastity and the contrary vices. For accurately knowing the material object of any virtue wonderfully assists a man in penetrating into the duties of that virtue. But in a matter which, like chastity and lust, is full of scruples, distinct notions can of themselves either remove or forestall many doubts and anxieties of mind.

It is not expedient, however, that all, or even most, priests should be compelled to draw anthropological notions concerning chastity and lust for themselves and from scientific books; for most could not accomplish this without loss of time, danger of deception, and some detriment to modesty. Accordingly, we have proposed to lighten the burden for them. Therefore, omitting superfluous erudition, we shall endeavor, as far as we are able, to explain clearly those few teachings of anthropological science which illuminate our moral treatment.

We do not propose anthropological notions as though investigated by our own study; rather, just as we have received them from the books and counsels of experts, so we refer them in this introduction to a more perfect knowledge and cultivation of purity.

It is useful in this place to touch in a few words upon three things which, being connected with the guardianship of chastity, are greatly discussed today.

211. - Besides the private guardianship of chastity, by which each person provides for himself, the public protection of morals is to be exercised through laws and decrees. But besides the rewards or subsidies by which the private efforts of individuals or societies are praised and assisted, public protection consists chiefly in sanctioning legitimate marriage and prohibiting offenses. By the sanctions of marriage, adultery is restrained, at least in certain circumstances, and rights are attributed to the spouse and legitimate children from which the concubine and illegitimate offspring remain excluded. Prohibitions look chiefly to this: that the younger age be protected from force or snares, and everyone in public places from solicitations and obscene exhibitions.

It ought to be only too well known to all with how timid and slow a hand the civil power protects good morals today.

But although little assistance is to be expected from laws, nevertheless Catholics ought to foster every endeavor by which license may be more greatly restrained.

Therefore let them labor according to their strength that laws concerning marriage depart as little as possible from natural truth and from the rights divinely granted to the Church in the present order; that vicious decrees be prudently corrected; that their privileges remain with the legitimate bed; that the spread of the neo-Malthusian art be restrained; that orphans and children neglected by their parents be rightly educated; that theatrical plays and cinematographic images contain nothing that offends modesty, nothing that detracts from marriage and honorableness, and nothing that teaches the art of sinning or committing crimes. What more, since every attempt to protect or correct public morals, if it is reasonable, ought to find natural patrons in Catholics? Moreover, the efficacy of prudent and at the same time vigorous action is proved by recent examples themselves.

214. - Although the wounds to be healed are referred to three kinds - adultery, conjugal onanism, and solitary onanism - only a twofold lustful impulse is to be restrained in them and corrected by chastity, which we can call adulterous and onanistic. The former, as more physiological, betrays a corrupted love; the latter, as more psychological, manifests a disordered force of appetite; the former demonstrates a vice more in the object, the latter more in the subject. Nevertheless, a man is seen not so rarely to rush with a disordered force upon a forbidden object in such a way that he exhibits both vicious propensities.

But insofar as onanism is called conjugal, it indicates no new inclination of sense, but rather that fear of inconveniences or harms on account of which spouses offend nature, although the natural use of marriage affords a fuller delight of sense.

222. - We call the second part casuistic because, in setting it forth, being less solicitous concerning the higher end and the universal direction of life, we have chiefly in mind to investigate what of moral goodness or guilt each particular case contains or introduces. Yet neither here will it be permissible for us to omit controversies and neglect efficacious demonstrations. Wherefore the appellation casuistic applies to the matters to be treated rather than to the method.

Moreover, we shall arrange the argument by this rationale: in the first section we shall treat of the venereal acts of those to whom mutual carnal intercourse is permissible from their state, or of the venereal acts of spouses; but in the third section we shall treat of the venereal acts of those to whom every carnal intercourse is forbidden, or of the venereal acts of those who are not spouses.

For it seems to us that we must begin from lawful acts, not unlawful ones.

Moreover, between the first and third sections, that is, in the second section, we shall place the special question concerning the betrothed, who, since they are on the way to marriage, are situated in a certain mixed condition.

In the third section, we shall treat first of consummated sins and then of nonconsummated sins, for the latter are known better from the former.

Consummated sins will again be divided into sins according to nature and sins against nature.

But of nonconsummated sins, some can be exterior, others interior.

Thus far concerning direct lust; a chapter concerning indirect lust will follow it.

Finally, by the chapter which we judge to conduce most to practice, and which treats of masked lust, we shall place an end upon the work.

372. - Besides the canonical penalties against abduction related in no. 319, other canons written for the protection of good morals also seem worthy of mention here. Therefore:

Canon 2356. "Bigamists, that is, those who, while the bond of marriage remains, have attempted another marriage, even one merely civil, as they say, are infamous by the very fact; and if, having spurned the admonition of the Ordinary, they persist in the unlawful union, according to the diverse gravity of the guilt, let them be punished with excommunication or a personal interdict."

Canon 2357. § 1. "Lay persons legitimately condemned for offenses against the sixth commandment committed with minors below the age of sixteen years, or for stuprum, sodomy, incest, or pandering, are infamous by the very fact, besides the other penalties which the Ordinary shall have judged ought to be inflicted."

§ 2. "Those who have committed the public offense of adultery, or live publicly in concubinage, or have been legitimately condemned for other offenses against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, are to be excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts until they have given signs of true repentance."

Canon 2358. "Clerics constituted in minor orders who are guilty of any offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue are to be punished according to the gravity of the guilt, even by dismissal from the clerical state if the circumstances of the offense counsel it, besides the penalties of which in canon 2357, if there is place for them."

Canon 2359. "§ 1. Clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who are concubinarians, a warning having been fruitlessly given beforehand, are to be compelled to withdraw from the unlawful union and to repair the scandal by suspension from divine offices, by deprivation of the revenues of office, benefice, or dignity, the prescription of canons 2176-2181 being observed ¹."

¹ These canons constitute title XXXI. They regulate the manner of proceeding against clerical concubinarians.

§ 2. "If they have committed an offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue with minors below the age of sixteen years, or have practiced adultery, stuprum, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, or incest with persons related by consanguinity or affinity in the first degree, they are to be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of every office, benefice, dignity, or charge, if they have any, and in graver cases deposed."

§ 3. "If they have otherwise offended against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, they are to be restrained by appropriate penalties according to the gravity of the case, not excepting deprivation of office or benefice, especially if they have the care of souls."

Thus most penalties are pronounced as ferendae sententiae; they indeed punish clerics more gravely, especially if they are in sacred orders or have the care of souls, but nevertheless they also affect lay persons. Some merely presuppose the offense; others, a judicial sentence legitimately rendered. Wherefore, where there is question of lay persons, the very sentence of the civil forum is strengthened by a canonical sanction.

415. - To no. 24. That more general adjustment of which the discussion is undertaken there follows especially pleasures that are at least more vehement and fully conscious.

Indeed, the efficacy which sensations themselves as such possess for inducing certain reflex movements in other faculties is not to be denied: thus, while we eat, a certain spontaneous production or secretion of saliva takes place.

But the process most notable and to be attended to by us is that from a sensation - by which name more recent philosophers also call pain and pleasure, le plaisir - there results a certain definite affection, especially an affection of feeling well or ill (sentiment de bien-être ou de malaise); and that this affection determine a more general harmonious adjustment of the body or within the body. These physiological changes of the body are generally: palpitation of the heart, more or less strong and frequent; varying local pressure (pression) of the blood (par vaso-motion); breathing more or less ample and frequent. These changes are accompanied here and there by a more intense or relaxed muscular tone (ton musculaire); a varying distribution of electrical power throughout the body; a varying affection and action of the nerves (différences d'innervation), etc.

416. To no. 25. - § 1 will be proposed more accurately thus: 1. This adjustment of the body can accompany exterior satisfactions and can also precede them, if they have been foreseen and expected. But an apt disposition of the body prepares us for a fuller enjoyment of pleasurable things.

By a rationale not dissimilar, some remedy can be brought to cryptorchism and eunuchoidism - the state, as it were, of eunuchs - and perhaps some potency restored even to eunuchs themselves and to old men.

417. To no. 37. - Sexual inversion of a certain kind seems capable of being corrected by the at least partial extirpation of the testicles of the infirm man suffering from sexual paresthesia, and by the transplantation of healthy testicles, or a part of them, into the infirm subject. For it has been observed that the stimulating elements called "hormones," which pertain to internal secretion, are in themselves diverse for females and for males; and that the "hormones" of one sex are impeded and lulled by the "hormones" of the other sex. Cf. Dr. Hirschfeld, Künstliche Verjüngung; Künstliche Geschlechts-Umwandlung.

418. To no. 91. - Concerning the special rationale of venereal pleasure, it is useful to set forth these things more distinctly. 1. Insofar as sensation is taken concretely with pleasantness, or pleasure is considered as incorporated in sensation, this one thing formally differs from the pleasures which other agreeable sensations of sight, hearing, and touch afford. 2. But if we take the enjoyment itself of the subject - I mean sensible enjoyment, not more spiritual joy - according to the opinion more probable today, the various enjoyments (jouissances), taken as such and as though separated from their cause, indeed vary in the unequal participation of body and soul - the body has a greater part in the satisfaction of taste than in the satisfaction of sight; the participation of the body is greatest in venereal satis- faction - and they also vary in intensity; but all enjoyments are reduced to one common thing generically or specifically, so that the moral specification must be derived from the cause.

418-bis. To no. 116. - In the present Russian republic, so tyrannically oppressed by the "Bolshevik" faction, the tenets of "free love" have obtained legal sanction in the new Code, whose second section, consisting of five chapters, is devoted to matrimonial law. Thus matrimony, despoiled of every religious note, neither gives any right to spouses nor imposes any duty of cohabitation, nor introduces a community of goods: it creates only the obligation of supporting a needy spouse. The just causes of perfect divorce, moreover, are mutual consent and even the separation desired by either spouse. How truly St. Paul wrote: "For when you were the servants of sin, you were free from justice" (Romans 6:20)!

419. To no. 199. - Concerning the manner and method of revealing the mysteries of life. It also pertains to a prudent method that those things which suggest the phantasm of sexual intercourse not be proposed. Therefore, let the discussion be rather of the conjunction of the spermatozoa with the female ovum than of the conjunction of the sexual parts or the penetration of the male member into the vagina.

In a learned report concerning this argument, Rev. Father Hurth, S.J., opportunely distinguishes sexual education, which is simply to be commended, and sexual revelation, which can be nothing except a part of the former education, to be prudently carried out.

420. To no. 235. - Concerning the use of a doubtful marriage, the things written there suppose that no impediment of crime intervenes by which the marriage is certainly rendered null; and that the faculty of contracting another, certain marriage has not been granted to the innocent party, because the presumption for the validity of the prior marriage induces a presumption for the nullity of the other marriage, which latter presumption would restore liberty to the party who is held by no prior bond.

421. To no. 327. - Concerning the essential malice of pollution, these things are furthermore to be observed.

Usefulness. Not only the scientific proposition of duties, but also noble human endeavors are aided by knowledge of the virtue which presides over them. But not less than the combat is inevitable, knowledge of the discipline which brings forth victory is necessary.

I. At the threshold of this treatment, let it be pleasing to write out the words which Saint Alphonsus there brings forward, n. 415: "Now with difficulty we undertake to treat that matter whose very name alone infects the minds of men. Let the chaste reader, I ask, pardon me if he finds here several questions and circumstances, omitted by others, discussed and explained: would that I had been able to explain myself more briefly or more obscurely. But since this is the more frequent and more abundant matter of confessions, and that because of which the greater number of souls slip down into hell, hence it was necessary for me, for the instruction of those who desire to learn moral science, to explain myself clearly, although as chastely as could be done, and to discuss very many particulars. Yet I beg students who are preparing themselves for the office of hearing confessions to read this treatise for this end alone, casting away every curiosity altogether; and at that time often to lift their mind to God and commend themselves to the Immaculate Virgin, lest, while they strive to gain the souls of others for God, they themselves suffer the loss of their own."

II. But since the aforesaid matter cannot be sufficiently understood unless entirely accurate physiological notions are present concerning the organs and actions that serve generation, from the natural sciences we here briefly add a general description of them, without, however, descending into the minutiae of things: avoiding a useless abundance which is apt to beget confusion together with dangerous curiosity, so that we may say neither more nor less than is necessary for knowing the whole matter perfectly.

Accordingly, the special questions to be treated are:

1. Physiological notions concerning the genital organs and generation;
2. Concerning chastity and lust in general;
3. Concerning consummated lust according to nature;
4. Concerning consummated lust against nature;
5. Concerning immodesty, or imperfect lust;
6. Concerning internal lust;
7. Concerning the causes and remedies of lust;
8. Concerning spouses in the use of marriage.

III. Concerning the present matter the following may usefully be consulted:

1. All scientific works of anatomy or physiology, among which the following may be regarded as more widely known among the clergy: Vivat, Woordenboek (under the words: Geslachtsorganen, Ei, Eierstokken, Embryo, Bevruchting, Zaad); and Dr. Vigouroux, Traite de Medecine pratique, vol. IV.

2. Among theological works: Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 151-154 and Supplement, q. 42, art. 3; q. 49, art. 4-6; q. 64; with the commentaries of Cajetan, Sylvius, and Billuart (On Temperance; On Marriage); Lessius, On Justice and Right and the Other Cardinal Virtues; P. Ledesma, On the Great Sacrament of Marriage; Th. Sanchez, On the Holy Sacrament of Marriage; Saint Alphonsus, Moral Theology; Bouvier, Moral Theology; On the Sixth and Ninth Precepts; Berardi, Practice of Confessors; Aertnijs, Fascicle of Moral Theology: On the Use of Marriage; Noldin, On the Sixth Precept and the Use of Marriage; Tanquerey, Moral Theology (appendix On Chastity, supplement On Marriage); Ill. Waffelaert, On the Cardinal Virtues; De Smet, On Betrothals and Marriage; and Collationes Brugenses, vol. V, VI, and VII; Em. Van Roey, Special Question concerning the Sixth Precept of the Decalogue; Wouters, On the Virtue of Chastity and the Opposed Vices.

3. Among works at once anatomical and theological: De Breyne, Moechialogie; Moral Theology in Its Relations with Physiology and Medicine; Van Olfers, Pastoral Medicine; Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine; Latin translation, Pastoral Medicine, of which a new edition was made through the care of Drs. Bergmann; Eschbach, Physiological-Theological Disputations; Antonelli, Pastoral Medicine; Surbled, Morality in Its Relations with Medicine and Hygiene; The Hygiene of Marriage; Gemelli, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery; On the Definition of the Concept "Impotence of Coeundi" under the Aspect of Pastoral Medicine; Salsmans, Medical Deontology; Vermeersch, On Chastity; Schim van der Loeff, The Reproductive Life of Man, together with W. J. Duynstee, The Doctrine of Chastity.

I. The principal genital organs of the man are:

A. External: 1. The two testicles (teelballen, zaadklieren, seminal glands): they are two glands, or "two ovoid little bodies which, hidden within their covering or scrotum (balzak, bourse), protrude beneath the lower body and hang outside the trunk. They have obtained their name testes because they bear witness to virility."¹ In the testicles the zoosperms (spermatozoides, levenskiemen, zaaddraden) are elaborated, which seem to consist, as it were, of a head and a tail and to move after the manner of animals; nevertheless they are not regarded as animals, but merely as cells, because no sensitive life has thus far been discerned in them.² These are the masculine element essential to generation. They are mixed in a fluid which is produced from the same testicles and which can be ejaculated together with the zoosperms. But in order that it may be ejaculated and flow more easily, in its passage there is mixed with it a fluid which is secreted from various interior glands: thus a mixed liquid of white color and oily odor is obtained, perfectly suited for ejaculation. Such ejaculation is called pollution. The fluid elaborated by the testicles is called semen or sperm. When the semen is mixed with zoosperms, it is perfect semen, apt for generation: the zoosperms are the essential element of the semen.³

¹ Eschbach, cited work, diss. I, ch. 2, art. 2.

² They are about 50/1000 millimeters in length: the head has 5/1000 millimeters; the segment or body 6/1000, and the tail 40/1000 millimeters.

³ Not only spermata are produced by these testicles, but they are at the same time sources of internal secretion, which is mixed with the blood, and to which are attributed the signs of virility (beard, hair in the pubic region, masculine voice) and the power of nourishing sensual appetite. Vermeersch, De Castitate, n. 7.

2. The virile member, or rod (roede, verge: ordinarily about 9 cm. long in repose, about 15 cm. in erection): it is the organ destined for intromission into the genital organ of the woman and for depositing the semen there; beneath it is the urethra, or canal, which emits both sperm and urine.⁴ When it is filled with blood, the virile member is erected; and then, before the expulsion of semen, there is customarily produced and slightly emitted, from the glands which flow into the virile member, a thinner fluid. This effusion is called distillation by theologians.⁵ The extreme part of the member is occupied by the glans (eikel, gland), very excitable, which is covered by the prepuce (voorhuid), the extreme little skin of which the Jews used to cut away: this glans is the principal seat of venereal pleasure.

⁴ "Yet not in such a way that they are mixed. For, while the erection of the rod and the ardor of ejaculation continue, the urinary bladder, on account of the contraction of the smooth muscle of the urethra, is so closed that urine cannot go forth from the urinary bladder and be mixed with the sperm." Piscetta and Gennaro, Elementa Theologiae moralis, VII, p. 5.

⁵ In men, therefore, theologians distinguish pollution and distillation, because there is a twofold emission of diverse nature. The first is of the fluid mixed with zoosperms, thicker and denser. "In pollution the effusion of humor is more copious and joined with a great commotion and pleasure of the genitals; in distillation, on the contrary, the effusion of humor is often slight and occurs almost drop by drop, and ordinarily with only a slight commotion and pleasure, or scarcely any that is perceived." Noldin, cited work, n. 40. This humor, moreover, is of a thinner nature and without special color or odor.

B. Internal: 1. The two deferent canals (vasa deferentia, zaadleiders, 40-50 cm. long), which have their beginning from the testicles and, by a long circuit, flow into the urethra as ejaculatory canals.

2. The two seminal vesicles (zaadblaasjes), which are one among the various organs of a certain secretion. The deferent canals pass by them; hence zoosperms are often found in them, and these remain there for some time. From this they received their name, seminal vesicles, as if they were receptacles of the zoosperms.

II. The principal genital organs of the woman are:

A. External: 1. The external pudendum (schaamspleet), by which name is meant the complex of exterior parts, of which the principal are: the large lips (schaamlippen), or the two folds of the exterior skin; the small lips, or two smaller folds situated between the large lips; the clitoral organ (kittelaar), or a very small organ analogous to the virile member, without a urethra, 1-2 cm.,⁶ which is situated at the summit between the small lips, is pleasurably erected, and is an instrument of pleasure; the urinary meatus, or opening placed beneath the clitoral organ, through which urine is emitted; and so forth.

⁶ Sometimes it appears greatly developed, 6-7 cm., and then certain women abuse it, approaching others after the manner of a man. This is one of the forms of the sin of sodomy.

2. The female genital canal (scheede: ordinarily about 7-9 cm. long in front, 8-10 behind), which is found beneath the clitoral organ and urinary meatus, in the middle between the small lips. It is a canal of cylindrical form leading from the exterior part to the interior, and is the receptive organ destined for receiving the virile member, the due vessel; through it also the monthly blood is emitted and the fetus comes forth; hence it is flaccid and very extensible. Its mouth in virgins is regularly covered by a membrane, the hymen, the seal of virginity (maagdenvlies), which usually imitates the figure of a half moon, so that it does not close the whole mouth. In the heat of concupiscence the female genital canal emits, rarely outwardly, rather into the cavity of the uterus, a fluid similar to that which men emit in distillation; this is rightly called distillation, or also feminine pollution, while the ancients called it the seed of the woman. Erroneously, however: for although it renders copulation more suitable and the intromission of the man easier, nevertheless it in no way directly serves generation.

3. To these may be added the breasts or paps, which are destined not for generation itself but for producing and giving milk.

B. Internal: 1. The uterus or womb⁷ (baarmoeder), which communicates with the female genital canal and is destined to contain the fetus.

⁷ The ordinary dimensions in the normal state differ from virgins to multiparas, namely from about 60 mm. to 68 mm. in length, and from 38 to 43 mm. in breadth.

2. The ovaries (eierstokken, eiklieren): these are two glands to the right and to the left of the uterus, by which the ova, 200/1000 mm., are produced. The ova are the feminine element essential to generation.

3. The oviducts, or tubes (eileiders, 10-12 cm. long), which are two canals which communicate with the uterus and through which the eggs descend into it.

In the woman there are three principal seats of pleasure: first and chiefly the clitoral organ; secondly, the female genital canal as far as the uterus; thirdly, the mammary papillae of the breasts, the excitation of which carries with it an excitation, even a vehement one, of the genital organs. Hence, although by nature modesty is greater in the woman, by which she is drawn back from lust, nevertheless venereal satisfaction is greater; and therefore, after a woman has become lustful, she is often more prone to libido than the man.

III. The evolution of the genital organs.

In the fetus before the end of the third month the sex cannot be sufficiently distinguished, but the external genitals appear the same. Hence it is already understood that the opinion of Aristotle, whom many scholastics followed, is false, according to which the male fetus is animated after 40 days, the female after 80 days; for at this time the distinction of the sexes does not yet sufficiently appear. From the middle of the third month a certain point or genital tubercle is seen, which indicates the external organ, between two folds of skin which are divided below by a middle furrow. Already a little earlier there are two small internal glands, which in the course of the third month begin slowly to evolve and become ovaries in the female, testicles in the male. For these, before birth, are hidden in the abdomen in the lumbar region beneath the kidneys, and from birth they descend into the scrotum; yet it sometimes happens that one or both do not descend, and then one remains rudimentary: ectopia, displacement. But as the fourth month begins, the distinction of the sexes begins to appear in the external organ: in the male, the upper part or point increases greatly and evolves into the virile member, while in the female it remains small and becomes the clitoral organ; the lower part, or folds, in the male increase and are joined so that the scrotum may be formed; in the female they are more absorbed, and thus become the lips of the external pudendum.

From the time of puberty the organs begin to become apt for generation. The testicles begin to produce semen, and also internal secretion and zoosperms, although the semen is not immediately accustomed to be prolific. In our regions this time generally runs from the thirteenth or fourteenth to the sixteenth year; the elaboration of semen, once begun, of itself perseveres through the whole of life, even in old age, although then it does not always remain prolific.

Puberty in the female exists from the time of ovulation, which is customarily revealed by the menstrual flow, following the separation of a mature ovum, the lunar month being 28 days. This is a flow of blood which women suffer each month from the time of puberty, among us from the twelfth or thirteenth to the fifteenth year, up to about the fiftieth year: for each month in the ovaries an egg matures, at least one, which, having been separated from the ovaries, is carried into the uterus of the woman. At the same time the interior parts of the uterus are filled with blood, so that, if conception occurs, blood may be supplied for the evolution of the fetus. But if the egg has not been fertilized, the blood, and with the blood the egg, flows out through the female genital canal at a later time. This flow is called menstruation (regles, lunes, menstrues, stonden, maandstonden) and ordinarily lasts for two or three days, sometimes for more. Sometimes the health of the woman requires that the menstrual flow be provoked or checked by art, that is, by means of medicines. But from the age of about 45-50 years, ovulation and the flow of blood cease, and a little afterward the woman is no longer apt for generation but becomes sterile; this is called the age of return, or menopause (retour d'age, age critique, kritische tijd, de jaren, de keerjaren, de slechte jaren).⁸

⁸ Similarly, removal of the ovaries suppresses the flow of blood; likewise fertilization, and sometimes lactation.

At the time of puberty the breasts also develop in the female, so that they are able to produce milk; in the man they remain in a rudimentary state.

IV. Carnal copulation and fertilization. The essential elements of fertilization are the virile sperm, in which the zoosperms are contained, and the feminine ovum. Fertilization requires that some zoosperm enter the ovum before, having been separated from the ovary, it arrives through the oviduct into the uterus. To obtain this there is required the physical conjunction of man and woman, or carnal copulation (copula, coitus, paring), by which the man introduces the erect virile member into the woman's genital canal, so that in the very heat of the flesh he may emit and pour out the semen there. This copulation, in order that of itself it may be apt for generation, comprises:

1. the erection of the virile member, by which it is enlarged and made rigid;
2. its introduction into, and intromission within, the woman's genital canal, whence the man must injure and tear the seal of virginity in a virgin, which, once torn, does not return: the defloration of the virgin;
3. in the same place, in the heat of the flesh, the agitation and contraction of the virile member and the effusion of semen. To this in the woman, from the heat of concupiscence, there corresponds abundant distillation and contraction of the female genital canal; but these two are not necessary for generation.

The zoosperms, introduced into the female genital canal, swim in the semen and move themselves by vital motion so as to tend toward the interior parts of the female genital canal and uterus; and the uterus, as if by sucking, draws the spermatic fluid, thus seconding the motion of the zoosperms. Opposite this, the ovum separated from the ovaries descends through the oviduct. The progress of the ovum is slow, 7-8 days or more; on the other hand the motion of the zoosperms is relatively rapid, so that within the space of a few hours they enter the oviduct, where they can live for several days, 7-8 or more, and await the ovum.⁹ But if one zoosperm reaches the mature ovum, it will enter it, and from the conjunction of both fertilization and generation will occur. From the head of the zoosperm and the nucleus, or germinal vesicle, of the egg, there will be made one new cell, surrounded by the radiated protoplasm of the egg, which is the origin of the whole new living being.¹⁰

⁹ Therefore fertilization does not occur immediately after copulation, since the zoosperms can live for several days in the living body of the woman. Even after death they still move for one and a half to two days. At a temperature of 38-40 degrees they show themselves more lively; at a temperature of 20 degrees they appear without motion. They are killed by cold water; they are slain by electric lightning. Alkaline fluids favor their motion; acids harm them.

¹⁰ Hence the doctrine of many Scholastics, among whom is Saint Thomas, can no longer be sustained, who asserted that the feminine element in generation is merely passive. For although the masculine element actively provokes and determines the transformation of the ovum and conception, and the feminine element passively undergoes that transformation, though it seems to concur actively to some extent by attracting the head of the zoosperm, nevertheless each concurs actively in the same way toward the formation of the new being, namely by its own vital powers.

And so, by carnal conjunction, the man and woman have truly been made one from two: they have brought about one action by two similar parts, just as, so to speak, one organ is composed from each body. Namely, they constitute one principle of generation and one flesh.¹¹ By reason of the carnal commingling, not only does the member of one become the member of the other, but they are truly one flesh: the man has deposited something of himself in the woman, and the woman has made that semen her own; and the semen, which is something of the man, has now come into the possession of the woman's uterus. Thus marriage is truly and absolutely consummated.

¹¹ "They shall be two in one flesh, that is, through carnal mingling they are made one flesh; and thus the members of one become the members of the other ... from two there is made one principle in the act of generation." Saint Thomas, In I ad Cor. VI, 16. Likewise Cajetan: "in one perfect and just, that is, legitimate, principle of carnal generation." Cf. Vermeersch, cited work, p. 13. Some have erroneously understood carnal commingling as mingling with menstrual blood: for even if there is no menstruation, nevertheless by copulation marriage is consummated.

But if, after copulation, the zoosperms enter the ovum, they will be one flesh not only in the act of marriage, but also in its effect, in the new flesh composed from them. And thus a perfectly consummated marriage becomes still more fully consummated.¹²

¹² For then there will be the strictest commingling of flesh or of the elements serving generation, namely of semen and ovum.

But it should be noted that generation can strictly occur without intromission into the female genital canal, and that it suffices that the man deposit the semen at the mouth of the female genital canal, which then, by vital motion and by the attraction of the female genital canal, can enter. But in this way fertilization can occur only very rarely and accidentally; hence it does not suffice for copulation as nature instituted it, and men who are able to accomplish only this, and cannot effect intromission into the female genital canal, are impotent for completing copulation and for contracting marriage. A fortiori, artificial fertilization does not suffice for copulation, by which semen previously emitted is introduced by some art into the female genital canal or uterus; this, moreover, is gravely illicit.¹³

¹³ In the decree of the Holy Office, 24 March 1897, the matter concerns artificial fertilization properly so called. It would be otherwise if, after copulation had been duly performed and the semen deposited not indeed at the mouth but in the entrance of the female genital canal, it were gathered there, without being drawn out of the female genital canal, and by means of a little syringe carried more deeply toward the uterus. For in this way at no moment would the semen be deprived of its ordination toward the end of generation; hence this would not seem to be anything but assisting nature.

V. Impotence and sterility. The impotence of coeundi, or of copulating, is one thing; the impotence of generating is another. The former dirimently impedes marriage, which consists in the mutual handing over of bodies in order to carnal copulation, and therefore has as its immediate end copulation itself: this is impotence with respect to marriage itself. The latter, the impotence of generating, does not impede marriage itself, but only the further principal end for which marriage was instituted: this is not impotence of marriage, but only its sterility.

In other words: the primary end of the institution of marriage is one thing, and is generation; and the end of the thing instituted, or of marriage itself, is another, and is copulation of itself apt for generation. If this immediate end is attained, the thing itself is valid, even if by accident it is impossible that the further end, or primary end of the institution, be attained. But carnal copulation of itself apt for generation is essentially the act by which, through intromission of the virile member into the female genital canal, virile semen is emitted and deposited there. Hence whatever renders that copulation impossible, absolutely or relatively, constitutes the impediment of impotence; whatever does not impede copulation, but only generation, is not impotence, but only sterility. Hence:

A. Impotence (onvermogen) is present whenever there are not organs ready for carnal copulation, or when, though the organ remains, copulation is nevertheless impossible. It is absolute or relative according as it is toward every person or toward only some person. Hence:

1. In the man impotence is: a) absence of the virile member; b) defect of both testicles, or their perfect contusion or atrophy;¹⁴ c) double vasectomy, or resection of both deferent canals; d) disproportion of the virile member; e) hypospadia¹⁵ and epispadia, by which the meatus opens not at the extremity but in the middle of the virile member, whether on the lower part or on the upper part, so that the semen cannot be poured into the female genital canal; f) aphrodisia, or excessive heat, by which, from exaggerated excitation, the semen is lost before copulation; and anaphrodisia, or excessive frigidity, by which erection of the virile member and expulsion of semen are impeded.

¹⁴ Those who lack both testicles are called eunuchs; cf. Mt. XIX, 10 sq. Some are spadones, who are born thus; others are castrated, who by human art have been deprived of the testicles or even of the virile member itself. "A spado, or one who is born a eunuch, and one who was castrated as an infant, is incapable of true copulation; those deprived of both testes in adult age remain capable of copulation for some time, but generally through a more or less ample interval afterward they can no longer exercise copulation itself. Those deprived of the testes are deprived of the internal secretion by which the energy of copulating with effusion is nourished, so that they are destitute of satiative copulation with effusion, and then of the faculty of copulation." Thus Vermeersch, cited work, n. 60 and 84.

¹⁵ De Smet, De Matrimonio, n. 551, note 4, notes that that defect is sometimes cured by a mere change of position in copulating.

The first three make impotence absolute; the fifth and sixth make it relative; the fourth makes either one. The sixth ordinarily does not render one perpetually impotent; concerning the third it is disputed whether potency can be restored.

2. In the woman impotence is: a) defect of the female genital canal or of an opening in it, so that it cannot be perforated at all; b) excessive narrowness; c) vaginismus, by which, from excessive excitation, the external pudendum is closed, cannot endure intromission, and impedes copulation.

In the first case there is absolute impotence; in the second, relative; in the third, either one, and not always perpetual.

B. Sterility (onvruchtbaarheid) 1. in the man is the absence of prolific semen because, on account of an accidental and transient cause or an obstruction, the semen here and now is destitute of zoosperms, or because, on account of disease of the testicles, the seminal vesicle, the urethra, and so forth, the zoosperms are not sufficiently lively, or perish too quickly, or lack a necessary element, or are not apt to enter the ovum.

In the opening lecture of this course, I remarked to you, gentlemen, that the scope of Medical Jurisprudence is much wider than that of Medical Law. It embraces many subjects of which human laws take no cognizance, and in particular such vicious actions as do not violate the rights of others, but are injurious to those only who practise them. They undermine the health and shorten the lives of the guilty parties, and bring in their train diseases the most destructive and often the most incurable. It is the physician’s beneficent task to lessen the weaknesses and sufferings of the body, and to prolong human life in well-preserved vigor to a green old age. It is not the least important part of his valuable services to provide for the sound and vigorous propagation of the human race to future generations. Of this propagation of our race, of the laws which govern it, and of the criminal abuses by which these laws are violated, I am to treat in this present lecture. My subject is “Venereal Excesses.”

I. If a physician’s purpose were only to make money, his task would then be to multiply diseases and infirmities; he would then be as great a curse to mankind as he is really intended to be a blessing; and an immense blessing he will be to his fellow-men if he studies to remove even the remote causes of diseases and untimely deaths. He can do so in a variety of ways and not the least by providing against sexual excesses and abuses. These are a copious fountain of ill to humanity. A host of diseases, such as tuberculosis, diabetes, cardial and nervous affections, epilepsy, hysteria, general debility, weaknesses of sight, languor and general worthlessness, hypochondria, weakness and total loss of reason, and, in married life, impotence and sterility are some of the effects of venereal excesses. Any excitement of the sexual passion before the body has received its full development is more or less injurious to its welfare; and all excesses or unnatural indulgence of it at any period of life is pregnant with deplorable consequences. Now, such evil practices are too much overlooked by many physicians; yet it is certain that thousands of patients might, by timely warning on these matters, be saved from unspeakable mental and physical sufferings. To give sensible and intelligible directions on a subject as delicate as it is important in medical practice, it will be necessary to enter into some scientific details.

The passion which prompts to sexual intercourse is altogether natural in itself, and, as such, intended by the Creator to be indulged in at the right time and in the proper manner. It is the stimulus which He has provided for the propagation of the human race. If the stimulus is strong at times, this too is a special effect of His wisdom; because without a powerful prompting of this kind, most men would shirk the burden of married life, just as very many would not care to toil if they had no hunger and thirst and other bodily wants to satisfy.

But though all these cravings are useful and even indispensable to mankind, all of them need the regulation of reason. When they are indulged immoderately or in unnatural ways, they become most copious sources of bodily diseases, of mental disorders, and moral degradation. Every one knows how the passion of drink, when abused, proves the ruination of millions; excessive eating, too, injures the systems of countless people. But no animal passion is more liable to become disorderly, none needs more firm control and habitual watchfulness, than the passion of lust. Reason dictates that it should be indulged for no other purpose than that for which the Creator has made it, namely, marital intercourse. I say marital and not merely sexual intercourse; for outside of married life all nations have always condemned its indulgence.

Besides, it is only in the married state that the children, which are the fruit of such intercourse, can be properly educated. To generate a race of young barbarians is certainly not the purpose of the sexual relations. Children must not be begotten unless they can be properly raised, in a manner worthy of their noble destiny. Now, it is only in the married state, in the family or domestic society, that they can be thus educated. They need the tender hand of a mother to supply their material wants; they need the manly care of a devoted father to provide the necessaries of life, his firm hand to break their wanton wills, and his wise direction to set them well on the road to temporal and eternal happiness. Therefore, no one has the right to beget or to bear children except in marital life. Now, the sexual passion is to be exercised only in connection with its proper object, the procreation of children and the fostering of such mutual love between husband and wife as is conducive to domestic happiness. Therefore this passion is to be kept under careful and rational constraint. This the law of morality requires; all nations have ever exacted that this passion shall be subject to established rules; no free-love has ever been tolerated where there was the least pretence to civilization, and I do not know that it was ever permitted even among barbarians.

Even the distant approach that Mormonism made towards free-love has been absolutely condemned and repressed by the common-sense of the American people, as incompatible with civilization. In fact, all history testifies that the true civilization of any race or country rises or falls with the restraints imposed on the passion of lust; no polygamous nation has ever been more than half-civilized. The greatness of Rome and Greece decayed when the laws of social purity declined; and in our own day the immorality of what is called “the social evil” is the darkest stain on modern civilization.

And what we say of civilization or social soundness, the soundness of the body politic, applies in a great measure to individual soundness, the health of every person’s mind and body. Personal purity promotes health and vigor, it lends beauty to form, gives a keen edge to the intellect, adds energy and brings success to manhood, and prepares for enduring and honored old age. Venereal excesses, on the contrary, undermine the vigor of the constitution, bring on a host of bodily infirmities, exhaust the system before the proper time, debauch and degrade the mind and will, and prepare their victims for an early grave or a decrepit old age.

II. But how can a passion so ardent be properly restrained? In particular, what can a physician do to prevent the manifold injuries which, if not properly controlled, it will bring to his patients? These are practical questions directly to our purpose.

The first requisite for all effective action is to have correct knowledge and strong convictions on a subject. No one will check a passion with firmness if he have a lingering doubt as to whether, after all, he is strictly bound to restrain it. As a man’s mind matures, at least if his mind be upright and not distorted by the strain of a ruling passion, he understands more and more thoroughly that his perfection consists and his highest interests lie in obeying at all times the law of reason, in maintaining his specific dignity of a rational being, and not allowing himself to be controlled by passion, the ruling power of brute animals. Besides, he becomes aware in various ways of the evil results of immoral practices, and he sees many reasons to keep his passions in check. But young people have neither such experience nor such information, and they are not always wise enough to understand the imperative dictates of self-restraint. And yet it is often in early years, while body and mind are in the period of development, that the most serious injury is done to the constitution and to the character by the indulgence of carnal pleasures. Habits are then engendered which become a real slavery; so that later in life when there arises a sincere desire to stop such disgraceful practices, there is a feeling of impotence to resist temptations which by one’s own fault have become a second nature.

What then can be done with the young? They must early and authoritatively be told of the wrong, the sin of base self-indulgence, and of every practice that leads to it. If a beginning of immorality is discovered in a child, it must be plainly told and emphatically warned of the serious consequences involved. The child’s mother is, as a rule, the best guide and director in infancy. Later on, the Doctor has frequent chances to do so; it comes from him with better grace than from others; and his warning is likely to be minded, because it is clear that he knows and ought to know what he is talking about with regard to bodily consequences. Yet it is always a matter of delicacy; and great care should be taken lest, while pointing out the evil, there be also a stimulus added to a prurient curiosity.

Much good sense is required in any given case to decide whether more good or more evil is likely to result from the warning; in doubt of success, it is better to leave the matter alone.

“Where ignorance is bliss

’Tis folly to be wise.”

The safest way of repressing the passion of lust is the provision that an all-wise Providence supplies in Religion, in which God authoritatively forbids all immoral action and even all immoral coveting or desire. Positive dogmatic teaching on this subject is required, especially with the young. You cannot argue with them on this matter as you can with grown people. That is one reason why religious teaching should permeate early education. The Decalogue should be the back-bone of a child’s training: and it should be proposed on the authority of God, and explained so as to check not only sinful acts, but also covetings, prurient curiosity, improper reading, immodest looks and thoughts, in a word, whatever paves the way to the walks of sin. The greatest of teachers has Himself laid down the law in this matter: it must be proposed as coming from His divine lips, as it did: “I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (St. Matt. v. 28). The lesson is enforced by these words of the^† great Apostle: “Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate ... shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. vi. 9, 10).

True, the child will not realize the full import of such lessons; but he will understand it in due time; and already in early years he will be warned against indulging his nascent passions. It is well that the conscience should be early awakened in this matter; for the more this passion is indulged, the more it craves for further indulgence till it becomes almost uncontrollable.

III. No possible evil to any individual man or woman can result from the firm control that one may acquire over the passion of lust. On the contrary, if it should be controlled all through life, this would only add to a man’s strength of mind, firmness of will, soundness of body, and length of life. For in the school of morality, in which every Physician should be educated, the leading principle is: “Contraries are cured by contraries,” “Contraria contrariis curantur.” On this principle, lust is most efficiently controlled by aiming, at least in youth, at total abstinence from its indulgence. You know that, in the Catholic Church, priests and religious lead a single life, and pledge themselves for life to practise the most perfect control of the sexual passion. What do you think is the result of their total abstinence on this point with regard to their length of days? As a rule their life is much longer, in normal circumstances, than that of the other learned professions. Here are a few proofs. In France, during the twenty years from 1823 to 1843, 750 priests died in the diocese of Paris. Of these only 200 were under sixty years old; there were 554 between sixty and seventy years old, 448 over seventy, and 177 over eighty. Again, of 202 Carmelite nuns who died in a large convent of Paris, Dr. Descuret, the attending physician, states that 82 had lived over seventy years, 23 over eighty years. Most Trappists and Carthusians die of scarcely any other sickness than old age. All young people who aspire to the clerical or religious profession learn from their early years the holiness and the loveliness of purity. Our Church effects this result by placing before their youthful imaginations the most perfect of patterns of virtue, the infant Saviour, the virgin Mother, the boy saints Aloysius and Stanislaus, the maidens Agatha and Cecilia, and a whole phalanx of Christian heroes and heroines.

I dwell the more willingly on this subject, gentlemen, because, besides protecting modesty in your young patients generally, it may fall to the lot of some of you, in the course of your professional careers, to be attending physicians to religious houses; and you will then appreciate the delicacy of the flowers of virtue that bloom beneath the shadow of the sanctuary. Certainly even there you may happen to find isolated cases of infidelity to duty; for human nature is not angelic nature; but in such abodes it comes near to it, at least for the vast majority.

IV. On the other hand, what sad havoc does not the sexual passion play where it is precociously developed and wantonly indulged. Dr. H. Fournier, one of the most eminent physicians of Paris, says: “There is not a vice more fatal to the conservation of man than masturbation.” This unfortunate habit is sometimes acquired by very little boys and girls. Foolish or vicious nurses may bring it on by handling young children most indelicately. This is one of the many reasons why none but virtuous servants and nurses should be employed by wise parents and physicians. In later years, children often learn this degrading and most injurious vice from their depraved companions, some of whom seem even to regard the practice of it as a manly accomplishment. When habitually indulged in, it produces on the health and the strength of the constitution effects the most deplorable. Even the intellect is liable to become thereby enfeebled, a want of virility is exhibited both in the body and in the mind of its victims; then follows a loss of ambition and self-control. “When this morbid passion gets control of a person,” writes an experienced practitioner in medicine, “it is as though an unclean spirit had entered, subdued the will, weakened the moral forces, enfeebled the intellectual faculties, lessened the power to resist temptation, and overcome every obstacle opposed to its gratification. Even while the intellect is still clear, and the sense of wrong keen, the individual is a slave to this morbid impulse.” Though the baneful effects may not always affect the physical health of the victim, the unfortunate practice very often engenders in boys and girls tendencies which in later years lead to all the miseries conspicuous in houses of debauch and infamy. But I need not dwell on consequences that belong to pathology rather than to Jurisprudence.

V. Confining myself to my sphere of what is morally right or wrong, I must be permitted to point out some gross violations of duty in some members of your honored profession. There are physicians so reckless of consequences and of principles alike as to advise at times the practice of illicit sexual intercourse. Let them beware; they are doing a very unwise and guilty act. Even if an immoral practice should save a human life, it may not be indulged, on the principle which must be by this time very familiar to your ears, that the end does not justify the means. And besides no good result can be expected from what is contrary to the law of nature and of nature’s God. It was to punish sins of the flesh that the Deluge was sent, which destroyed nearly the whole human race. “All flesh had corrupted its way,” says the sacred historian. It was to punish unlawful indulgence of lust that Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed by fire from heaven; and the memory of these guilty cities is preserved in the very name of Sodomy. Onan, as the same sacred volume relates (Gen. xxxviii), performed the marriage act in a manner to frustrate it of its legitimate purpose, the generation of children, and the Lord slew him; and his sin is to this very day branded with his name and called Onanism. And yet in Christian lands physicians are found who will at times dare to recommend such practices to their patients.

On the occasions mentioned, God punished the guilty miraculously; but that is not His usual way. He has so contrived our natures that sins committed against His laws in our bodies ordinarily bring a part of their punishment in their train, not the less certain because slower in its operation than a miracle would be. All the venereal diseases are there to act as earthy ministers of Heaven’s justice, anticipating, and often mercifully averting, the punishments of the future world.

VI. Besides private and secret tortures of body and mind, a public and most deplorable calamity has descended of late on our own vigorous young nation, as well as on some older lands, threatening in the not distant future the extinction of many of its most esteemed families and of what was, not long ago, a vigorous stock. The following article by Dr. Walter Lindley, Professor of Gynecology in the University of Southern California, will explain the matter better than my words could do. It was read in Los Angeles at a meeting of the Southern Californian Medical Society in June, 1895, and is printed in the “N. Y. Medical Journal” of August 17 of the same year (pp. 211 and following). It is headed “American Sterility;” I will quote freely from it:

“The obstetrician finds his vocation disappearing among the American women from the face of the earth.

“It is a fact that the American family with more than one or two children is the exception. From the records of six generations of families in some New England towns, it was found that the families comprising the first generation had on an average between eight and ten children; the next three generations averaged about seven to each family; the fifth generation less than three to each family. The generation now on the stage is not doing so well as that. In Massachusetts the average family numbers less than three persons. In 1885 the census of Massachusetts disclosed that 71.28 per cent of the women of that State were childless. The census of 1885 in the State of New York shows that twenty-five per cent of the women of that State are childless, fifty per cent average less than one child, and seventy-five per cent average only a trifle over one child.

“Southern California has fully as dark a record as New England—that is, in the family where the man and wife are American-born. It goes without saying that the medical profession in this country is composed to a great extent of typical progressive Americans, and I ask you to make mental statistics of the children in the families of the physicians in Southern California, and you will find very few of them containing more than two.

“Had the Rev. T. R. Malthus lived in the United States to-day, he would never have argued about the danger of over-population, as he did in his interesting volume on ‘The Principles of Population.’”

After quoting the views of Plato, Aristotle, and Lycurgus, Dr. Lindley continues: “In Southern California there are, it is true, many children, but the average American family is very small.

“As I sat writing this an evening or two ago, I jotted down the names of twenty-five families of my acquaintance in Los Angeles, taking them as fast as I thought of them. The list was composed entirely of professional and business men ranging in age from thirty-five to fifty. All had been married quite a number of years. The result of my memorandum was that in these twenty-five families there were but eighteen children. These families were wholly unselected, and are about the average Protestant American families outside the rank of laborers.

“What are the causes of this small proportion of children? Disease, preventives of conception, and abortion form the trinity of responsibility in this grave condition. It is true that the first cause (disease) results in many women being barren, but I believe that you will agree with me that the last two causes, preventives of conception and abortion, are the two chief causes.

“The A. P. A. might find food for thought by investigating the infrequency of criminal abortion in Catholic families in the United States. It is the Protestant or agnostic American who too often uses one of the preventives of conception.” (Here the Doctor refers to a foot-note in which he says: “I write this opinion as a Protestant, and should be glad to learn that it is not well founded.”) He continues: “If, through inadvertence, pregnancy should occur, then an abortion is in order. Disease and poverty and war and accident all work together to keep down the population, but we are overcoming these. Plagues and pestilences are rare. The number who die of starvation in California is very small, while war has played but a small part. Through the diffusion of the laws of sanitation, improved dietary, and advanced therapeutics, the longevity of man is increasing, but the American woman’s aversion to child-bearing is blighting our civilization, and can be well named the twentieth-century curse. In this aversion the woman frequently echoes the wish of the husband.

“A large proportion of the American young women who marry do so with the determination that they will have no children. They are abetted in this notion by many elderly women. The cure for this terrible sentiment is education. The home, the press, the schoolroom, and the pulpit should be centres for reviving the ancient idea of the nobility of motherhood. The physician should not underestimate his influence.

“By constantly bearing in mind the danger of the present tendencies, he can do much to change the current. Let us hope that we shall again see the day when thoughtful motherhood shall be considered the highest function of womanhood, and to shirk this natural duty will be deemed a disgrace.”

Gentlemen, it would be easy to prove that this testimony of Dr. Lindley is not that of an exceptional witness, or a piece of special pleading; but it is the acknowledged conviction of the medical profession generally, confirmed by the last United States Census, and in fact not questioned, to my knowledge, by any weighty authority. As early as 1857, Dr. H. B. Storer, an eminent physician of Boston, startled the community by publishing two books on this subject, entitled: “Criminal Abortion. Why not?—A Book for Every Woman”; “Is it I?—A Book for Every Man.” Soon after, Rev. John Todd, a Protestant minister of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, published a work styled “Serpents in the Dove’s Nest,” all which works and a multitude of others tell the same tale of woe regarding the increase of child-destroying crimes in New England, chiefly among the old stock peculiarly called Americans. Dr. Nathan Allen, of Lowell, Massachusetts, in his treatises, “Changes in the New England Population” and “The New England Family,” gives overwhelming testimony. “Harper’s Magazine” (quoted by the “Catholic World” for April, 1869) remarks: “We are shocked at the destruction of human life on the banks of the Ganges, but here in the heart of Christendom fœticide and infanticide are extensively practised under the most aggravating circumstances.” We Catholics are not personally interested in this matter; but the good of our fellow-men and chiefly our fellow-countrymen calls for the earnest exertion of us all to stop this dreadful evil. All the works I have referred to exempt Catholics from the blame pronounced; the “Harper’s Magazine” article referred to expressly says: “It should be stated that believers in the Roman Catholic faith never resort to any such practices; the strictly Americans are almost alone guilty of such crimes.” This matter is fully explained in a recent work called “Catholic and Protestant Countries Compared,” by Rev. Alfred Young, C.P., ch. xxxii.

VII. Now, gentlemen, I am very much afraid that while physicians as a body abhor all such murders and openly condemn them, many do not show much repugnance to allow, and even sometimes to suggest, such onanistic intercourse among married people as shall prevent the possibility of conception. For instance, if it happens that a young mother suffers much in her first confinement, at once the suggestion is made that a second parturition may prove fatal. From that moment regular intercourse is dreaded. Either onanism is habitually practised, or the husband becomes a frequent visitor to dens of infamy, where to where to save his wife’s health, he encourages a traffic that leads multitudes of wretched girls to a premature and miserable death. Every one despises those outcasts of society; but are not the men who patronize them just as guilty? Probably enough, if the imprudent suggestion about dangers of a second child-bearing had not been made by the Doctor, the young wife might have become the happy mother of a numerous family of healthy children. For we must trust in Divine Providence. If a husband and wife do their conscientious duty, there is a God that provides for them and their family more liberally than for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. And if He should so dispose that the worst should befall, well, such temporal clangers and sufferings as attend child-bearing are the lot of woman-kind, just as the dangers and hardships of the battlefield, the mine, the factory, the forest, and the prairie are the lot of the men.

The man who shirks his duty to family or country is a coward; women, as a rule, are brave enough in their own line of duty, and patiently submit to God’s sentence pronounced in Paradise, “I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions, in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children” (Gen. iii. 16), just as they have to submit to the words immediately following: “Thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.”

Certainly, the husband of a delicate woman ought to spare her strength and restrain his passion, but not at the sacrifice of morality; and Doctors ought to be very careful not to cause false or exaggerated alarms, and thus make themselves to some extent responsible for untold moral evils. They should remember that, as a rule, the raising of a family is the principal purpose of a married life. The happiness and virtue of the parties concerned depend chiefly on the faithful performance of this duty. How sad is the lot of those—and they are many—who undertook in early years of married life to prescribe a narrow limit to the number of their children; they had one or two, and they would have no more, and for this purpose criminally thwarted the purposes of nature. Then comes death and snatches away their solitary consolation: and they spend their old age childless and loveless, in mutual upbraidings and unavailing regrets.

How different is the lot of those aged couples—and they were many of yore, and are yet in various nations—who are like patriarchs amid their crowds of children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren, dwelling in mutual love and as if in a moral paradise where all domestic virtues bloom!

VIII. True, such families are usually the outcome of moderately early marriages; and many Doctors nowadays disapprove of such unions as an evil. A moral evil they certainly are not; and the physical evils sometimes attending them must, I think, be traceable to a variety of causes; for such evils are certainly not inseparable from early marriages. As to their moral advantages, Mr. Wm. E. H. Lecky, in his “History of European Morals,” writes of the Irish people in particular: “The nearly universal custom of early marriages among the Irish peasantry has alone rendered possible that high standard of female chastity, that intense and jealous sensitiveness respecting female honor, for which, among many failings and some vices, the Irish race have long been pre-eminent in Europe” (v. i. p. 146). And that he does not confine his statement to female chastity is evident from what he adds farther on: “There is no fact in Irish history more singular than the complete and, I believe, unparalleled absence among the Irish priesthood of those moral scandals which in every Continental country occasionally prove the danger of vows of celibacy. The unsuspected purity of the Irish priesthood in this respect is the more remarkable, because, the government of the country being Protestant, there is no special inquisitorial legislation to insure it, because of the almost unbounded influence of the clergy over their parishioners, and also because, if any just cause of suspicion existed, in the fierce sectarianism of Irish public opinion it would assuredly be magnified. Considerations of climate are quite inadequate to explain this fact; but the chief cause is, I think, sufficiently obvious. The habit of marrying at the first development of the passions has produced among the Irish peasantry, from whom the priests for the most part spring, an extremely strong feeling of the iniquity of irregular sexual indulgence, which retains its power even over those who are bound to perpetual celibacy” (p. 147). No one will say, I believe, that the custom of early marriages in Ireland has any injurious effects on the health of either parents or children. Nor need it necessarily have such effects on those of our American young men and women who lead regular lives and are not enfeebled by unnatural vices or demoralized by dainty food and luxurious manners.

A wise physician has many proper ways of providing for the health and strength of both parents and children without advocating practices which are a snare for innocence. Let him insist with all his patients on the cultivation of healthful habits for the family and the individual; wholesome and not over-delicate food; moderation in eating and drinking; regular and manly exercise, especially in the open air; early hours for retiring and rising. But, above all—and this is directly to our present purpose—let him show the greatest regard for the laws of morality, the main support of individual and social happiness. His views upon such matters, manifested alike in his conduct and his conversation, but especially in his management of cases involving the application of moral principles, will go far to influence the community in which he moves. His task is to be a blessing to his fellow-men, a source of happiness and security to individuals and to society.

You shall not commit adultery.....
You shall not desire his wife (of your neighbor).
(Exod., 20, 14, 17).

Admonition of St. Alphonsus. "Now we undertake with difficulty to treat that matter whose name alone infects the minds of men.... Would that I could have explained myself more briefly or more obscurely! But since this is the more frequent and abundant matter of confessions, and because of it a greater number of souls slide down to hell; indeed I do not hesitate to assert, on account of this one vice of impurity, or at least not without it, all are damned whoever are damned: hence it was necessary for me, for the instruction of those who desire to learn moral science, to explain myself clearly (though as chastely as could be done), and to discuss very many particulars. - Yet I pray students, ... that they not read this treatise on the sixth precept (as also that other one on the conjugal debt), unless they are now close to hearing confessions; and that they read for this sole end, casting aside absolutely all curiosity, and at that time more often lift the mind to God, and commend themselves to the Immaculate Virgin, lest, while they strive to acquire others' souls for God, they themselves suffer detriment of their own" (III, 413).

762. The sixth precept is joined by a close affinity to the fifth; for since the fifth precept looks chiefly to this, that human life, when it already exists in the nature of things, be rightly cared for, the principal scope of the sixth precept is that watchfulness be exercised over its very beginnings, and that human nature be conserved: for divine sanction ought to protect not only life, but also that wonderful faculty which man possesses, of communicating life. Cf. Pruner, Spez. Moraltheol., IV Absch., II Tr.

By this precept only adultery, which at once injures justice and chastity, is explicitly forbidden; but implicitly all things whatever that are dishonorable and immodest are forbidden, and it is prescribed that we cultivate chastity of mind and body (Roman Catechism, P. III, c. 7, n. 2).

The ninth precept, which is most closely joined to the sixth, prohibits in the same matter sins of the heart, or wicked thoughts and desires. Of these we have already treated in the treatise on Sins, n. 345 ff.

Hence, in the present treatise, we shall treat: 1. of chastity and lust in general; - 2. of sins of consummated lust; - 3. of sins of non-consummated lust (which are postponed here, because they derive their species from the preceding); - 4. of dangers to chastity.

St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 151-156; St. Alphonsus, III, 412; ed. G., I, p. 665; Sporer-Bierbaum, III, n. 467 ff.; Gopfert, II, 316; Genicot, Theol. mor., I, 387; Antonelli, Med. past., II, 160 ff.; Eschbach, Disp. phys.; Tanquerey, Suppl. de Castit.; Sani, de 6 Praec.; Berardi, Theol. mor., II, p. 333 (ed. 1905); Noldin, de Sexto (ed. 13); Capellmann, Pastoralmed. (ed. 16), p. 128; Gemelli, Non moechaberis.

763. Things to be noted beforehand. The Author of nature implanted in each sex a generative power ordered to this most excellent end, that through the natural intercourse of man and woman in legitimate matrimony, the human species may be propagated and conserved. But the pleasure that accompanies the act of this power rightly concurs unto the same end insofar as it draws men to a thing very burdensome in its consequences; it is ordered to the common good, not to private good.

But for a fuller understanding of this treatise and of the other on Matrimony, we judge that a few things must be said concerning those things that regard human generation, reduced to the norm of more recent physiologists.

1. In the man, three organs especially serve for generation: the testicles, in which the semen is prepared; the seminal vesicles, in which the semen is preserved; the urinary tube (the male member, the rod) through which the semen is cast forth. In the female likewise three organs are numbered: the ovary, in which the little egg matures; the womb (uterus), into which the little egg proceeds; the vagina, which extends from the uterus to the external part of the body. The mouth of this canal is closed by a thin membrane, which they call the hymen, the seal of virginity.

2. Generation is distinguished into active and passive. Active generation, to which the highest pleasure is attached, is the same as copulation, concubitus, coitus, and consists in this, that the male member is introduced into the vagina of the female and the male semen is ejaculated in the female vessel. It is the connatural act by which generation is made possible, so that generation itself ought to follow unless something stands in the way. Passive generation is conception, or the conjunction of the masculine semen with the female little egg.

3. Therefore the man concurs toward generation by providing prolific semen, or sperm, which is a certain fluid secreted by the testicles of the man, containing little bodies called spermatozoa, by which it is rendered prolific. But the woman concurs in this, that she supplies the little egg to be fecundated by the spermatozoa. If at the moment of copulation, or at a time more or less distant, she has a mature little egg, and if the semen of the man meets this little egg, a conjunction is produced and the spermatozoa fecundate the little egg, whence conception arises. But the little eggs are torn away from the female testes, which are called ovaries. This tearing away is sometimes accelerated by lust, but of itself it happens without lust and spontaneously among individual females almost in individual months, or perhaps more often.

But whether the female concurs toward generation through an effusion of fluid, or semination, which she has in the act of copulation? Several among the ancients (thus the Scotists with Galen) affirmed that the semen of the woman is necessary for generation, but today (as Aristotle and St. Thomas already held) it is certain that no semen properly so called is present in women in that fluid which, either inwardly (as more often), or outwardly, is poured forth from the vulvo-vaginal glands. Physicians think that that semen improperly so called is useful for generation, but not necessary. And indeed this opinion already seemed more probable to St. Alphonsus (VI, 918).

4. Menstruation (in French: les regles, les epoques) accompanies ovulation and at the same time is very useful to the health of the woman. This is common blood which, as soon as the severance of some mature little egg from the ovary presses, flows more abundantly to the uterus, both indeed that by its heat it may meet the great work of ovulation to be duly performed, and that it may furnish nourishment to the new fetus, if perchance it is conceived. This flow of blood is called menstrual because for the most part it is accustomed to return on the 28th day, or in individual lunar months (and also a little more frequently), from the time of puberty up to menopause (which ordinarily in our regions happens between the 40th and 50th year), and regularly lasts for 2 or 3 days. During the time of this flow, women suffer various pains rather than feel venereal pleasure.

5. It is also to be noted that eunuchs and the impubescent lack semen. Males in our regions rarely attain puberty before the completed 15th year; but before the 18th year their semen is not accustomed to be prolific.

Among those who have reached puberty there sometimes occurs a morbid and frequent flow of semen, which in men is called gonorrhea, in women white flow or leucorrhea. Gonorrhea for the most part is a certain species of syphilis and therefore contagious; pregnant women not rarely suffer from white flow. By certain ancients (for example Croix, apud St. Alph., VI, 910), the leucorrhea of women is called gonorrhea.

According to today's physicians, semen is not corrupted, because a part of the semen, having gone out beyond its seat, is either absorbed or expelled. Therefore we shall purposely omit the questions of the older theologians looking to this.

6. The effusion of semen is to be distinguished most exactly from distillation. This is a certain subtler fluid, coming from the prostatic gland and mucous membrane of the urethra. In the effusion of semen, ordinarily the semen is ejaculated with vehement pleasure and movement of the flesh; but in distillation, the fluid ordinarily flows out drop by drop, with light or even no pleasure and almost no movement of the flesh. Besides, it can occur even in the impubescent, indeed also in the castrated.

7. By carnal movements, venereal movements, there is understood a certain tendency toward the effusion of semen, manifesting itself ordinarily through erection of the male member or of the female clitoris, joined with pleasure. This erection has as its cause blood flowing together to those members, on account of various causes. But from venereal and pleasurable erection is to be distinguished purely natural erection, which is had from a merely physical cause and without any sense of pleasure (Aertnys, Theol. mor., l. III, n. 219).

On knowledge of the sexual matter. Authors have much disputed what ought to be done concerning instructing sons (and daughters) about the sexual matter. To not a few, even Catholics, the theory was pleasing concerning the virtue and efficacy of full physiological knowledge, to be handed on to each one from tender years, for restraining the impulse of immorality. Ignorance, so they say, is the parent of all evils. Yet to others, and those weighing all things wisely, it has seemed that this theory, if ever it is brought into practice without cautions, renders a flood of lasciviousness unavoidable. Hence they established the following: a) Children before all things are to be educated in virtue, love of God, and horror of sin. b) As premature knowledge of the sexual matter is dangerous, so also is ignorance too long protracted with respect to this matter. The latter sharpens curiosity and exposes the incautious to seduction; the former kindles the fire of lust. c) Therefore knowledge of these things is to be given, but increased gradually, according to the age, necessity, and virtue of adolescents. d) It belongs to those persons to teach children these things to whom God has entrusted the office of watching over them: such as parents, guardians, or, in some cases, prudent and God-fearing outside persons. For two things are owed to a child: charity and reverence. Cf. Gatterer-Krus, Education de la Chastete; Forster, Sexualethik u. Sexualpadagogik; Linz. Quart. Schr., vol. 61, p. 45 and 783; Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 406.

764. Definition. Chastity (from chastising), taken broadly, is a general virtue, consisting in purity of soul from every inordinate love and pleasure of creatures. Chastity, in the proper sense, is a virtue that moderates the affection for and use of venereal things.

"Modesty is the virtue moderating certain less principal acts pertaining to the aforesaid concupiscence, such as kisses, touches, looks, embraces, lascivious conversations, etc. Yet it is not a special virtue distinct from chastity, but only expressing the same chastity, insofar as it is concerned with certain circumstances. For all those lustful acts, antecedent to and concomitant with the more principal one, are restrained by reason according to the same rule, on account of the same end, and in the same manner. But it is called modesty from shame, because concerning these acts, even while they are done licitly, an honorable soul is especially abashed, both because they are less subject to reason, and because in them man comes more nearly to the condition of beasts" (Goudin, Phil. mor., q. 6, a. 3, § 1).

Division. Chastity is divided into chastity specially so called and virginity. Chastity specially so called is that which only restrains the impulse toward illicit pleasures (of the flesh), but moderates licit ones, so that they may happen with the required things observed; and it can be divided into juvenile, conjugal, and widowly. But virginity is a certain heroic chastity so taming concupiscence that for God it does not concede to it even the voluntary experience of licit pleasures. Cf. Goudin, l.c.

Virginity is a special virtue, having itself toward chastity as magnificence toward liberality; because it conquers a special difficulty, and indeed a very great one (2.2, q. 152, a. 3). It consists materially, and as a state, in immunity from every experience of venereal pleasure, and in a certain integrity of the member or genital organ; but formally, and as a virtue, in the purpose of abstaining from every venereal pleasure.

1. If the integrity of the flesh is violated merely materially through rape, or involuntary pollution, the prerogative of virginity is not lost, namely the right to the accidental reward, called the aureola, with which virgins are gifted in heaven.

2. If virginity is violated formally only through internal sin, its prerogative is indeed lost, but reparably, namely so that through penance and a reassumed purpose of preserving virginity perpetually, the right to the aureola is had again.

3. If virginity is violated both formally and materially, namely through the external sin of completed lust (or even through mere touches so lustful that of themselves, in healthy nature, they would cause pollution, even if by accident this does not happen), the prerogative of the virtue is lost irreparably, as innocence is lost through mortal sin. Cf. Salmant., tr. 26, c. 1, n. 47 ff.; Lessius, de Temper., c. 2, d. 14 and 16; Eschbach, Disp. physiol.-theol., disp. 4, c. 2.

765. Principles. I. Conjugal chastity is good, widowly continence better, but virginal perfection best. Thus Venerable Bede (apud Benedict XIV, de Beatif. SS., l. 3, c. 24, n. 56). Hence St. Jerome (in Matth., XIII): "The hundredfold fruit," he says, "we assign to virgins, the sixtyfold to widows, the thirtyfold to chaste marriage." The reason is at hand from the things defined above.

Indeed, it must be held with divine faith that the state of virginity and celibacy is to be preferred to marriage. This is established from the words of the Apostle (1 Cor., 7), and from Trent: "If anyone says that the conjugal state is to be placed before the state of virginity or celibacy; and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in matrimony: let him be anathema" (Sess. 24, c. 10).

II. Spiritual beauty is present most excellently in chastity. It is established: 1. From Sacred Scripture (Wis., 4, 1): How beautiful is a chaste generation with clarity: for its memory is immortal: because it is known both before God and before men. 2. From reason: "For chastity is so much the more excellent and more beautiful, as that affection (which it moderates) is more insolent, stronger, and less heeding of reason. For in it, on that account, order, vigor, and the command of reason over the raging appetite shine forth more splendidly" (Goudin, l.c.). Hence St. Alphonsus (Vera Sposa, c. 1, n. 12), with St. Cyprian: "Virginity," he says, "is queen of virtues, possession of all goods"; and with St. Ephrem: "If you have loved this, you will prosper from the Lord in all things."

766. Practical Rules. a) If a penitent who has sinned gravely against chastity asks whether he has irreparably lost the aureola of virginity, let the confessor rather respond by dissembling, lest the penitent fall in spirit. He will be able to say, for example, that penance restores the former goods of the soul, that there is no sin that cannot be repaired before God; and similar things.

b) If a girl asks whether, although she has sinned gravely against chastity, she can become a religious, let the confessor attend to the following:

He can respond: affirmatively, if there is question of entrance into a Religious Congregation (with other things to be posited having been posited). He must respond: negatively, if there is question of an Order with solemn vows, and the girl was voluntarily corrupted: because in Orders virgins are consecrated; hence she who without integrity of flesh would receive the veil would bring grave irreverence upon sacramentals.

A girl who several times acted shamefully with herself by touches, while conserving the seal of virginity, can be admitted into an Order: because before men she conserves the state of a virgin. Similarly, according to a rather probable opinion, a woman who was corrupted against her will can be consecrated; for it does not seem equitable that she should lose her right who by her will preserved virginity. Cf. Piat, I, n. 305.

Note. Some authors judge that even with those voluntarily corrupted the confessor can act more benignly. See Gopfert, II, § 99, at the end.

767. Definition. Lust is the inordinate appetite or use of venereal pleasure (III, 412). It is said: inordinate, i.e. outside matrimony and its laws.

Venereal pleasure (libidinous, lustful, carnal) is that which arises (in each sex) from the movement of fluids serving generation and is felt in the genital parts. It differs specifically from sensitive pleasure (natural, sensible), which is had from the conformity of a sensible object with the sense, for example from the contact of a smooth thing (III, 415; Vind. Alph., P. III, q. 13, a. 1).

Sensitive pleasure can be perceived: a) From the sight or embrace of him whom you pursue with tender but honorable love, insofar as that love (which resides in the will) overflows into the sensitive appetite and becomes a cause of movement in the heart and blood. It is called spiritual-sensitive, and if honorable ends are preserved, such pleasure is not to be condemned. b) From an object not of itself apt to move lust (although by accident it sometimes arises), as from hearing music; then by some it is called purely sensitive. c) From a carnal object, but not a shameful one, of itself apt to move lust (although by accident it does not move to it), as from the touch or kiss of a woman's hand; then it is called sensual. Cf. Sporer, Theol. mor., P. IV, n. 680; Ballerini-Palmieri, de 6 Praec., n. 70; Noldin, n. 7.

Immodesty is a vice, repugnant to human shame, in the use of venereal things and of things ordered to them: for example in carnal copulation, and in looks, touches, kisses, embraces, and other things ordered to it. Akin to these is lasciviousness, which is an indecent motion of the body, proceeding from dissolution of the soul.

Immodesty, of itself, differs from lust, because it is not necessarily joined with venereal pleasure; yet it easily leads to this, and on account of the proximate danger of this sort it is ordinarily gravely evil, and therefore, in practice, sins of immodesty are scarcely distinguished from sins of imperfect lust, or of lust indirectly willed (cf. n. 769).

Division. Lust is divided in several ways:

1. By reason of the intended end, one kind is directly willed, namely when pleasure is intended in itself by deliberate plan; another is indirectly willed, when something else is intended, from which pleasure arises. 2. By reason of the effect that follows, one is consummated (or perfect), in which effusion of semen or fluid intervenes; another is unconsummated (or imperfect), in which that terminus of venereal things does not intervene. Both differ specifically among themselves (cf. n. 791, 792). 3. By reason of the act, one is internal, another external.

Lust is subdivided, by reason of circumstances, into various species, as will be explained below n. 771 ff.

Causes of lust. The occasions and causes that lead man to acts of lust are innumerable: a) External causes are given, such as: bad examples, idleness, imprudent questions (sometimes in the sacred tribunal), solitude, certain times of the year, dances, visits of lovers, etc. Cf. n. 824. b) Internal causes are given, namely those that are observed in the subject: not having care of the genitals, sitting for a long time, lying supine in bed, wearing garments too tight, using exciting foods or narcotic substances, etc. All these things either irritate the genital parts, or first bring congestions in the spinal marrow.

Certain diseases are to be numbered among internal causes, especially those that affect the nervous system or the spinal marrow. The more important are: pulmonary phthisis, arthritis, chlorosis, neurosis of the genitals, epilepsy, progressive paralysis of the demented, and especially hysteria. Therefore it is no wonder that there are many who labor under hypersexuality or sexual perversion, that is, who incline excessively to sexual things or to perverse things. There are those who do not feel pleasure unless they act cruelly against themselves (masochism) or against others (sadism). There are those who are insanely drawn to the unspeakable crimes of sodomy. Let the prudent confessor see to what Christian physician he should commend such penitents; because hygienic remedies contribute much to relieving them. Let him also remember that among these, imputability is often diminished, indeed sometimes taken away. Cf. Antonelli, II, n. 160, where all things are given copiously.

768. Principles. I. Lust directly willed is a grave sin from its whole genus. It is said: 1. It is a grave sin; the reason is taken from the frustration of the natural end of this pleasure. For it is a grave sin, or grave inordination, to usurp for a merely private good the highest pleasure that nature constituted and ordered to the common good, namely the conservation and propagation of the human race. But lust directly willed does this. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 153, a. 3.

It is confirmed from the reason of the common good. That indeed is gravely illicit which, unless it were prohibited, would yield to the grave harm of the whole man, indeed also of the human race. But if venereal pleasure were licit outside matrimony, man without restraint, with the greatest detriment of himself, would give himself to it; because it is proper to carnal pleasure to corrupt the whole rational nature, and indeed in each sex. For we are much affected by those things in which we take pleasure; and therefore reason is either entirely taken away, or greatly weakened concerning other things, in him who hands himself over to pleasures of this sort. Add that the body itself is weakened by lust and a mass of diseases is frequently generated. There accedes a most grave argument from the harm that would come to the human race itself; for men would care little about entering marriage and generating offspring, if pleasure were licit without such a burden. Finally it is evident from the Apostle declaring the lustful to be excluded from the kingdom of God (Gal., 5, 19).

2. From its whole genus; so that every venereal pleasure, even light, taken with full advertence and consent, outside matrimony, is a mortal sin. The reason is that any carnal pleasure, even light, on account of man's highest propensity to venereal things, either implies the aforesaid inordination, or exposes man to a proximate danger of progressing even to complete and certainly grave pleasure. But that which generates danger of gravely sinning, even if in itself it were venial, becomes grave by reason of the danger joined to it (Billuart, de Temper., D. V, a. 2).

Therefore the natural law prohibiting directly willed lust is as it were the law of the Creator of the human race, founded on the presumption of common danger, or on the presumption of law. Cf. the things said on the obligation of a law of this kind, n. 191-192.

It is confirmed from proposition 40, condemned by Alexander VII, with which, as Viva says, the contrary opinion can scarcely be reconciled: "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible pleasure, which arises from the kiss, with danger of further consent and pollution excluded, is only venial" (III, 415; H. Ap., IX, 2).

769. II. Lust indirectly willed (and likewise immodesty) admits smallness of matter, i.e. it is reputed grave or light according as the act from which carnal pleasure is foreseen as about to follow influences it, by its force and nature, either proximately and gravely, or only remotely and lightly. The reason is that the evil effect, which follows from an action beyond the intention, must be held evil to that degree to which the cause itself was evil. Recall the things said concerning the indirect voluntary (n. 313-315).

Corollaries. To know the gravity of indirect lust, one must attend to the end on account of which acts are exercised, and besides to the danger that they bring. Acts can, outside matrimony, be exercised from a fourfold end: 1. from the intention of venereal pleasure; 2. from the intention of sensible pleasure; 3. from levity of soul, petulance, and curiosity; 4. from necessity, or from some other just cause.

a) If the aforesaid acts are exercised on account of carnal pleasure, they are mortal sins, even if they are not in themselves greatly dishonorable. Reason: because the intended end is gravely evil; from which end the act of immodesty falls back into lust directly willed. Hence, to touch the hand of a woman on account of carnal pleasure is a mortal sin (III, 415).

b) If they are exercised, with venereal affection excluded, from the sole intention of sensible pleasure, several authors indeed deny that they exceed venial fault; because, they say, it is not more inordinate to take pleasure from the contact of a woman's hand than from the contact of a smooth thing, for example a rose, a silk cloth, and the like. - But, with attention given to the circumstances of manner and time, this opinion, especially if the touches are done with full advertence and consent, is not practically probable,¹ since studiously to seek that pleasure, for the most part, on account of our corrupted nature, carries with it the danger of falling into and consenting to carnal pleasure, especially in persons apt for copulation and especially if those acts are had with some affection and delay.

c) If they are exercised from levity, jest, curiosity, they are not, of themselves, except venial sins; provided they are not in themselves very dishonorable, nor are done with delay and proximate danger of lust, or with the scandal of others, as would be the case if they were done by ecclesiastics (III, 418). - The same must be said if the acts are done from irritation of the nerves.

d) If they are exercised on account of necessity or a just cause, for example touches by a surgeon for healing, they are not sins, even if venereal pleasure arises: provided the will turns away from it and the danger of consenting to it is absent.² This is evident from the things said concerning the indirect voluntary (n. 315).

Note. The danger of indirect lust can arise not only from acts that of themselves hold themselves in the matter of lust (touches, looks, etc.), but also from acts that wander outside the matter of lust, and only by accident influence lust, for example from drunkenness, from the sight of the killing of animals, etc. - Each kind of actions can have proximate or remote influence. See what is to be said n. 795, where at length.

770. It is asked. Whether invincible ignorance can be given concerning sins of lust?

Resp. With experience as witness, it can be given concerning the grave malice of certain sins of lust, whether non-consummated, or even consummated: 1. in adolescents, for a short time, especially when deep silence has been preserved before them about these matters; 2. in the uneducated (indeed perhaps also in others for a short time), when a special circumstance apparently rendering the act honorable intervenes. Thus, for example, there can be ignorance of the grave malice of dishonorable kisses or touches between betrothed persons, of the malice of internal acts, of the malice of onanism among spouses who are already burdened by numerous offspring. Cf. the things said n. 125; Gopfert, II, 320.

Let the confessor beware lest he admonish penitents accustomed to a vice, whose gravity indeed they know, but whose special malice they are ignorant of, concerning this special malice. For such an admonition seems to be of little profit, and from it formal sins would be multiplied. Otherwise one must speak if the penitent thinks that some lustful act that he exercises is not a sin, or is not mortal; because amendment of frequently committed lust will scarcely be possible thereafter, and ignorance, in such a case, cannot be anything except exceedingly harmful to the penitent (Praxis, n. 39; Scavini, I, 391).

St. Thomas, 1.2, q. 73; 2.2, q. 153, 154; de Malo, q. 29, a. 7; St. Alphonsus, III, 432; ed. G., I, p. 677; Sanchez, l. 9, disp. 17, n. 16; Van Roey, Quaest. de 6 praec.; and finally the authors already cited.

771. Sins of consummated lust are of two kinds. Some are according to nature, in the sense that in these are preserved the things that the nature of an act apt for man's generation postulates, namely identity of species, diversity of sex, and natural congress. Others are against nature, in which, namely, the conditions necessary for generation are not preserved.¹ Hence a twofold article.

Sins of consummated lust according to nature are: fornication, stuprum, raptus, adultery, incest, sacrilege. These sins differ specifically among themselves, not indeed by reason of lust, but on account of the special malice that (fornication excepted) is added to each one, namely from opposition to other virtues, especially justice and religion.

772. Definition. Fornication, in the broad sense, is sometimes called every illicit concubitus. In the strict sense, it is defined: Concubitus of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, by mutual consent (III, 432; H. Ap., IX, 11).

It is said: 1. Concubitus, namely such as is required for generation, so that it may be distinguished from sins against nature; hence copulation of a castrated man with an unmarried woman is not fornication. 2. Of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, one who is free from vow, marriage, religion, etc.; for from these a new species would be added to the sin. 3. By mutual consent, to exclude violence, because otherwise it would be stuprum.

773. Principle. Fornication can never be excused from grave sin. It is established: 1. From Sacred Scripture (Eph., 5, 5): Every fornicator or unclean person ... does not have inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. 2. From reason: fornication is directly intended lust, because of itself it provokes carnal pleasure. Besides, the end assigned by God to congress is not generation alone, but also good education of offspring. But offspring conceived from fornication ordinarily cannot be well educated. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 154, a. 2.

"Therefore fornication, from the right of nature, is always intrinsically evil, although sometimes by accident offspring would be well educated by the fornicator. The reason is, both because in this, on account of the great danger of hallucination because of excessive pleasure, one can most easily err; and because nature considers the things that commonly happen, not those that happen by accident; and because of itself it is against the right of nature to subject reason to the flesh, as happens in fornication, on account of the pleasure of the act. But in matrimony, although the same pleasure intervenes, God nevertheless by special providence disposes that such disorder be absent" (III, 432; cf. I, 199). Hence, proposition 48 was deservedly 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." But whether fornication is forbidden from the primary principles of the natural law is not so clear.

774. Corollaries. 1. Fornication of betrothed persons does not assume a different species of sin. The reason is that "neither hands over to the other any right over his own body, so that he could not use it according to his own discretion without injury to the other" (H. Ap., IX, 13).

Yet if fornication introduced danger lest the betrothed man be compelled to support another's offspring, justice would be injured.

2. Concubinage and meretricious life are rightly referred to fornication, as to the same species. For more or less does not change the species. Yet sometimes, especially in meretricious life, other species can be added.

a) Concubinage, which is the keeping of a woman as if she were a wife, is defined (according to the sense of Canon Law): "Frequent fornication with the same person, with the mind of retaining her as enslaved to one's own lasciviousness, whether in the same house or otherwise." It is a greater sin than simple fornication, because it adds a vicious habit and has joined to itself a continuous purpose of sinning, at least virtual. - Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. 24, c. 8, de Ref.) established against concubinarii both excommunication of a sentence to be passed after a threefold warning, and the penalty of expulsion outside the town, or even outside the diocese, with the help of the secular arm implored: would that it still could be implored in every region! Hence also it is why, in many dioceses, concubinage is numbered among reserved cases. See as regards clerics, for whom particular penalties are prescribed, n. 2233.

b) Meretricious life is the state of a woman who lies open to the lust of many, whether for gain, or for lasciviousness. Hence, in order that someone can be called a prostitute, she ought to admit at least more than two. Meretricious life is either clandestine, or public, i.e. permitted by civil power under certain norms. It is a most grave sin, by reason of the disposition of soul, scandal, and harm to offspring, which rarely is born from meretricious life, and if sometimes it is born, is accustomed to be educated very badly.

775. Special question: On Prostitution. In our times also the question is sharply disputed: Whether prostitutes are to be permitted?

Resp. One opinion, and this probable, affirms with St. Augustine (de Ord., l. 2, c. 4, n. 12) and the Angelic Doctor (2.2, q. 10, a. 11). The sole reason is because in this way greater evils are impeded, namely acts of sodomy, adulteries, prevarication of honorable women, etc. "Take away," says St. Augustine, "prostitutes: you will disturb all things with lusts."² But the other opinion, which is practically more probable, denies. The reasons are: a) from such permission the way is not closed to the aforesaid evils; - b) because prostitutes can be approached easily, lust fixes deeper roots; c) other evils arise, namely: more girls are prostituted, adolescents reject honorable marriages, neglect studies, etc. Thus St. Alphonsus (III, 434). - In every case, as Venerable Januarius Sarnelli proves (op. de Abusu meretr., aggiunta, § 2), meretricious life cannot be permitted except in great cities, and this under certain conditions, for removing scandals. Cf. Noldin, n. 18, at the end.

Note. For practice, three things are to be noted: 1. The circumstance of concubinage or meretricious life is not indeed of itself to be manifested in confession, since it does not constitute a species; but it is to be manifested both by reason of the occasion to be removed, and especially by reason of the intention had from the beginning and embracing many sins in number. - 2. Neither concubinarii nor prostitutes can be absolved unless it has been plainly established concerning the removed occasion and amendment (III, 435). Say the same of procurers and procuresses, who, for the sake of gain, prostitute their own women or those of others (see n. 1822). - 3. Fornicators are to be asked by the confessor whether offspring has been born from fornication, or is about to be born; whether they have attempted to impede conception of offspring or procure abortion, or have neglected offspring born.

776. Definition. Stuprum, in the broader sense, is the violation or oppression of any woman, even a widow, or otherwise corrupted. In the stricter sense, as in canon law, it is "the deflowering of a virgin, she being unwilling." But a virgin is said to be deflowered when, for the first time, through the concubitus of a man, she is deprived of virginity or integrity of flesh. The malice of stuprum is found, although in an imperfect mode, in the shameful touching of an unwilling woman.

Principles. I. Stuprum, in each sense, has special malice. The reason is that besides fornication it contains grave injury, on account of violence brought in. This malice is increased (but more probably within the same species) when someone takes integrity away from a virgin: for this is reputed, and deservedly, as a good of the greatest price, by which virgins are especially honored, and are sought for suitable marriages. And hence it is why stuprum of a virgin is punished by special penalties in canon law (cf. Craisson, n. 6266).

777. II. Moral and interpretative violence suffices for the crime of stuprum. For commonly he is judged guilty of stuprum who has led a virgin into evil by fraud (for example by a false promise of marriage or of a great dowry) or by grave fear, even reverential fear; as also he who has dishonored a girl not yet having obtained perfect use of reason, or one drunk, foolish, or sleeping, without her previous consent.

778. Questions. Q. 1. What ought a woman oppressed by force to do, so that she may be immune from sin?

Resp. She cannot behave negatively or permissively, but is held to resist, both internally, lest she consent to pleasure, and externally, with at least ordinary resistance, namely by repelling force by force, so that thus she may report victory, and deserve to be crowned by God (cf. n. 736 and 755, end). See Salmant., tr. 25, c. 1, n. 29.

Q. 2. Whether she is also held to cry out?

Resp. Distinguish: Affirmatively (and even with manifest danger to life), if proximate danger of consent is imminent; for then extraordinary resistance also is necessary. But negatively, very probably, with such danger excluded (as can happen when there is question only of touches) with danger of notable harm, whether of infamy, or excessive shame. Yet the contrary opinion, as safer, is to be counseled; and it becomes plainly obligatory if the woman, on account of past experience, or on account of known frailty, is in special danger of afterward consenting to the consummated act (III, 368, 430).

Note. For practice, it is to be noted that cases of a woman oppressed, without her own fault, by reason of irreligiosity that always increases, the condition of labor in workshops, etc., in some regions, become more frequent day by day. Hence women are to be warned not to return home without a companion, and to show themselves strong and circumspect. "Besides, the natural timidity of women, and often confusion from an unforeseen case, can effect that a woman does not oppose a great and manly resistance, and nevertheless is immune at least from formal fault" (Berardi, Praxis, 266).

On restitution on account of stuprum, see n. 956 ff., in the treatise on the Seventh Precept.

779. Definition. Raptus (not insofar as it is an impediment of matrimony, but insofar as it is a species of lust) is defined: The violent abduction of a person, for the sake of satisfying lust.

It is said: abduction, i.e. carrying from a safe place to an unsafe one where liberty is taken away; violence, i.e. force brought in, whether physical or moral, either to the abducted person herself, or to those under whose power she is, namely parents or guardians or husband; of a person, female or male, whether married, virgin, etc.; for the sake of satisfying lust: hence, if someone is abducted for another end, for example so that she may be used for services, that raptus is a sin against justice, but is not a species of lust. - Similarly if a woman of full age or emancipated departs of her own accord with a lover, the parents being unaware, such departure is not properly raptus, but flight, nor in this case is a new species of malice added to fornication (III, 444).

780. Principles. I. Raptus is a grave sin against chastity and justice. Against chastity, on account of the lustful intention; against justice, on account of violence brought in either to the abducted person, or to those under whose power she is, or to both.

II. Raptus is a sin specifically distinct from stuprum. For the raptor unjustly takes away liberty, which is a good distinct from integrity of flesh. From this it follows that the circumstance of raptus must necessarily be disclosed in confession, although lust had not been satisfied, or although the abducted person finally had freely consented to the sin.

Note. In Canon Law (caus. 36, q. 1), raptus is called any violence brought against a woman for the cause of lust; and against such violence the same penalty is established, without the circumstance of abduction being mentioned. In this sense, therefore, stuprum does not differ from raptus according to species, but only as the inferior from the superior, so namely that every stuprum is raptus, but not vice versa.

781. Definition. Adultery is copulation had with a married person.

Therefore the perfect malice of adultery is present when, by concubitus, either one's own marriage-bed or another's, or both at once, is violated. But imperfect malice of adultery is had if this violation happens through imperfect acts, for example touches, or through actions by which a married person illicitly disposes of his own body or of the body of his wife (see below n. 782).

Division. Adultery is either simple, when an unmarried man sins with a married woman, or a married man with an unmarried woman; or double, when a married man sins with a married woman.

Principles. I. Adultery is a grave sin against chastity and a most grave sin against justice, even if consent of the spouse is present. It is established: 1. From Scripture (Deut., 22, 22): If a man has slept with the wife of another, let each die, that is, the adulterer and the adulteress; and you shall take away the evil from Israel. And (1 Cor., 6, 9): Neither adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God. 2. From reason: for adultery injures, in a most grave matter, the right of the other spouse, harms the good of offspring, hurts the family, often begets scandals and quarrels, and generates innumerable other evils, as daily experience teaches.

We said: even if consent of the spouse is present, because such cession is null, since the right over the body of the spouse belonging to each spouse is exclusively proper and entirely inalienable, from the divine institution of matrimony and from the very law of nature. Hence this 50th proposition was proscribed by Innocent XI: "Copulation with a married woman, the husband consenting, is not adultery." Cf. Viva on this proposition; see what we established above, n. 723.

782. II. Adultery of a married man with a married woman includes in itself a double injustice distinct in number. The reason is evident; for the rights of each marriage-bed are violated. Hence, such a circumstance is to be disclosed in confession (cf. n. 330).

From these things conclude: 1. Adultery of an unmarried man with a married woman is, speaking of itself, a graver sin than that of a married man with an unmarried woman. The reason is that, in the first

case, copulation either harms generation (which not rarely happens), and then the husband is unjustly deprived of offspring; or it introduces false heirs into the family, or at least often begets uncertainty of offspring (III, 445). 2. He who knows his own wife sodomitically or onanistically, or is voluntarily polluted, according to the common opinion, more probably commits adultery; because such a crime is against the good of the faith given, and an injury against the body of the spouse (III, 446; Sanchez, de Matrim., l. IX, disp. 18, n. 5; Lehmkuhl, I, 1049; Berardi, II, n. 816). 3. He who has relations with another's betrothed does not commit true adultery. Indeed, on the part of the betrothed woman, there is a promise of her body, but the completed handing over of the body is lacking, as we already said n. 774.

783. Definition. Incest is concubitus with a person joined by kinship or affinity, within the degrees in which it is not licit to enter matrimony. Moreover the malice of this sin is contracted not only by natural congress, but also by sins of lust against nature, or non-consummated sins.

Division. Since a threefold kinship is given, namely natural, spiritual, and legal, and since besides kinship affinity is also given, hence a fourfold incest is distinguished, namely: 1. incest with a blood relative up to the fourth degree; - 2. with an affine up to the fourth degree, if the affinity comes from licit copulation, and up to the second, if from illicit; 3. with a spiritual relative (which kinship arises from baptism or confirmation); - 4. with a legal relative (which kinship comes from adoption). Cf. n. 2015 ff.

784. Principles. I. Incest is a special sin, having most grave malice. For it is opposed both to chastity, and to piety and reverence owed to relatives and affines. Hence in Leviticus (20, 14 ff.) it is punished with the penalty of death; and Blessed Paul (1 Cor., 5, 1-5) gravely rebukes the incestuous man, handing him over to Satan, that he may be corrected.

785. II. Incests between spiritual and legal relatives differ in species both from one another, and from incest with blood relatives and affines; but incest between affines more probably does not differ in species from incest between blood relatives. The reason for the first is that the diverse kinships have their origin from formally diverse roots, namely: natural kinship from nature, spiritual kinship from a sacrament, legal kinship from law. Indeed, according to St. Thomas (2.2, q. 154, a. 9 and 10, ad 2), through copulation between spiritual relatives sacrilege is committed in the mode of incest. Hence this quality of incest is to be disclosed in confession. The reason for the second is that it is material whether the conjunction arises from blood or from marriage, since copulation with blood relatives and with affines is prohibited from the same motive of piety.

The opinion, indeed, that teaches these incests specifically to differ, is also probable; and the reason is that the conjunction of blood relatives arises from an intrinsic bond, i.e. from identity of the same blood received through generation; but the conjunction of affines draws its origin from an extrinsic bond, i.e. from copulation had with their blood relatives (III, 448-450; VI, 469). But in practice, this circumstance or distinction (for example, that someone sinned so many times with a sister-in-law, and so many times with his own sister) can be kept back before the confessor.

786. It is asked. Whether incests differ in species according to diversity of degrees?

Resp. 1. Incest between blood relatives of the direct line, in the first degree, differs in species from the others according to the common opinion of the Doctors; because this nearness of blood-relationship by natural law so dirimently impedes matrimony that the Church herself cannot dispense. Besides, incest committed in this degree injures piety of itself and properly, while, in other degrees, this happens only by participation.

Hence, in confession it is to be explained if a father has sinned with a daughter, or a son with his mother: which crime has a diverse malice by reason of the special reverence owed to a parent. In the same way, incest between a stepson and stepmother, and between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, differ in species from incest between other affines (VI, 469, 470; H. Ap., IX, 17; Lehmkuhl, I, 1050).

Note. Recent authors indeed call probable the contrary opinion, which denies that incest in the first degree, between blood relatives or affines of the direct line, differs in species from other degrees. Thus Noldin, Genicot, Ballerini, and among the ancients Sporer, Suarez, Tamburini. But our opinion (which among the ancients was more common) is defended by Lugo, Cajetan, Salmant., Roncaglia, and weighty reason supports it. Cf. n. 63, 2, and 65. - See Berardi, II, n. 830, who follows St. Alphonsus.

2. It is disputed whether incest between blood relatives, in the first degree of the transverse line, namely between brother and sister, differs in species from the others. Some probably affirm, because the Church, with the law of nature apparently resisting, never dispenses in this degree. Others probably deny, because the prohibition of the Church does not seem to import any difference, and matrimony between brothers and sisters, children of Adam, was licit (VI, 470; H. Ap., IX, 18; cf. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 154, a. 9, ad 3).

As regards the other degrees of blood-relationship, according to the more probable opinion, incest does not differ in species, just as neither does it as regards the diverse degrees of affinity and legal kinship. The reason is that among them matrimony is prohibited only by positive law (ibid.).

Hence, for practice, you will conclude: a) Outside the first degree in the direct line, whether of blood-relationship or of affinity, the circumstance of degree, although it notably aggravates the sin, is not necessarily to be confessed.

b) Relatives, having obtained a dispensation for matrimony, probably do not commit incest if they fornicate before matrimony. The reason is that the dispensation takes away the prohibition of matrimony; but where matrimony is not prohibited, there is no incest (III, 452; IV, 1140). Cf. n. 2052.

c) A confessor more probably does not commit incest by having relations with his female penitent, since between them no spiritual kinship exists. But a pastor sinning with his female parishioner sins against justice, since by force of his office he is held to feed his sheep by word and example (III, 451). Several say the same of a guardian toward a ward, and of all those to whom care of minors has been specially committed. More probably otherwise, if a master sins with a maidservant, or a believer with an unbeliever, although the sin is graver. Cf. Porpora, V, 285.

The rest, as regards penalties, etc., will be explained in the treatise on Matrimony.

787. Definition. Sacrilege (in the matter of lust) is violation of a sacred person, place, or thing, through a venereal act. It is a great sin (for holy things are to be treated holily), and contains a double malice, one against chastity, the other against religion, as is established from what was said n. 578.

Principles. I. Concerning a person, sacrilege is committed if someone sins lustfully while having a vow of chastity, or with one having it. Cf. n. 581.

Hence: 1. A priest sinning with a person consecrated to God is guilty of double sacrilege; because he injures religion in a double way. 2. More probably, a priest who is at once a religious, sinning against chastity, is guilty of only one sacrilege; because, although he remains bound to the vow of chastity by a double precept, nevertheless, because he sins against the same precept imposed twice from the same motive, he injures only one virtue of religion. 3. He who, bound by a vow of chastity, induces another to a sin of lust is guilty of sacrilege, at least if he induces from a positive affection toward lust, or with delay takes pleasure in another's carnal sin, or pollutes him with his hands, although without his own pleasure (III, 455-457; H. Ap., IX, 20).

788. II. Concerning a place, sacrilege is committed whenever an external lustful act is perpetrated in a sacred place. See n. 582.

Hence, voluntary pollution and fornication committed in a church are sacrilege; and so it is more probable, although the crime is hidden, and the church does not need reconciliation (as in notorious pollution or fornication). Likewise, according to the more probable and more common opinion, conjugal copulation which moral necessity does not excuse, such as danger of incontinence of the spouses, or their long confinement in a church; likewise more probably, gravely immodest acts, namely touches, kisses, obscene looks, as also obscene conversations; and the reason is because all these indecencies injure the reverence owed to a sacred place. But internal acts, such as desires and thoughts, are not sacrileges, unless they are concerned with sins to be committed externally, although hiddenly, in a sacred place (III, 458-462; Conf. dir., IX, 6, where useful things are given).

789. III. Concerning a thing, sacrilege is committed whenever there is abuse of a sacred thing for shameful things, for example solicitation in the confessional (cf. n. 583). - The same must be said of a priest who sins shamefully while vested for Mass, or while carrying the Eucharist, or after communion, as long as the sacred species remain (III, 463; H. Ap., IX, 23).

Sins of lust against nature are those most shameful acts in which the conditions necessary for human generation are not preserved. But from the things said above n. 763, it is established that four things are required for generation, namely, concubitus of two, of the same species, of diverse sex, in the due vessel; in the first of these pollution fails (to which onanism is referred); in the second bestiality; in the third perfect sodomy; in the fourth imperfect sodomy.

We shall treat of each one separately.

790. Definition. Pollution (or softness, masturbation, from disturbing by hand) is the effusion of human semen, without congress with another. Here by the name semen there is understood not only semen properly so called, such as the semen of a man, but also improperly so called, such as the semen of a woman or of boys or eunuchs, which ordinarily is not produced unless pleasure has reached its final terminus. Cf. n. 763, 3.

We already said (ibid., 6) what distinction is present between male pollution and distillation.

Division. Pollution can be: either voluntary in itself, or directly, as masturbation; or voluntary in the cause, or indirectly; or involuntary, which happens especially in sleep.

791. Principles. I. The sin of pollution essentially consists in this, that it is completed lust against nature; in other words, that it is "the complete use of the genital members outside concubitus." This is the common opinion among theologians and the much more probable opinion. For all agree in this: that pollution is a sin against nature; but the note must be designated by which it is diversified from other sins of lust, and this consists in this, that there is had effusion of semen without concubitus, and indeed perfectly satisfying of concupiscence, through acts that can no longer be ordered to procreation (Van Roey, Quaest. de 6 praec., p. 17). The same is established from the authority of theologians (cf. Eschbach, c. IV, where many things are given; Genicot, I, n. 396) and from the common doctrine concerning virginity.

792. II. Directly voluntary pollution is always a mortal sin; so that it is never licit directly to procure it. Theologians agree unanimously, so that "no Catholic appears who contradicts" (Cajet., 2.2, q. 154, a. 12). It is established: 1. From Scripture (1 Cor., 6, 10): Neither the soft shall possess the kingdom of God (likewise Rom., 1, 24 and Gen., 38, 9). 2. From reason: the primary reason, which avails as much for males as for females, boys, and eunuchs, is that (as we proved above n. 768) it is wicked directly to seek carnal pleasure outside the legitimate use of matrimony. But pollution is direct lust and carries with it the most vehement venereal pleasure. Therefore it is intrinsically evil. But this pleasure, because it satisfies the appetite and is physically complete (cf. the preceding number), differs in species from non-consummated pleasure, which can still be ordered to procreation; hence in confession it is to be distinctly accused (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1039, 3).

Another reason accedes, which up to the end of the sixteenth century was judged to avail for all, but today is judged valid chiefly for males, namely: pollution frustrates the end intended by nature, which ordered the effusion of semen, especially in the man, solely to the good of the human race, that is, to the generation of offspring. Finally it is confirmed from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI: "Softness is not prohibited by the right of nature; hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good" (III, 467, 476; cf. Sanchez, l. 9, disp. 17, n. 15).

793. III. All pollutions, according to themselves, are of the same species, in whatever mode they happen, if they happen without concubitus. Thus commonly, against certain authors who think that pollution in females is not of the same species as in males. Reason: in any pollution there is had the same special note that we indicated in the first principle.

We say according to themselves: because by reason of circumstances other malices distinct in species can be joined. These circumstances are taken: 1. from the part of the subject, for instance if one having a vow of chastity is polluted, sacrilege is added; if married, adultery; 2. from the part of the object imagined or desired: thus pollution has joined to itself the species of fornication, adultery, etc., if it happens with the desire of sinning with a girl, married woman, etc., or with pleasure concerning concubitus with such a person; 3. from the part of the accomplice: if someone is polluted by another's touches, he sins both by reason of his own sin and by reason of the other's sin, i.e. by reason of scandal, seduction, or cooperation. Hence, if the accomplice was a married person, or bound by a vow of chastity, or a blood relative, this circumstance also is to be disclosed in confession; but not, according to the more probable opinion, whether it was a man or a woman; because when concubitus is not had, there is not of itself affection toward sex, but toward pollution (III, 416); 4. from the part of place or thing, for instance if a sacred thing is taken or pollution happens in a sacred place (cf. n. 788, 789).

From these things you will gather: 1. Not even for conserving life will it be licit directly to procure pollution for oneself; likewise it is not licit by touch, posture, etc., voluntarily to promote pollution begun. Yet movements that arise from the muscles while involuntary emptying is standing are not counted among deliberate movements. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1042, note.

2. "No concern is to be had about the various modes applied to pollution. For whether a man uses imagination alone, or the sight of a shameful thing, or touches, or other means...; similarly whether a woman procures for herself the highest pleasure by compression of the thighs alone, or by handling of the clitoris, or by introduction of fingers or some instrument into the vulva,

whether penetrating more deeply, she solicits the very neck of the womb by more shameful itching, one crime is present in all these modes of acting, namely pollution" Lapellas, de Castit., P. 3, sect. 2, c. 1.

3. Similarly, he who is polluted by touching a sleeping person, or one incapable of deceit, or an animal, or an inanimate thing, provided affection toward sex or concubitus is absent, contracts only the malice of pollution.

Preliminary notes. - 1° To the generative powers both in the male and in the female this end has been appointed beforehand by the Creator of nature, that through the natural congress of each sex in legitimate Matrimony the human species may be propagated and preserved.

2° The delectation which accompanies the act of this power rightly concurs to that end to this extent, insofar as it allures men to a thing by no means a little burdensome in its consequences.

3° Man, by original sin, was chiefly wounded and disordered in the concupiscible appetite, especially as regards the genital power and the sense of touch.¹

482. Definition. Chastity (from chastising), broadly taken, is a general virtue inclining man to keep himself immune from every inordinate love and delectation of creatures; properly taken, it is a special virtue inclining man to restrain inordinate appetites and the use of venereal things according to the prescription of right reason.

Division. A threefold chastity is distinguished:

1° Conjugal, which, while it abstains from illicit pleasures of the flesh, uses licit ones according to right reason in Matrimony.

2° Widowly, which, Matrimony having been dissolved, abstains from every venereal delectation.

3° Virginal, which proposes to abstain perpetually from all delectations of this sort. - Virginity, according to St. Thomas,² is a special virtue, having itself toward chastity as magnificence toward liberality, because it conquers a special difficulty, and indeed the greatest one; and it consists: formally in the purpose of abstaining from every venereal pleasure; but materially in immunity from every experience of venereal delectation, and in a certain integrity of the flesh.³

Principles. I. - Conjugal chastity is good, widowly continence better, but virginal perfection best. - Thus Ven. Bede and all Catholics. - Hence St. Jerome¹ writes: "We assign the hundredfold fruit to virgins, the sixtyfold to widows, the thirtyfold to chaste Matrimony." The reason is ready at hand from the definitions above.

Indeed it must be held by divine faith that the state of virginity and celibacy chosen for the sake of God is to be preferred to marriage. This is clear from the words of the Apostle,³ and from Trent:⁴ "If anyone says that the conjugal state is to be placed before the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in Matrimony, let him be anathema." - Reason supports this; since the use of matrimony makes man like the beasts, virginity like the angels. Hence St. Bernard: "Nuptials fill the earth; virginity, Paradise."

II. Decorum or spiritual beauty, although it is in every virtue, nevertheless most excellently belongs to chastity. Thus the common sense; and it is clear: 1° From Sacred Scripture: How beautiful is a chaste generation with brightness; for the memory of it is immortal, since it is known with God and with men.⁵ 2° By reason, for a virtue is the more beautiful as the vice opposed to it is the more base. But to chastity there is opposed what is most base and most indecent to man, namely carnal and brute pleasure. - Hence St. Alphonsus⁶ says with St. Cyprian: "virginity is the queen of virtues, the possession of all goods," and with St. Ephrem: "If you love this, you will prosper in all things from the Lord."

Note. - 1° Through rape altogether violent or through involuntary pollution, for example in sleep, neither the prerogative of virginity is taken away, nor the aureola lost. Hence St. Lucy to the tyrant: "if you command that I be violated unwillingly, chastity will be doubled for me unto a crown."

2° Those who have sinned against chastity in mind will be able, through penance, with the will of abstaining in the future resumed, to recover virginity and its aureola; not likewise those who, through an external libidinous act (or one of itself resolutive of semen), have voluntarily lost the incorruption of the flesh, and this more truly even if pollution does not follow by accident.¹

680. Preliminary note. There are two kinds of crimes which draw many men into hell: the concupiscence of the flesh and the covetousness of riches. Each of these crimes is forbidden by a twofold precept: the concupiscence of the flesh by the sixth and ninth; but the covetousness of things by the seventh and tenth precepts; while a vice of every other kind is prohibited by only one precept. Yet it is not lawful to deduce from this that the sins of lust and avarice are graver than all the others; for it is certain that some sins, for example, blasphemy, perjury, hatred, etc., are graver than they. Nevertheless, because men are more vehemently carried away by passion into these two vices, God therefore willed to deter men from this ruin by a twofold express precept. - The matter of the sixth and ninth precepts is extensive, filthy, and pestilential, raging to the destruction of bodies no less than of souls; it is more difficult to explain, not because it is difficult to show its repugnance to reason and the divine law, but because it is so sticky, so unspeakable, that discourse about it can scarcely be had without the tongue, mind, and ears being defiled. Therefore the Catechism of the Council of Trent wisely admonishes:¹³¹⁷ "In explaining this very matter, let the pastor be exceedingly cautious and prudent, and let him recall in veiled words the matter which demands moderation rather than copiousness of speech. For it is to be feared lest, while he endeavors to explain at length and too copiously the ways in which men depart from the prescription of this law, he may perhaps fall into discussion of those things from which matter for exciting lust rather than a means of restraining it is wont to issue." Would that several casuists, who rolled this pitch with their pen more than was just, had taken this most salutary admonition more to heart. The modesty implanted by nature condemns, execrates, and shudders at a great part of those questions which in certain authors are discussed broadly to the nausea of readers. A minute knowledge of all these things is not necessary for a confessor, because several foul circumstances added to lewd acts do not notably change the morality of the act. Some clear principles and certain practical rules plainly suffice for resolving all cases. Hence we endeavor to set forth briefly and clearly those things which are necessary to know concerning this filthy matter, inviting the reader to pray with us: Burn with the fire of the Holy Spirit our reins and our heart, O Lord, that we may serve Thee with a chaste body and please Thee with a clean heart, through Christ and the Blessed Virgin. Amen. - We divide the whole tract on lust into five sections: 1. on lust in general; 2. on internal sins; 3. on external non-consummated sins; 4. on external sins consummated according to nature; 5. on external sins consummated contrary to nature.

¹³¹⁷ Part III, c. 7, q. 1.

S. Th. II-II, q. 151 and 152.

994. Chastity (chastete; kuischheid) has affinity with the word castigare, to chastise; and therefore, in a general sense, it indicates the chastisement or repression of concupiscence according to right reason. For just as children, when they are chastised, are corrected, but if they are left to their own will, become worse; so concupiscences, which are likened to children, when they are restrained, are diminished, but if they are nourished by the consent of the will, are increased.

But in the strict and proper sense it concerns concupiscences which most need to be chastised and restrained by reason, insofar as they are more vehement and more oppressive of reason; but sexual pleasures of the flesh in the genital organ are the most vehement of all, and more oppressive of reason than the pleasures of foods, and therefore they more need to be chastised and restrained. Hence chastity is the virtue moderating the sexual appetite, or venereal pleasures, according to right reason, or the virtue restraining inordinate venereal pleasures, preserving in them the mode of reason from the motive of honesty.

Therefore it immediately and per se moderates the appetite of venereal pleasure. It regards the other senses mediately and accidentally, insofar as they concur in exciting venereal pleasure. Venereal pleasure is that which arises from a commotion or alteration of the lower part because of the motion of the organs serving generation, such as is perceived especially in pollution or copulation. It is called venereal because it is naturally ordered to promoting generation, over which mad and impious gentility made the goddess Venus preside (q. 151, a. 1 and 2).

Sometimes, however, chastity is taken improperly and metaphorically for the moderation of pleasure in the conjunction of the mind to certain things, insofar as the mind ought to be joined to that to which it ought to be joined, for example, to God, and abstains from delighting in things to which it ought not be joined, for example, creatures apart from God. Thus understood, chastity designates a general virtue and is every virtue withdrawing the mind from illicit things; principally, however, it is in charity and in the other theological virtues by which we are immediately joined to God, just as, on the contrary, spiritual fornication is to leave God for the sake of creatures.

995. Chastity is a virtue. - For it renders man perfect: it preserves the good of reason, which is most difficult to preserve against the most vehement passions and pleasures, namely the concupiscences and pleasures of the sexual flesh. It is one virtue, because it has one object: venereal pleasures to be moderated by reason. It is a special virtue distinct from abstinence. For where there is pleasure of a different species and a special impediment of reason, there it is necessary that there be a special virtue for moderating and removing it. Venereal pleasures, which tend toward the conservation of the human species, differ in species from all others, especially from the pleasure of foods, which is ordered to the conservation of the individual; besides, they constitute a special impediment of the use of reason, because they are the most vehement of all, and oppress reason more than the pleasures of intoxicating drink, since drink, not its pleasure, oppresses reason. Therefore chastity is a special virtue (a. 3).

996. The proximate matter of chastity is the interior motions of the appetite concerning venereal things; its remote matter is external acts, namely copulation, kisses, touches, pollution, and carnal motions or excitation of the genital organ with pleasure. The office of chastity is to compress or compose each according to right reason: to restrain venereal desires and pleasures, lest we use them more than right reason dictates.

997. Modesty (pudicite; schaamachtigheid) is named from shame, which a man conceives concerning those things which do not fall under reason and in which bashfulness is signified; and therefore it concerns those things of which man is most ashamed. But this is concerning venereal things, and especially concerning the pleasures surrounding venereal things and concerning the signs of venereal things, of which man is most ashamed before others; for shame is more occasioned by the signs of venereal things, which usually are more detected. Hence modesty concerns venereal things, especially the exterior signs of venereal things, such as immodest looks, kisses, touches, etc., while chastity is more concerned with carnal intercourse itself. Hence modesty expresses a special circumstance of chastity (a. 4), insofar as luxury especially brings shame, both because of the disobedience of the genital members, and because reason is especially absorbed by venereal things.

Yet each is the same virtue, because they regard the same matter: venereal things or signs of venereal things, and from the same motive of special honesty shining forth in the moderation of these.

998. Various grades of chastity. - Chastity in some moderates, in others excludes venereal pleasure, by reason of the diverse state. Hence it is usually distinguished as:

1. Juvenile, which abstains from every venereal pleasure until the time of nuptials.

2. Conjugal, which moderates the appetite of sexual pleasure in spouses and excludes whatever is illicit in the use of marriage.

3. Widowed, which after marriage has been dissolved abstains from every carnal pleasure, whether in perpetuity or until other nuptials.

By reason of the mode in which it is preserved, it is distinguished as imperfect, which abstains only from illicit pleasures of the flesh; and perfect, which abstains from all pleasures, even those licit in marriage.

999. Virginity (maagdelijkheid) is named from freshness, because it implies immunity from corruption or from the burning of concupiscence concerning venereal pleasures; and it differs from chastity, because it abstains not only from illicit pleasures but from all venereal pleasures, and therefore proposes to preserve juvenile chastity perpetually (q. 152, a. 1). Hence:

1. It is a virtue, because it implies a firm purpose of the will of abstaining from all venereal pleasures, both illicit and licit, in a subject never corrupted by lust. But to do this for the good of the soul, so that it may more freely attend to the contemplation of truth and to divine things, is virtuous, because according to right reason it is to renounce lower goods for the sake of higher ones (a. 2); which also we know from the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7:34, and from Christ, Mt. 19:11-12.

Indeed, it is more excellent than marriage, as the Apostle says, 1 Cor. 7:34, and as the Council of Trent defined, sess. 24, can. 10, because it is ordered to the good of the soul, indeed according to the contemplative life, which is to think on the things which are of God; while marriage is ordered to the good of the body, which is the multiplication of the human race, and pertains to the active life, by which a man and woman living in marriage must think on the things which are of the world, as the Apostle says. But the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and the good of the contemplative life to the good of the active life, as the divine good is preferable to the human good (a. 4).

2. It is a special virtue, distinct from common chastity, because it has a special excellence, since it preserves one immune not only from inordination but from every experience of venereal pleasure (a. 3).

And although it is most excellent in the genus of chastity, nevertheless it is not the greatest of virtues; for the theological virtues and religion, which are occupied about divine things and are the end of virginity, are preferable; likewise fortitude in martyrs, who renounce their own life, and obedience in monks, who renounce their own will, while virgins renounce only venereal pleasure (a. 5).

3. It differs from perfect chastity in that it is joined to integrity of the flesh, while perfect chastity can also be preserved by one who previously has already been corrupted by lust. Hence two things are required for virginity understood in the perfect sense:

a) the material element, namely integrity of the flesh, which consists in voluntary immunity from complete carnal pleasure and from corruption of the flesh;

b) the formal element, namely the purpose of the will of preserving chastity perpetually, without which purpose the virtue cannot be had (a. 1).

Virginity understood in the moral sense must not be confused with virginity in a quasi-physical sense. For thus it signifies only integrity of the flesh or of the genital organ, which is lost in men by voluntary pollution which is apt to provoke the effusion of seed, and in women by voluntary breaking of the virginal enclosure or seal of virginity, which happens through carnal copulation with a man or through another touch. Thus virginity is not a virtue but a good of nature given to all from birth; and in this physical sense a woman who has never had copulation, although she has sinned against chastity by solitary internal and external acts, is called a virgin, as also she who, while preserving integrity of the flesh, intends to pass to nuptials.

Corruption, however, can be threefold: a) bodily only, that is, involuntary breaking of the seal of virginity or involuntary release of seed; b) corruption of the mind alone, that is, consent to a venereal thing without the work, whether it happens by incomplete venereal pleasure or by revocation of the purpose of abstaining perpetually from pleasure; c) both at once, namely voluntary complete pleasure, or voluntary or lustful breaking of the seal of virginity. In the third case the virtue of virginity is lost irreparably; in the second, reparably; in the first, in no way.

You shall not commit adultery. - You shall not desire his wife (that is, your neighbor's). - Exod. xx, 14

The Sixth Precept of the Decalogue prohibits any external lust, that is, lust perpetrated by deed. - But the Ninth Precept prohibits even merely internal lust, namely impure thoughts and desires.

For the understanding of those things which follow, these things are to be noted beforehand:

I. Lust is the disordered appetite of a venereal thing, and consists in venereal pleasure voluntarily admitted outside marriage. But venereal pleasure is pleasure arising from the stirring of the spirits serving generation, and occurs around the genitals. Therefore it is not to be confused with merely sensible pleasure, which arises from the proportion of a sensible object to some sense, e.g., of a visible object to sight, of an audible object to hearing, etc. The first, many theologians call also carnal, and the other natural.

II. There are various species of lust, according as its objects are diverse. Thus impure touches and gazes differ in species; solitary acts and acts exercised with others; consummated and non-consummated acts; likewise acts consummated according to nature and acts consummated against nature. But these species contain under themselves other subordinated or inferior species also, as will be clear from what is to be said.

III. One lust is directly sought, another indirectly. The former is had when carnal pleasure is intended precisely in itself; but the latter when something else is intended, from which carnal pleasure arises beyond the intention, as happens in less chaste gazes or readings had from curiosity or some other end. These things having been noted beforehand:

I say 1st. Every venereal pleasure, if it is directly voluntary, does not admit smallness of matter, and accordingly, however slight it may be, it will always be a mortal sin. The reason is that venereal pleasure is a certain begun emission of semen, or a natural and necessary motion toward it: but emission of semen, if it is sought outside the legitimate use of marriage, is a grave disturbance of the essential order, since from its own nature it tends to the destruction of the human race. Therefore. I said if it is directly voluntary, for all concede that smallness of matter can be given in venereal pleasure only indirectly willed, and the reason is evident; for the whole malice of this kind of pleasure must be taken from the cause; but that there can be a cause slightly base, e.g., curious reading of some less chaste book, no one has ever denied. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 415 and 484. - Viva, on prop. 40 condemned by Alexander VII. Baller., note (a), p. 396.

I say 2nd. Pleasure which is called sensible or natural of itself lacks every fault. For that pleasure properly consists in this, that the touch or sight of one's own body or another's pleases on account of proportion and connaturality with the organ of touch or sight, without any stirring of the genital spirits; not otherwise than if sometimes a soft thing were touched, e.g., a cat, silk, etc., or a beautiful thing were looked at, e.g., a horse, a meadow, and other things which naturally delight: but in touching or looking upon these things there is or can be no fault of itself. Therefore. I said of itself, for practically speaking there will always be some slight fault present, not only if those touches or gazes are done from curiosity, levity, or for the sole pleasure, according to those things which have been said elsewhere, but also on account of the danger of passing over to venereal pleasure. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 416. Viva, loc. cit. - Baller., note (a), p. 393.

Now one must treat of the sins of lust in particular, but only of external ones, because of internal ones enough has been said elsewhere.

Fornication, whether wandering, or of one with one, and this whether transitory or constant, is prohibited by the law of nature; and even if to this there is added an agreement for nourishing and educating offspring, the condition of the thing is not substantially changed.

I. In marriage copulation takes place between those mutually obligated. We have already proved that this is good. In fornication, on the contrary, copulation takes place between those of whom the one does not have power over the other, and who therefore are not obligated, but unbound. It is asked what the law of nature establishes concerning this.

In the thesis we distinguish three things. For fornication is, first, wandering, that is, access now to this woman, now to that one, or to this man and that one, as happens in prostitution; second, it is of one man to one woman and conversely, and that in two ways: for such conjunction either is transitory, or it is constant, and this is called by the special name concubinage (whether the concubine is kept at home or outside, it is all the same to theologians). Moreover, to concubinage, and indeed to simple fornication, there can be superadded an agreement for nourishing and educating offspring, if offspring should supervene; but intercourse can also take place and be repeated without such an agreement.

We say, first: that any fornication whatever is illicit by positive divine law is manifest, since it is both prohibited by divine law and is numbered by the Apostle among those sins which exclude from the Kingdom of God. But it has been called into doubt by some whether, by the law of nature at least, it is always illicit. There exists the proposition condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679: "It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice and is evil only because it is forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason."

II. Therefore we say, secondly, that fornication of any kind whatever (we now set aside the superadded agreement for nourishing and educating offspring) is opposed to the law of nature. The first argument can be sought from the common sense, not indeed of all men, but of men rightly using reason and having a more or less sound moral sense, such as Christians are. Now men of this sort abhor fornication not for this cause alone, that they know it has been prohibited by God, but because they regard it according to itself as indecent, dishonorable, pernicious, and contrary to the law of nature. A judgment of this sort, therefore, is indeed the judgment of reason healed by faith; but it is not a judgment which rests upon faith, which manifests the positive law of God, but rests upon the light of reason, which shows what is repugnant to nature. For a positive prohibition alone cannot be the reason why we flee from something as dishonorable in itself and repugnant to nature; for even something indifferent in itself can be prohibited. But the consensus of all who rightly use reason in those matters which are necessary for human and social life is a testimony of truth. Therefore.

Second argument. That is opposed to the law of nature which is repugnant to human nature itself. But human nature, at once sensitive and rational, requires this: that reason rule, and sense be subject to reason; and therefore those things are repugnant to the law of nature and are prohibited by it in which, the ordination of reason having been disregarded, sense alone dominates. But the ordination of reason is disregarded, indeed one goes against that very ordination of reason and sense alone dominates, when of some action or manner of acting there is no end of itself fitting to reason; indeed, when the end intended by nature of itself is excluded, and the end remains pleasure alone.

This, however, must be observed: that in order that a judgment be made concerning the natural honesty or dishonesty of some action, that must be considered which the action itself is of itself, or which belongs to it by reason of itself, not what is or can be accidentally, namely by reason of contingent circumstances or of the intention of the freely acting agent, unless through these it happens that the essence of the thing is changed, or that another moral essence succeeds. For the law of nature commands that which is good by its essence and prohibits that which is evil by its essence; therefore it looks at things or actions according to that which they are of themselves.

III. Let us now speak specifically of wandering fornication, that is, taken in its breadth so that it is the access of an unbound male to any unbound female whatever, and conversely of a female to any male whatever. Here a manifest disorder appears. For this conjunction has no end fitting to reason; indeed it is opposed to the end intended of itself by nature in the concubitus of man and woman. For the end of concubitus intended by nature itself (for those contracting can intend another end) is the procreation of offspring, but of offspring to be educated, so that man may exist in that mode which his own nature requires. But α) insofar as it is a woman who prostitutes herself to several men, procreation itself is impeded; β) insofar as it is a man who mingles with several women, or again a woman with men, the procreation of offspring intended by rational nature is not had; for offspring, which is a human being, must not only be begotten but nourished and educated by the parents. But fornicatory concubitus of itself lacks the due order to an end of this sort. For when two persons copulate fornicarily, their conjunction a) is transitory; from which it follows of itself that, from the very account of the act or union, provision is not made for the education of future offspring, and therefore this conjunction lacks the due order which it ought to have toward the end intended by nature; b) insofar as a man mingles with several women and the same women mingle with several men, certain offspring is not had, or this promiscuous use of itself brings in uncertainty of offspring; but that is wholly opposed to its due education. Besides, this fornicatory conjunction does not have as an end fitting to reason the mutual service and assistance of man and woman, or the family; indeed it excludes that very thing by the fact that it is a transitory copulation short of mutual obligation. It does not have as its end the repression of concupiscence; indeed it is altogether opposed to this end, because it indulges concupiscence at will. Nor d) can any other rational end, fitting of itself to this union, be devised. But the only end is the satisfaction of lust or of sensual pleasure; and wandering concubitus, insofar as it is such, of itself looks to this, that lust be satisfied. Therefore the intercourse of an unbound man with any unbound woman whatever, and conversely, is repugnant of itself to rational nature.

IV. But, secondly, is only this wandering concubitus with several persons repugnant to the law of nature, or also the concubitus of one with one, such as is also found in concubinage? Certainly it is; for if that which is of itself, not accidentally, is considered, in fornication even with one woman, the same disorder according to species appears in it as in manifold fornicatory intercourse. For it too is not ordered to the due education of offspring, but, this being excluded, to pleasure alone. For in the intercourse of man and woman, which by nature is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring, the conjunction of each must be such that of itself, or from the nature of the thing, there is certain mutual provision and care for offspring, and for that reason they obligate themselves mutually to common life. But in fornicatory intercourse there is of itself no such certainty of provision; rather of itself provision is altogether uncertain, because the mutual obligation of the man and the woman is excluded, which is the natural foundation of that certainty.

V. But what if to fornication or concubinage there is added an agreement for nourishing and educating offspring? Would satisfaction not thus be made to the exigency of nature? I do not think so. For, first, the first and second arguments which we gave under n. II would still have force; then, through an agreement of this sort, the condition of the thing, as regards the primary end of the work from the institution of nature (Thesis II, VI), is not substantially changed. Namely, the obligation of nourishing and educating offspring ought to inhere in the very conjunction of man and woman; for this is the end assigned by nature to the work toward which it tends. But that agreement is extrinsic to fornication or concubinage, and, no otherwise than other agreements entered into by choice, can be dissolved. Concubinage itself also can, indeed ought, to be dissolved at the will of those coming together; but once it has been dissolved, the observance of that superadded agreement will by that very fact totter. Therefore there is nothing which, in this hypothesis, makes the sustenance and education of offspring certain and secure. Certainly even fornicators and concubinarians are bound by the law of nature to nourish and educate offspring; but because nature demands this from all, therefore those coming together are bound to place themselves in that state which is suited to attaining this end. A state, I say; for there is question of a stable obligation. But such a state is not concubinage, which of itself is changeable and dissoluble at will; nor does the added agreement sufficiently contribute, since it does not change the essence of the conjunction, can be dissolved at the will of both, and, when concubinage ceases, is very probably in danger of ceasing. Therefore, before the intercourse of man and woman, there must precede the power of the one over the other and a mutual permanent obligation; in this thing the matrimonial union is situated.

And indeed the very law of nature dictates that common offspring is to be nourished and educated in common by its progenitors. Either, therefore, each seriously obligates himself or herself to this from the beginning, and by this very fact will obligate himself or herself to a stable mutual union, and there will be had, what nature requires, a matrimonial union; or each does not obligate himself or herself to this, and thus the observance of the law of nature will not be placed in safety.

Now if you notice at what time this canon was established, namely when divorces with dissolution of the bond were permitted by Imperial laws for many causes, you will understand that the sentence of the canon, expressed universally, that is, without any limitation, also and indeed principally regards the case in which a wife, for causes approved by earthly law, for example because of adultery, was cast out or dismissed. Already, that is, the Church uses her own right concerning marriage, with no regard had to civil laws.

Canon IX. A believing woman who has left a believing adulterous husband and marries another is to be prohibited from marrying. If she marries, she is not to receive communion before the one whom she left has first departed from this world, unless perhaps the necessity of illness compels it to be given.

Behold the doctrine concerning the indissolubility of the bond clearly proposed even in the cause of adultery. Directly, indeed, the matter concerns a wife dismissing an adulterous husband; but since it is established that husband and wife are equal in this matter by Christian right (cf. Thesis XIII, I), what the Fathers of Elvira affirm concerning the wife is to be received equally concerning the husband.

Canon XIV. Virgins (secular, not yet having experienced copula) who have not kept their virginity, if they have received the same men who violated them and have found them as husbands, because they violated nuptials alone, ought to be reconciled after a year, without penance (Ferd. Mend.: after the penance of one year). Or if they have known other men, because they have committed adultery, it pleased the council that they be admitted to communion after legitimate penance has been performed through the space of five years.

Canon XV. Because of the abundance of girls, Christian virgins are by no means to be given in marriage to Gentiles, lest an age swelling in its flower be dissolved in adultery of the soul.

Theodosius the Great forbade a Jew to marry a Christian woman, with the penalty of adultery proposed. Cod. Theod., book III, title 7, law 2.

Canon LXV. If the wife of any cleric has committed adultery, and her husband knows that she commits adultery and has not immediately cast her out, let him not receive communion even at the end.

Cf. Canon VIII of Neocaesarea below. The wife of a cleric who perseveres in the crime of adultery is to be cast out; for it is especially unbecoming for a cleric to live in the same house with an adulterous woman. The last words, "let him not receive communion even at the end," if regard is had to the grammatical construction, seem to refer to the cleric.

Canon LXX. If with the consent of the husband the wife has committed adultery, it pleased the council that communion is not to be given even at the end (F. 31: to them). But if he has left her (F. 31 adds: and they have been separated and have done penance worthily), let him receive communion after ten years (F. 31: let them receive).

The consent of the husband does not prevent the approach of a spouse to another from being adultery. An adulterous wife was to be dismissed, as Hermas had already warned, book II, commandment 4. Cf. the preceding Canon LXV.

Canon X. Concerning those who detect their wives in adultery, and the same are young believers and are prohibited (Petavius suggests that it should be read: are not prohibited, because of the ἀκολουθίαν of the discourse) from marrying, it pleased the council that, so far as can be, counsel be given to them that while their wives are living, though adulterous, they not take others.

Canon I. If a presbyter has married a wife, let him be deposed from order. But if he has fornicated or has perpetrated adultery, he ought to be expelled more fully and reduced to penance.

Canon VIII. If the wife of a certain layman constituted as such has committed adultery, and is evidently accused, such a man will not be able to come to the ministry of the clergy. But if she has committed adultery after ordination, it is fitting to dismiss her; but if he has lived with her, he will not be able to obtain the ministry committed to him.

Canon XVIII. Concerning fallen virgins, who have professed to the Lord a chaste life, and afterwards, overcome by the lusts of the flesh, make their covenants void, our fathers, since they accommodated themselves simply and gently to the weakness of those who fall, judged that these could be admitted after a year, judging about them according to the likeness of digamists. But indeed it seems to me, since by the gift of God the Church, progressing, becomes stronger, and now the order of virgins is multiplied, that the matter itself must be carefully considered, as it is manifest to one considering it, and the sentence of Scripture, which can be found from consequence. For widowhood is inferior to virginity; therefore also the offense of widows is far less than that of virgins. Let us therefore see what was written to Timothy by Paul, 1 Tim. V. 11-12. And so if a widow is subjected to a most grave judgment as one who has made void her faith in Christ, what must we think about a virgin, who is the spouse of Christ and a sacred vessel dedicated to the Lord? It is indeed a great sin even for a maidservant, giving herself to clandestine marriages, to fill the house with debaucheries and by a worse life to do injury to her owner; but it is far more grave for a spouse to become an adulteress and, bringing disgrace to her union with the spouse, to give herself to immodest pleasures. Therefore the widow indeed is condemned as a corrupted maidservant, but the virgin is subjected to the judgment of an adulteress. Therefore, just as we call him who is with another's wife an adulterer, not admitting him to communion before he has ceased from the sin, so certainly we shall also establish concerning him who has a virgin. But we must establish this in advance: that she is called a virgin who has offered herself of her own accord to the Lord, and has renounced nuptials, and has embraced the institute of sanctity. But we admit professions from that time at which age has had the completion of reason ... she who, being more than sixteen or seventeen years old, mistress of her own reasonings, after being examined for a long time and proved, has thereafter persevered and has constantly asked to be admitted, then at last is to be numbered among virgins, and her profession must be held ratified and the violation of it inexorably punished.

You have a clear definition of a professed virgin. Basil proposes his opinion concerning the fornication of these virgins, indicating sufficiently that it had not yet been received into use in the Greek Church. But that by the violation of the covenant, which he calls adultery, Basil also comprehends attempted marriage seems to me at least very probable from the universal formulas which he uses.

Canon XXI. If a man, dwelling with his wife, afterwards not content with marriage, has fallen into fornication, we judge him to be a fornicator and we prolong him further in the imposed penalties; but nevertheless we do not have a canon which subjects him to the crime of adultery (that is, punishing him with the penalty of an adulterer), if the sin has been committed with one free from marriage, because he who has fornicated is not excluded from dwelling with his wife. Wherefore the wife indeed will receive her husband returning from fornication; but the husband will cast the polluted woman out of his house. And indeed the reason of these things is not easy, but custom has thus prevailed.

Canon XXXI. She whose husband has departed and does not appear, dwelling together with another before she has been made more certain of his death, commits adultery.

Canon XLVIII. She who has been left by her husband, in my opinion indeed, ought to remain. For if the Lord said, "If anyone leaves his wife, except for the cause of fornication, he makes her commit adultery," from the fact that He calls her an adulteress, He has shut off for her union with another. For how could the man indeed be guilty as the cause of adultery, while the woman be without fault, she who has been called an adulteress by the Lord because of union with another?

Canon LX. She who, having professed virginity, has fallen from her purpose, will complete the time of the sin of adultery in the prescription of continence. The same also applies to those who have professed the monastic life and fall.

Canon LXXVII. He who leaves the woman legitimately coupled to him and marries another is subjected, according to the sentence of the Lord, to the judgment of adultery. But it has been established by the canons of our Fathers that they weep for one year, hear for two years, be prostrate for three years, in the seventh stand with the faithful, and thus be held worthy of the oblation, if with tears they have done penance.

Response. In this matter indeed adultery intervenes, nor do I find what I should answer concerning that matter; nevertheless, according to the spiritual sentence, he ought not.

The response, says Balsamon here, is that he can say nothing; for it is adultery if, the marriage standing, a man takes another woman as wife. But the question was whether the man could dissolve the prior marriage. Timothy responds that, according to the spiritual sentence, he ought not.

Decree I. If a virgin already veiled to Christ, who has professed integrity by public testimony and has received from the priest the veil of blessing after prayer has been poured forth, either has secretly committed incest or, wishing to protect the crime, has imposed the name of husband on the adulterer, taking the members of Christ and making them the members of a prostitute, so that she who had been the spouse of Christ would be called the spouse of a man, in a woman of this sort there are as many charges as there are causes of guilt: the purpose of integrity changed, the veil lost, the first faith depraved and rendered void. What sort and how great a satisfaction is needed here? How great the penance of her who has incurred the destruction of the flesh? ...

Decree II. A girl who has not yet been veiled, but had proposed to remain thus, although she has not been veiled in Christ, nevertheless because she has proposed it and has not been veiled in marriage (or: has been veiled?), the nuptials are called furtive (see the difference from the former case: there it is adultery, here only furtive nuptials), from the fact that she has not observed the precept of heavenly marriage, love hurrying on to the blindness of lust. And for these a time of doing penance must be established.

Canon CIV. If any widows, however much still placed in lesser years and left by a husband at mature age, have devoted themselves to the Lord and, having cast off lay clothing, have appeared in religious habit under the testimony of the bishop and the Church, but afterwards have passed over to secular nuptials, according to the Apostle they will have condemnation, because they have dared to make void the faith of chastity which they vowed to the Lord. Therefore let such persons remain without the communion of Christians, and let them not even communicate in banquets with Christians. For if adulterous wives are bound by guilt to their husbands, how much more will widows who have changed religious life be marked with the crime of adultery if by lustful pleasure they have corrupted the devotion which, of their own accord and not compelled, they offered to God, and have made a passage to second nuptials? And if they have been seized beforehand by someone with violence rushing in and afterwards by delight of the flesh and of lust have consented to remain in marriage with the abductor or violent man, they will be held liable to the condemnation comprehended above.

If religious widows who pass over to secular nuptials are judged adulteresses, it is evident what these Fathers thought concerning the value of marriage of this sort. Yet this canon, which is said to have been issued with Augustine present, does not sufficiently agree with his opinion. Cf. Thesis XXIX, III.

Decree XII. Those who have spiritually married Christ and have merited to be veiled by a priest, if afterwards they have either publicly married or have corrupted themselves secretly, are not to be admitted to doing penance unless the one to whom they had joined themselves has departed from this world. For if this reckoning is kept concerning all, that any woman who, while her husband is living, has married another, is held an adulteress, and the license of doing penance is not conceded to her unless one of them shall have died, how much more must that woman be held to this, who had before joined herself to an immortal spouse and afterwards migrated to human nuptials?

Decree IV. And this also was desired to be known: why men communicating with adulterous wives are not suited, when, on the contrary, wives seem to remain in the company of adulterous husbands. Concerning this, the Christian religion condemns adultery in each sex by equal reckoning. But women do not easily accuse their husbands of adultery, and hidden sins do not have punishment; but men have been accustomed more freely to report adulterous wives before priests. And therefore, their crime having been betrayed, communion is denied to women; but, the offense of men lying hidden, hardly anyone is kept away by suspicions. He indeed will be removed if his disgrace is uncovered.

Decree VI. Your love also inquired concerning those who, divorce intervening, have coupled themselves to another marriage. It is manifest that these are adulterers on each side. But those who, even while the wife is living, although the marriage seems to have been dissociated, have hastened to another union, cannot fail to be seen as adulterers, to such an extent that even those persons to whom such men have been joined seem themselves also to have committed adultery, according to that which we read in the Gospel: "He who has dismissed his wife and has married another commits adultery; likewise also he who has married one dismissed commits adultery."

Current teaching documents, such as those distributed by any number of episcopal conferences, would need some substantial revisions were they to incorporate the present position. The lack of any discussion at all about the marital debt is also a serious problem which cuts across many or even most national, diocesan, and parochial programs on marriage preparation, catechesis, and pastoral counseling; it is as if the moral obligation to give one’s body to one’s spouse upon reasonable request has been forgotten altogether.¹⁶² Finally, more directly addressing the issue of just motives for avoiding having children would also be helpful in these documents. ¹⁶² Of course, neglecting the dynamic of the marital debt leads to many problems within marriages, in which the debt is not always paid when it is due. However, presenting the concept of the marital debt to couples, including or even especially those couples who are relatively devout and have some interest in contemporary papal literature on marriage, poses the challenge of explaining how this is not “objectification.” Such people need to be helped to see that this is not only a right which is acquired through the marriage contract, but it is also a great help to one’s spouse, and the refusal of a serious and reasonable request can do immense damage to their relationship and to the soul of one’s spouse – for which reason to avoid paying the debt without a proportionately serious reason is sinful, even gravely, as all the classical authorities agree. On the other hand, the spouse should be free to point out that the debt is being abused, and that, while it is owed, it is in such-and-such a case sinful to ask for. Unfortunately, few contemporary voices which do address this topic do so with the subtlety required; a common mistake is the conflation of the use of the imperative mood (“do this”) with a strict appeal to one’s rights (“I command you to do this”).

Teaching couples about NFP on the parochial or diocesan level presents many challenges, and certainly it is difficult enough for many pastors and collaborators merely to make the case against contraception, let alone to make the case for the more rigorous doctrine espoused in the current text. However, there are many couples who, far from needing to be convinced about the evils of contraception, have the sense that something is not quite right with the principle of “free reign” to recreate sexually during infertile periods, just causes for avoiding pregnancy being taken for granted. These couples could easily see the need for self-restraint even within infertile periods to which recourse can legitimately be had for the sake of avoiding pregnancy. They would accept the suggestion that abstinence from relations for about a week each month does not suffice for a completely chaste relationship.¹⁶³ Many couples, it is true, struggle mightily to practice the popular doctrine on NFP and would be led to despair should it be suggested that self-control is necessary over and above what they are already practicing; other couples even less trained in virtue could be led to presume upon God’s mercy callously and deliberately commit many venial sins, creating a terrible spiritual disposition in them. Perhaps it is normally better to leave such couples undisturbed, given the greater harm which could come to them should they be led to fear the burden of virtue to such an extent that they give up on chastity, be led into presumption, or even give up on holiness altogether.¹⁶⁴ Confessors especially ought to avoid prying into this delicate topic in the hopes of correcting venial sin in this regard, not the least of all because the doctrine presented here is, while safe, not common opinion. Marriage preparation courses or retreats could be better forums to explore this topic with general and indirect language, i.e., “Sex is not something to do just for fun,” etc. ¹⁶³ Past disciplines popular in the Church prohibited the use of marriage on many days of the year – Sundays, certain feast days, Lent, Advent, Ember Days, and, of course, three days before receiving Holy Communion. This was formerly considered an appropriate set of boundaries in favor of prayer. ¹⁶⁴ This is in accord with the so-called “law of gradualism.” Scrupulous persons, on the other hand, should most certainly be advised in accord with prevailing doctrines on the perplexed conscience; no mention should be made that perhaps their motives for the habitual state of avoiding pregnancy or their actual requests for the marital debt are sinful unless it is extremely clear to the confessor or director.

Rhetorical strategies which use the language employed by St. John Paul II could be used to suggest that merely recreational sex, even if done for the sake of social or psychological goods, is actually detrimental to the relationship of the couple on account of a degradation of the meaning of human sexuality. It is to tell one’s spouse that in order to express one’s love for him or her, there has to be carnal union. While certainly this is one fitting and even important expression which can be virtuous, gratifying, and healthy for the relationship, rational expressions of love, whether by language or by willful perseverance and sacrifice in difficulty for the sake of one’s spouse, are objectively superior, insofar as these behaviors are specifically human activities, while sexual reproduction is something which animals and even mere plants can do.

And perhaps it is better in many cases, even in marriage preparation courses, hardly to touch the issue at all. Rather, it might be better to help engaged couples to see that children are a good thing – not mere burdens, not environmental or population threats, but also not a supped-up form of a household pet which one might have as part of a lifestyle. Putting the focus on the primary good of the sexual act is something which might effect more healing than is commonly suspected. We are designed to pursue the good before we avoid the bad.

Should a husband or wife find this rigorous doctrine on NFP convincing, that leaves us with the question of the other spouse: what if he or she is seeking to use periodic continence in a way one finds unchaste? It is not an easy conversation to have, and because of the uncertainty of the argument laid down here, one might lawfully decide not to have such a conversation at all and simply change one’s own behavior in this regard. This course of action – self-amendment without giving one’s spouse an explanation for a sudden behavioral change involving conjugal life – could be a wise decision, or a terrible mistake. I cannot possibly offer concrete advice about how to navigate the unique situations of all couples. What I can say is that adopting the change here proposed could be a good opportunity for a conversation among spouses about the meaning of their conjugal life, including especially the goodness of the children which they have perhaps had the grace to bear – or have the hope of bearing.

The question of “how much easing of concupiscence is reasonable in the context of NFP” has not been explored here at great length, as this is an individual matter and moves into psychological and biological science as much as (or more than) moral science – I will only suggest a review of the Church’s traditional exhortations and laws on the use of marriage on certain days to give an oblique indication of what might be a reasonable point of beginning to orient oneself around in this regard – that is, as a point of departure for self-examination.^{165 165} See the Roman Catechism’s treatment: “But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, trans. McHugh and Callan (1923), p. 355.

Those inclined to scrupulosity ought to follow the normal guidance for people in such a condition (such as strict adherence to the guidance of one’s confessor, presuming they are not sinning unless absolutely sure, etc.) and resign themselves to the fact that they are not perfect and may not be so for quite some time, though they can be with God’s help.

St. Thomas, if he were to be persuaded by the recent magisterial literature and/or the manuals which incline away from his position, whether by their intrinsic or extrinsic authority, would at a minimum certainly caution against the indiscriminate use of and counseling towards frequent recourse to infertile periods, especially as an anchor for a healthy sexual dynamic within marriage. He would instead insist on the virtues of religion, legal justice, and charity as normative poles by which to orient married couples’ understanding of their sexuality. Religion, as part of justice, is the normal way St. Thomas talks about the marital act being virtuous: it is an act of procreation for the sake of raising children in the Faith to worship God; the meaning of Holy Matrimony, as distinct from mere natural marriage, is to create saints who will love and worship God forever in Heaven. Legal justice has the common good as its object.¹⁶⁶ The desire to produce virtuous citizens is an especially important intention for the benefit the common good. Finally, charity inclines the couple toward loving in a special way the souls which God deigns to entrust to them as parents, in view of both the natural ends of society and the supernatural end of Heaven. Couples ought to wish to be benefacted by God in this way, thus being able to return a special kind of thanks to Him, although they are bound to exercise due care not to overburden themselves by having too many children and thus be unable to provide for them well as to natural or supernatural ends. Both the desire for and welcoming of children can thus be acts of charity, and so too is the stewardship over one’s family which takes into consideration the welfare of each actual and potential child. All of these considerations ought to form a substantial part of marriage preparation courses. Above all, couples preparing for marriage (or even those who have been married for some time) must be shaken out of the illusion that their marriage is about their own existential fulfillment apart from the plan of God; it is principally about fulfilling God’s designs, both for the human race in general, and for the eternal community in the next world. Conjugal activity and children are not to be treated as simply “part of a lifestyle,” as they are gifts from God which are supposed to be spiritually creative in their returns. Shirking the gift being offered through fertility in marriage is, we may say, a burying of one’s talents. (Mathew 25:24-30) ¹⁶⁶ ST II-II, q. 58, a. 6.

Married couples are meant to give their lives to each other, to their children (including in having them to begin with), to the Church, and to their community. For those who seek their lives will lose them, and those who lose their lives will gain them. (Matthew 10:39) Such a context paves the way for the presentation of NFP in general, and it even makes the rigorous model laid down in this text more palatable for those who are only beginning to become aware that the world, and perhaps even some clergy and moral theologians, have misled them about the meaning of chastity and its relationship to Holy Matrimony.

LUxury is defined by D. Bonaventure in the aforesaid Centiloquium sect. 24. and in the Diaeta tit. 1. cap. 9. and in the declaration of theological terms and in the Compendium of Theology, part III. cap. 21. and in the Mirror of the Soul, cap. 3. D. Thomas, quaest. 153. Luxury is the vice opposed to chastity, whereby the mind is inordinately disposed toward venereal pleasures, the reason of the definition is taken from the opposite virtue of chastity, as St. Bonaventure notes, loc. cit. Centil.

I assert that Luxury is a capital vice. Its daughters are eight, from D. Gregory, lib. XXXI. moral. cap. 17. Blindness of mind, Inconsiderateness, Inconstancy, Precipitancy, Self-love, Hatred of God, Affection for the present world, Horror, or despair of the world to come. So D. Bonaventure, loc. cit. Centiloquii.

It is proved, because a capital vice is one that has an end excessively desirable, so that man, in pursuing it, proceeds to commit many sins, which are all said to arise from that vice; now the end of Luxury is the pleasure of venery, which is both the greatest and the most desirable according to the sensitive appetite, both on account of the vehemence of the pleasure and on account of the connaturality of that pleasure and concupiscence, as the Saintly Doctor argues, lib. III. Compend. Theol. cap. 14. and 21. and in the other places cited.

The generation of these daughters from Luxury is explained as follows. Since the inferior powers are affected toward their objects, it follows that the higher powers are impeded and disordered in their acts; but through luxury the inferior appetite is greatly affected by the delightful object: Therefore the higher powers, Reason and Will, are consequently disordered.

And this happens specifically as follows: For there are three acts of practical reason. The first is simple understanding, which apprehends some end as good; and this act Luxury impedes, by making the object of Luxury seem good, as is said Dan. 13. Beauty hath deceived thee, and concupiscence hath subverted thy heart, and behold blindness of mind.

The second act is counsel about the means to be chosen, and this is impeded in Luxury, which impedes the exact comparison of the means with one another, as Terence says in the Eunuch; and behold precipitancy, whereby one attacks everything impetuously, as the Saintly Doctor says, loc. cit. Centiloquii.

The third act is judgment about what is to be done, which is impeded by Luxury, diverting the mind from the consideration of the things that are fitting, according to that text Dan. 13. They have perverted the sense, and turned away their eyes, that they might not see heaven, nor remember just judgments; and behold inconsiderateness, which refuses to foresee what is to be done, as the Saintly Doctor says. On the part of the will also there follows a twofold inordinate act: One in order to the end, and in this respect there is self-love in excessive pleasure, and hatred of God who forbids: The other is the appetite for the things that are toward the end, and there is set down affection for the present world, in which one desires to enjoy pleasure; and horror of the future, fleeing spiritual things. Hence Osee 4. Fornication, and wine, and drunkenness take away the heart. So discourses the Saintly Doctor, loc. cit. Centiloquii.

Nor yet does Isidore speak badly, cited by D. Thomas, art. 5., looking especially at inordinate speech, accustomed to arise from luxury, when he enumerates four effects, Turpiloquy, Scurrility, Jesting, and Foolish speaking. Indeed in speech a fourfold disorder can be observed: The first on the part of the matter; and behold turpiloquy, for, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, as is said Matth. 12. The second on the part of the cause; because luxury drives one headlong, therefore inconsiderateness precipitates one into scurrilous talk. The third on the part of the end, because the luxurious person intends pleasure, and therefore breaks out into jesting words. The fourth as regards the sense of the words, and so luxury, on account of the blindness of mind it causes, pours itself out into foolish speech. See D. Bonaventure, loc. cit.

I assert secondly that the species of Luxury are six, Fornication, Stuprum, Rape, Incest, Adultery, and the Vice against nature, which is subdivided into several species. For either the pollution causing venereal pleasure is procured without intercourse, and this is mollities (softness), Gal. 5. and 2. Cor. 12. Or there is intercourse with brutes, and this is Bestiality. Third, there can be intercourse with the sex not due, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle says, Rom. 1. and it is called Sodomy. The fourth and fifth is, if the manner of coupling is not observed, either as regards the instrument, or vessel not due, or as regards other monstrous and bestial manners of coupling, which, if they obstruct generation, are mortal sins even in spouses. Which the Apostle detests as abominable, Rom. 1. 1. Cor. 6. and 12. Galat. 5. Ephes. 5. and Heb. 12.

That these are sins specifically distinct is proved by Cajetan, art. 11. Tanner, disp. 3. quaest. 3. dub. 3. num. 149. from the diversity of motives, for they have different motives of pleasure: For the first have only venereal consummation; the second, a thing of another species; Sodomy, the person of the sex not due, etc.

But to say that the aforesaid five sins are not mortal, specifically distinct, nor so far to be necessarily declared in confession, as some recent authors have insinuated, is not only not safe, as Tannerus says, num. 149. but erroneous, and it was condemned in the year 1665 by the Sacred Congregation by the Decree of Alexander VII, of most holy memory, as we saw, tom. 4. disp. 17. quaest. 10. ad proposit. 14.

All these species are so intrinsically deadly that they are never lawful, except the manner of coupling in marriage from some necessity, provided the vessel be preserved and generation not be impeded, as Tannerus noted, num. 150.

For a threefold cause God forbade Luxury, as the Saintly Doctor says in the Diaeta, tit. 3. cap. 5. First, because it is pernicious, like a pestilence. Second, because it gathers many together at once in sin. Third, because it is the broad way to hell. See the Saintly Doctor. Add that Generation is the way to the production of a most noble creature, namely man created to the image of God; wherefore it will be impious to abuse it with foul and illicit couplings.

To these species are reduced, as dispositions, others contained in this verse, cited from D. Bonaventure, loc. cit. Centiloquii. The look, and speech, touch, and the kiss, This last is the consummation of the whole sin.

Note that the Seraphic Doctor, in the Confessional, cap. 2. particula 14., places grave fault in conjugal copulation. First, if it is done from the impulse of lust through wanton endearments: Second, when it is done against the natural use: Third, in the prohibited time: Fourth, in a filthy place: Fifth, when one approaches a menstruating woman. But of this, Tract. de matrimonio. The Saintly Doctor teaches these things from Allen, and warns that one must proceed cautiously in questioning in confession. These species are to be treated in the following dubitations.

I treated this question in my Disput. de Virtutibus Iustitiae adnexis, sect. 4. de Veritate, et Mendacio, quaest. 2. dubitatione 4. ad argumenta; where, with D. Bonaventure, I upheld the negative opinion, and there I laid down the rule for discerning when there is parvity of matter in sins. But again I find in the Compend. Theol. verit. lib. 3. cap. 28. that the Saintly Doctor openly upholds the negative opinion ex professo.

That parvity of matter exists in these matters was asserted by Sanchez de matrim. lib. 9. d. 46. Zanchus in the Directorium Confessariorum part. 1. de Sacram. matrim. cap. 41. quaest. 28. Salas, prima secundae d. 6. sect. 21. num. 149. Villalobos, tom. 2. tract. 40. dub. 9. See also Seraphinus Freitas in the addit. ad tract. de confess. sollic. quaest. 7. num. 33. Sanctius in select. d. 11. and Maldonatus says it is probable speculatively, p. 2. quaest. 74. art. 10.

Along with these go those who hold that touches and kisses, by reason of merely sensible delectation, without any other intrinsic circumstance, are not mortal. So Franciscus Sylvius, 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 4. and others cited by him. I add Comitoli, resp. moral. lib. 4. quaest. 20. Ioannes Salas, prima 2. quaest. 74. tract. 13. dub. 6. sect. 20. num. 139. Lessius, lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 8. num. 58. Lublinus, verb. osculum.

But as to touches and kisses, Diana dissents, and deservedly, part. 4. Tract. 4. Miscell. resol. 136. with Filliuccius, tom. 2. tract. 30. cap. 9. num. 119. Sanchez, in summa, tom. 2. lib. 5. cap. 6. Rebellus, p. 2. lib. 3. quaest. 19. sect. 3. wherefore the other opinion was condemned by Alexander VII, as we saw in the place cited below.

And that in general there is no parvity of matter in these things the Saintly Doctor teaches, loc. cit. whom followed Tanner, prima 2. d. 4. quaest. 8. num. 109. Castro Palao, in opere moral. tom. 1. tract. 2. d. 1. part. 10. §. 2. Basil Ponce, de matrim. lib. 10. cap. 16. §. 2. Lessius, lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 15. num. 109. Rebellus, loco supra citato, and Claudius Acquaviva, the Father General, in the year 1612 commanded this opinion to be taught in the Society of Jesus.

Therefore Sanchez in summa, tom. 2. lib. 5. cap. 6. asserts this, singing his palinode, and Diana warns that it must be asserted outright, part. 3. tract. 5. resol. 1.

The reason used by Rebellus, Diana, and others is that of D. Bonaventure here; for these things are induced by nature as dispositions to the act of generation, to inflame the flesh with the fire of pleasure in order to copulation and semination: Therefore it is an enormous perversion when they are employed toward pleasure amid dissolutions.

Another reason is brought forward by the Saintly Doctor, because this is the difference between the nutritive and the generative power; the latter is more material, more corrupt, and so rushes headlong, not so the nutritive; whence in gluttony it is more easily venial.

I confess that I tremble with my whole being when I see the danger there is in touches and kisses: Therefore I teach that this opinion must altogether be held. Nor does the Spanish Emphasis move me, whereby Villalobos cries out Los tocamientos leves paruidad de materia.

As to kisses, it was defined by Alexander VII that they are mortal; as is clear from the Decree of 18 March 1666. and as I proved, tom. 4. disp. 17. quaest. 10. sect. 37.

Fornication is defined by D. Bonaventure, in the aforesaid Coemilianum sect. 24. and 2. part. sect. 32. and sermon 6. on the ten commandments: it is the luxury by which an unmarried man knew an unmarried woman in the natural use. But he adds, loc. cit. de decem praeceptis, if one sins with a wandering prostitute, it is called meretricium, as with a woman not public it is called concubinage.

To fornicate is essentially to practice prostitution, and thus harlots were so called because they were formerly accustomed to place themselves in arcades and vaulted places, that they might ply their shameful trade, as Toletus testifies, lib. 5. cap. 10. Fagundez, in 6. Praecept. lib. 6. cap. 1. num. 2.

The Saintly Doctor observes, loc. cit. dub. praec. in the Compend. Theol. verit. that not only the deed is forbidden, but also the will with respect to the external deed, which the Saintly Doctor proves with Fagundez, num. 4. from that text Matth. 5. But I say to you: that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart: It is cited in cap. Qui viderit, 32. quaest. 5. and cap. Unum §. criminis 25. dist. and cap. Omnis de poenit. dist. 1. Whence it is not enough to say in confession that one has sinned by the sin of Luxury, but it is necessary to explain the condition of the persons sinning.

Fornication therefore is a sin intrinsically against the law of nature: It is certain of faith from the Clementina, Ad nostram de haeret. and it is had in 1. Cor. 6. Galat. 5. Ephes. 5. The same all the Fathers teach, and D. Thomas, 2. 2. quaest. 153. et 154.

It is proved by the Saintly Doctor on Psal. 72. from that text, Thou hast destroyed all them that fornicate from thee. and Heb. 13. God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

It is proved by reason, because, as the Saintly Doctor teaches in de decem praecep. serm. 6. and in the aforesaid Centil. sermon 24. and in the Diaeta tit. 1. cap. last and in the Compend. Theol. ver. lib. 3. cap. 21. and in 4. d. 33. quaest. 1. Fornication is a grave disorder of reason, as one approaches one not his own, he is precipitated into the agitation and depravation of the mind, as Solomon, and into the other enumerated evils, dub. 1. the soul is subjected to the vileness of the flesh, as the Jews to Pharaoh in mud and clay; it is against the end of the union of male and female; for since it is ordained not only to generating offspring but to educating it, the uncertain sons of fornication are left without a certain educator. See the Saintly Doctor, especially in 4. loc. cit.

THERE are those who think that the concubinage of a Christian with an infidel is not simple fornication; Diana subscribes to them, part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 138. But I do not see a specific change in this kind of case.

THERE are those who say that the fornicator is bound to withdraw himself before the emission of seed, even if it were outside the vessel, Sanchez, de matr. lib. 9. d. 19. num. 7. Lessius, lib. 4. cap. 3. d. 7. num. 55. Diana, part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 227. Bonacina, de matr. quaest. 4. punct. 10. n. 17. Bassaeus, V. fornicatio, num. 4.

THIS opinion displeases me, because that is a new sin against nature, graver than fornication.

THEY ANSWER, that it is beside the intention; in itself, indeed, it is a withdrawal from an evil act.

ON THE CONTRARY, because it implies that the natural emission, which necessarily follows, is not willed; for whoever wills something, wills also that which in itself necessarily follows it, as the Saintly Doctor often argues.

It is defined by D. Bonaventure p. p. Centil. sect. 24. and in Compend. Theol. verit. lib. 3. cap. 21: Stuprum is lust by which the incorruption of Virgins is violated, or they are deflowered. He defines it thus also in 4. dist. 41. dub. 4. littera, where he compares stuprum with adultery, and says adultery is the greater by reason of the injury, or injustice, inflicted on the spouse and on the Republic; nevertheless on the other side stuprum is graver, because it violates the virginal enclosure.

Some, however, define stuprum thus: It is the intercourse of a man by force with a Virgin woman.

Hence, when the Virgin consents spontaneously, they say it is not stuprum. So Peter Navarr. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 3. num. 433. Sotus in 4. dist. 18. quaest. 2. art. 4. Vasquez prima secunda, disp. 112. cap. 2. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 10. dub. 1. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 14. Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 4. Suarez de poenit. disp. 22. sect. 4. Coninch. disp. 7. num. 19. It is the more common opinion and seems to be gathered from the decretal of Gregory extra de adulteriis, apud D. Bonav., to be cited, where it is said: Falix deceived a certain Virgin by stuprum, but deception is equivalent to force, as I shall say in dub. 10. See Bass. V. stuprum.

The opposite opinion, however, is that even if she consents spontaneously, it is stuprum. So D. Bonaventure locis adductis, D. Thom. art. 4. Cajetan quaest. 154. art. 6. Henriquez lib. 2. de poenit. cap. 8. Filliucius tract. 3. in 6. praecepto, cap. 3. de stupro, Azor cap. 11. quaestio 5. Tolet. lib. 3. cap. 18. Rodriquez tom. 1. sum. cap. 28. Guttier. lib. 1. qq. can. cap. 37. Farinacius Tom. 4. quaest. 146. Graff. lib. 2. cap. 79. Bonacina de matrim. quaest. 4. puncto 17. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 6.

I. Hitherto of restitution in general: now restitution in particular is to be treated; and first of all restitution on account of voluntary homicide, in which two losses can be regarded. The first is the taking away of life or of members; the other is that which follows upon the privation of life or the mutilation of members. He who voluntarily snatches away another's life injures commutative justice — for the discourse is not now of mutilation or homicide which follows upon necessary defence. But life once snatched away, or a member cut off, cannot be rendered back. What therefore is to be done, that injured justice may be repaired? If the judge punish the slayer or mutilator, no other satisfaction is required: since the judge commands that all the losses which are to be repaired in justice be repaired. It is disputed therefore concerning what is to be restored by a slayer or mutilator not punished by a just judge.

II. QUESTION I. Is a slayer or mutilator bound to compensate a personal injury with goods of fortune? ANSWER. There is a twofold opinion. One denies that anything is to be restored on account of a personal injury, that is, on account of the mere taking away of life or the mutilation of a member. The other opinion, which is the more probable, affirms it. Because he who kills, mutilates, or injures another violates commutative justice. Therefore this justice ought to be repaired by that way which is possible. But although life or a cut-off member cannot be rendered back, it can nevertheless in some manner be compensated with goods of fortune. He who owes to restore a thousand, but can only a hundred, will he be free from the restitution of a part, because he cannot render the whole? As regards practice therefore, it is the confessor's part to hand down that a homicide or mutilator, besides the compensation both of ceasing gain and of emerging loss to be made to the heirs, should bestow something for the life or member taken away, should take care that sacrifices be offered and alms laid out, and should study to console and help with all his might the whole family of the slain or mutilated man.

III. QUESTION II. What losses ought a slayer to compensate? ANSWER. All the losses which follow from the killing or mutilation are to be made good. There are to be compensated the expenses of the cure, and all the gains which the slain or mutilated man could have obtained by his art, trade, or industry, when there are sons, or sisters, a wife, and other relations who suffer such losses from the killing or mutilation. But if there be no one who suffers loss, nothing is to be restored. Authors dispute how many years of life are to be reckoned in the slain man. To settle the matter in few words, all these things are to be subjected to the judgment of prudent men. Killings among nobles are wont to be made good by no compensation. If a homicide should pay the penalty of retaliation, the heirs would be liable to no restitution, because when the penalty of death is inflicted all things are reckoned remitted: so the common custom obtains. If anywhere an opposite reasonable usage prevail, it is to be observed.

IV. If one provoked to a fight kill the provoker with the moderation of a blameless defence, he is bound to restore nothing. But if he had gravely exceeded the limits of moderation, then he would owe to restore in proportion. If they have mutually provoked one another, nothing is to be restored, because each yielded his right. If one has provoked the other by casting up the mark of cowardice, the provoked slayer is not held to restitution, say many of the younger authors: because he could not refuse the duel without disgrace. This reason seems to me to fight with the Gospel. Wherefore to me the following opinion of Fr. Viva is false, unless all things deceive me, who in Vol. III, part 3, question 7, article 1, no. 2, says: “Although he sometimes sins by not fleeing against charity, if namely he could flee without loss of honour, yet he does not sin against justice. Therefore he is not held to restitution.” What? Does a Christian sin against charity when he cannot flee without loss of worldly honour, and yet not sin against justice? But who would not disapprove this doctrine? For he is bound to take to flight, while the way lies open, with the loss of that honour which is set in the opinion of a raving world.

V. QUESTION III. Whether from casual homicide there arises a debt of restitution? ANSWER. Titius wounded Sempronius with a wound by no means mortal: by the negligence of a surgeon or physician Sempronius dies. Titius is bound to compensate the losses which follow not upon the death but upon the wound. If nevertheless Sempronius die of the wound received because a surgeon is not found, Titius the wounder is bound to compensate the losses which follow the death. From homicide following by accident nothing is to be restored. A cleric exercises forbidden hunting, uses all diligence that he may avoid a homicide: if this follow, he is bound to restore nothing. If on the contrary the homicide followed from gravely culpable negligence, then all the losses would be to be restored.

VI. QUESTION IV. To whom is restitution of the losses which follow from homicide to be made? ANSWER. It is to be made to the heirs — not to the free heirs, but to the necessary. Brothers and blood-relations, though they succeed ab intestato, are not necessary heirs, and consequently to them no restitution is to be made. Wives, sons, and parents are necessary heirs, to whom restitution is to be made.

VII. Moralists disagree whether a homicide is bound to pay the debts of the slain man to his creditors. The more common opinion denies it, since no action is given to the creditors against the slayer or mutilator in the exterior forum, nor even in the interior. The circumstances nevertheless are to be regarded, and the counsels of wise men to be heard, when like cases occur, that in most grave delicts that which is just may be determined.

VIII. If a wounded lord be absolved, and before he dies remit, together with the injury done him, also the losses to be made good, the slayer is free from restitution. For the rest, although a wounded man be bound to remit every injury done him and to love his wounder, he is nevertheless not obliged to remit the losses thence emerging; nay, if his wife, sons, grandsons, or parents should be gravely in need, he would sin against charity if with so great a cost and detriment to his own he condoned the losses.

IX. QUESTION V. What ought a deflowerer of a maiden to restore? ANSWER. Authors commonly absolve a deflowerer from restitution when the maiden consented spontaneously, and is her own mistress. The civil laws appoint that a ravisher either endow or marry the maiden ravished, because they always presume that she was seduced by blandishments and fraud. And indeed in practice a ravisher is scarcely to be absolved except from marrying or endowing the maiden. The circumstances nevertheless are to be regarded. If the defloration be public, accomplished by threats or fraud, then not only is the stain of corrupted virginity to be compensated, but also the mark of infamy inflicted upon her parents. A deflowerer is not bound to give a whole dowry, but to increase the dowry to be given by the parents. If nevertheless the deflowered woman be poor, then a whole dowry is to be given by the ravisher. If a doubt occur whether the maiden had been previously deflowered, the safer part is to be chosen, because no one is presumed wicked unless it be proved. Wherefore even in a doubtful case the losses are to be compensated. Nay, if in fact she was not a virgin, but was nevertheless so reputed, and the ravisher defamed her, then the losses are to be compensated. But if from such intercourse she suffered no infamy, nothing is owed to be restored. The same which has been said of a maiden is to be said of an honourable widow.

X. If by entreaties, blandishments, and little gifts alone he draw a maiden into consent, authors commonly teach that he is held to nothing, as has been said, because all these do not take away liberty. If nevertheless the entreaties were so repeated, and the blandishments so assiduous, that they were equivalent to violence, then the losses would be to be compensated. Whosoever has deflowered a maiden under hope of marriage is bound to marry her, because this contract is onerous and binds both parties, even if the promise were feigned. For although a contract concerning a shameful thing be null, the penalty of the crime committed is nevertheless to be undergone.

XI. These things are absolutely true: but for the rest, if the girls of our time be regarded, they are not seldom so shameless, so stripped of modesty, so brazen, crafty, and bold, that they themselves attack young men and men, and they themselves circumvent, bewitch, and craze them with their blandishments and tricks, either to plunder their purse or to draw them into matrimony. Wherefore, for the repressing of so great an audacity of girls, a law ought to be established that the deflowered should mourn their ravished virginity in perpetuity. This is always to be held before the eyes, that maidens modest, bashful, lovers of solitude, and fleeing the meetings and conversation of youths and men, are violated by no one. If therefore they themselves are forward, and hawkers of their own virginity, that others may learn, they ought to be punished as a public example, not endowed; especially if the deflowerers be of a nobler and higher estate. This nevertheless I submit here to the judgment and decision of prudent men, that that may be determined which is expedient for the public good.

XII. QUESTION VI. What is to be restored on account of adultery from which offspring follows? ANSWER. When from certain signs it is evidently established that the offspring was conceived from union with the adulterer — either because the husband was absent, or because he was sick, or because he was impotent — then all the losses are to be compensated which the husband has suffered from the third year of age in rearing the boy: for in the first three years the mother, but afterwards until the time at which the son can provide for himself, the father is bound to feed the son. What if a doubt occur whose the offspring is? Some, resting upon that axiom, the condition of the possessor is the better, deny the debt of restitution.

XIII. What seem to me the more probable are the following. When the adulterer and the adulteress have perpetrated the adultery by mutual consent, both are held in proportion to feed the boy and to compensate the losses to the husband or his lawful heirs: if one fail, the other is held in solidum. On the contrary, if the adulterer provoked the adulteress, and drew her into adultery by blandishments and little gifts, then the adulterer alone, as the principal cause, is liable to compensation. The adulterer failing, nevertheless, the adulteress is held. When it is doubted whose the offspring is, then judgment is to be made in favour of the marriage. But if the doubt persist, and reasons equally probable or more probable persuade that the offspring is spurious, I should judge that compensation is to be made in proportion to the doubt.

XIV. When an adulteress admits two men, one after the other, and it is unknown whose the offspring is, who of these is held to compensation, when it is established that the offspring was conceived by the work of one or the other? De Lugo, López, Trullench, Sánchez, Soto, and others free both; this opinion the Salmanticenses and Cardinal Cozza also defend. This opinion is to me improbable. What? It is certain that one or the other is the true parent, and both shall go free! If each perpetrated adultery, each ought to undergo the penalty. If each had attempted homicide, though it were unknown which of them had in fact perpetrated the homicide, in what forum would each go free? Each perpetrated adultery, each exercised the procreative action. Therefore neither is innocent, although one begot the son. Therefore each is bound in proportion to feed the son and to compensate the losses. The arguments of the opposite opinion do not press. They would have him innocent who did not beget. But how innocent, if he committed adultery and posited the generative action? There are therefore two guilty. Therefore both are to be punished: both ought to concur in making good the losses; and one failing, the other is held in solidum.

XV. QUESTION VII. An adulterer knowing for certain that offspring was procreated from his adultery, what is he bound to render to the lawful sons? ANSWER. Diana, Henríquez, Soto, Ledesma, and others contend that an adulterer is not bound to compensate the losses which the lawful sons undergo in the portion of the inheritance or of the legacies which the spurious son receives, when he did not persuade the substitution of the spurious son. This opinion is commonly disapproved; and they teach that both the adulterer and the adulteress ought to compensate all the losses which come to the lawful sons by reason of the spurious son, even if the adulterer did not persuade the substitution. Since each was the cause why the spurious son is reputed lawful: therefore each is subject to the reparation of the losses. First therefore each ought to use all diligence that the losses of the lawful offspring be avoided, while this can be done without loss of reputation. If the wife have paraphernal goods, or others free, she ought to give these to the lawful sons. But if the adulteress possess no free goods, what then? Ought the adulteress to betray herself, that she may avoid the losses of the sons? If the adulteress conceive no morally certain hope of preventing the losses which threaten the lawful sons on account of the offspring procreated from adultery, she is not bound to disclose the crime to the spurious son, even if she cannot compensate the losses: since she would imprudently squander her reputation, while she prudently doubts that the manifestation of her crime would profit. Nor is it to the purpose that you object that a defamer ought with the loss of his own reputation to retract what he said, even when he doubts that his retraction will profit: since indeed the defamer injured his neighbour in reputation, and therefore ought in the same kind, with the loss of his own reputation, to make good the blackened reputation. But an adulterous mother inflicted losses upon her sons not in reputation, but in money. Wherefore while she cannot compensate in the kind of money, she does not seem bound to make good losses of this kind with the loss of her reputation and honour.

XVI. A son is not bound to give credence to a mother testifying, even with an oath, that he is spurious, as the common opinion holds: because the word of one witness does not bring in a necessity of believing, especially while she lays open her own shame, with detriment to him who believes. There is added that, since the son by the common persuasion and by his own is reputed lawful, he cannot by right be deprived of the inheritance unless it be established by certain witnesses and proved that he is spurious. If the woman be of a lower condition and of slight reputation, and a vast inheritance is to be taken by the spurious son, then she ought to reveal her crime, as all commonly teach: for indeed a woman of slight reputation can easily be induced to make the loss of it. On the contrary, authors commonly free an honourable woman of bright reputation from the manifestation of her crime, even if a vast inheritance were to be taken by the son. But as regards this, the circumstances are to be regarded, and, all things weighed, it is to be determined what is more expedient. For a certain rule can scarcely be assigned.

Titia, of a very nervous temperament, confessed that she had rather often suffered grave movements against chastity. When the confessor asked whether they were voluntary, Titia answered that she had by no means consented to evil pleasure, but nevertheless had given cause to those movements by reading slightly bad romantic books and by not restraining her eyes from looking at animals mating. The confessor doubts whether Titia sinned gravely, whether she is bound to declare the number and lowest species of those sins, and whether she is bound in the future to abstain from similar things under penalty of the denial of absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

Lust is an inordinate appetite for sexual things. Sexual things, however, are ordered to the generation of offspring, which must take place only in marriage. Hence every use of sexual things which takes place outside marriage, or in marriage but contrary to its laws, is inordinate and sinful.

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

Lust directly sought or admitted is gravely unlawful and does not admit smallness of matter. Indirect lust, however, admits smallness of matter.

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

Sins which are voluntary only in their cause have the malice of that cause, for they are formally evil to the extent that they are voluntary, but by hypothesis they are voluntary only in their cause.

4. What is to be said of the case?

Titia rather often suffered grave movements against chastity from reading slightly bad romantic books and from looking at animals mating. She did not, however, consent to those movements, and it is supposed that Titia did not indulge in the reading and the sights in order to procure those evil movements for herself. The confessor doubted whether Titia had sinned gravely or not. It is not established that Titia sinned gravely, because the immodest movements were voluntary only in their cause, but the causes were only slightly bad; hence Titia sinned only lightly. Therefore she is not bound in confession to declare the number and lowest species, nor to abstain from similar things in the future under penalty of the denial of absolution. Nor did Titia expose herself to the proximate danger of sinning gravely, insofar as, although rather often tempted, she never fell gravely. Nevertheless, she is certainly to be exhorted, and is bound under pain of venial sin, to abstain from such actions, especially since in lust a light indulgence easily declines into grave excesses.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, nn. 37, 40, 822.

Caia, a girl sixteen years of age, is accustomed to read romantic books which, although they are not bad, are nevertheless very diffuse in describing love affairs. While she reads, evil thoughts and even impure carnal movements are accustomed to arise, but for the most part she does not consent to them, although she continues to read because other girls read such books and she wishes to pass the time. Once or twice, however, she consented to the pleasure arising from the evil movements, and once she sinned by touching herself immodestly; she afterward confessed these sins by saying that two or three times she had procured immodest pleasure for herself, without adding anything else. Hence it is asked:

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

No, if sexual pleasure is directly sought or admitted, as was said above, p. 237.

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

It is supposed that consent is not given to those movements. If the cause produces evil movements accidentally and is useful and not dishonorable in itself, then there is no obligation to avoid such a cause. But if it is a cause lightly dishonorable in the genus of lust, it is to be avoided under pain of venial sin; if it is gravely dishonorable in the same genus, it is to be avoided under pain of grave sin, unless there is a just and proportionate honorable reason for positing that cause.

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

Those imperfect acts are certainly distinct from perfect and consummated acts, just as a building begun is distinguished from the same building completed. Whether those same imperfect acts are distinguished among themselves in the genus of lust is disputed. Several affirm it, because the objects of those acts are diverse and the acts themselves proceed from diverse faculties. Others, however, with St. Thomas, deny it, because those acts are not evil precisely in themselves, but by reason of the evil pleasure which arises from them. But the pleasure which arises from all those acts is the same. Hence the acts also, insofar as they are evil in the genus of lust, have the same specific malice.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 783.

4. What is to be said of the case?

The reading in which Caia indulges is not bad, nor by hypothesis is it a proximate occasion of sin; hence, although it is accustomed to produce evil thoughts and evil movements in Caia, she is not strictly bound under sin to avoid it. Nevertheless, by way of counsel, indulgence in such reading should be sparing, since there are very many other books which are more useful and not liable to the same danger, and more suitable for cultivating the mind. Caia, however, at least probably satisfied the obligation by the manner in which she confessed the non-consummated sins of lust, according to what was said above.

Albert, a young Catholic, comes to confession and explains that he is betrothed to Bertha, likewise a Catholic. He visits her often and not rarely then sins by evil thoughts and desires; indeed, three or four times a week he has been accustomed to walk alone with her alone, when, he confesses, it has happened that he kissed her, embraced her, and sometimes touched her shamefully. When the confessor questions him further, he explains that these things have happened in almost the same way for a year. The confessor is placed in the greatest distress about what, finally, is to be done, whether he ought to prohibit the visits themselves, or whether it suffices to give some counsel. Hence it is asked:

1. Is lightness of matter to be admitted in sins of lust?

2. With respect to the unlawfulness of actions, does the same rule apply to those betrothed for future marriage as to unmarried persons in matters of lust?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. See the answer to this question above, p. 237.

2. With respect to the unlawfulness of actions in the matter of lust, does the same rule apply to those betrothed for future marriage as to unmarried persons?

Those betrothed for future marriage, insofar as they are not yet joined in marriage, have no right to sexual pleasure, and therefore they must abstain from it and from those acts which are proximate occasions of sexual pleasure, just as unmarried persons must abstain from the same things.

Nevertheless, they are on the way to marriage, which condition gives a right to honorable means by which mutual love is fostered and manifested. Hence visits, conversations, letters, as well as kisses according to the honorable custom of the place, and other signs of mutual love, are permitted to those betrothed for future marriage. If those signs in a particular case are proximate occasions of sin, an effort must be made that, with remedies applied, they become remote, and that the marriage be entered into as soon as possible.

3. What is to be said of the case?

Albert is accustomed to sin by thoughts and desires when he visits his betrothed, Bertha. Three or four times a week he is accustomed to walk alone with her alone, and then to kiss her, embrace her, and sometimes touch her shamefully. These things occurred for almost a year.

The confessor must first urge the penitent that the marriage be entered into as soon as possible. In the meantime, there must be abstention from acts wholly unlawful, such as immodest touches, evil thoughts, and desires. The confessor cannot forbid visits and conversations. Walks of the man alone with the woman alone, provided they take place on public ways or with a female companion of Bertha added, could be tolerated because of custom and because of the almost insuperable difficulty of breaking them off. Albert is to be admonished to treat Bertha, his betrothed, with reverence if he wishes to find the same woman faithful as a wife.

THE world knows many things, but it does not yet know how to make people contented and happy. It devotes immense pains and energy to providing for the comfort and convenience of the body. Comfort at home, comfort while travelling, comfort while waking, comfort while sleeping, is studied by numberless keen brains and provided for by countless nimble fingers. The conveniences of life have increased enormously of late years. We wonder how people could have lived without them in former ages. And yet all these comforts and conveniences for the body do not make people more happy. Those who have them in abundance soon begin to take them for granted, and when they are wanting their absence is all the more keenly felt. And then some people have more of them while others have to be content with less, and the latter suffer from envy and discontent in consequence. The world tries to educate men’s minds, and to give them a wider outlook than their own immediate surroundings afford. Immense sums of public money are devoted to education, and anyone who wants it, and is capable of taking advantage of it, can obtain it without much difficulty. The great majority make very little use of the education provided for them. Those who have devoted more time to it are seldom made more content or more happy by it. An increase of knowledge does not bring an increase of joy.

There is a third element in man’s composition, the soul, but the world does not cater for the soul. It has not quite made up its mind for certain whether man has a soul. The question is debated, there is much to be said, the world thinks, on both sides. In the meantime it devotes all its attention to the body and to the mind, and is disposed to ignore the soul. And yet the soul is the important thing. “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul ?”

Jesus Christ is the supreme physician of souls. He cares for the body and he cares for the mind, but the chief object of his solicitude is the soul. And, of course, he is right. The soul is the noblest part of our being, and it is immortal of its own nature. It is destined for life everlasting. Jesus Christ teaches us how to save our souls, how to find true contentment and happiness both here and hereafter by looking after our souls. “Come to me, all you that labour and are heavy burdened; learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls.” We shall find contentment and happiness by practising the virtues taught by Jesus Christ, by leading a good Christian life. It is the only way and it is the sure way. It has been tested in every condition of life by the experience of two thousand years.

To a great extent the modern world has forgotten this once familiar teaching, and therefore it has lost the secret of contentment and happiness. It is sick, and the only way to recovery is to learn again how to lead a good Christian life. Before that can be done it must be purged from many a deadly disease. Not without reason does His Holiness ask us to pray for Purity and Dignity in Morals. Much purifying will be required before the Christian standard of morals can appear in all its lustre and splendour. At the root of much modern discontent lies a loss of faith, or at least a serious weakening of it. Many writers during the last century or so have been teaching the people that science, not faith, is the modern guide of conduct and life. When Lord Kelvin wrote that science positively demanded a creating and directing Power, he was bluntly contradicted by a well-known popularizer of science. He was told that such an assertion robbed the people of the chief fruits of science, and that he knew no more about it than anybody else. Of late there has undoubtedly been a decay of faith and religion. A decay of Christian morality which rests on faith has been the inevitable consequence. The world has been flooded by the new paganism which has penetrated into every department of life. People seek distraction, if not happiness, in amusement and pleasure. This has added a new spur to the greed for money. With money the appetite for debauchery, drinking, and gambling can be gratified if not satiated. And so the old saying of the pagan poet is repeated to-day: “Get money, honestly if you can, but at any rate get it.” One is not surprised to learn that although murder and robbery with violence are on the decrease, yet pilfering, fraud, cheating, and similar offences are more frequent.

Family life is not what it used to be or what it ought to be. Marriage has not gained in strength and holiness by being secularized. Divorce, whether legalized or not, is on the increase. Birth control, which was almost unknown fifty or sixty years ago, is now openly advocated and practised. Domestic discipline has been relaxed. Parents, too frequently, will not take the trouble to enforce it; they seem to have handed over a portion of their responsibility to public authorities and to schoolmasters and schoolmistresses. As a consequence the modern child has lost a great deal of the reverence and respect which is due to parents.

Modern business is not conducted according to the rules of justice. Many who are regarded as authorities in such matters deny that justice has anything to do with business. Prices, like the weather, are governed, they say, by certain necessary laws. When the market is glutted with goods, their price necessarily goes down; when there is a scarcity prices necessarily rise. Justice and morality have nothing to do with the matter. You might as well pass laws to punish the weather for too great or too little rain, as pass laws against monopolies and profiteering. The argument has all the appearance of having been framed in the interest of traders. It is false, but it serves to cloak a great deal of unscrupulous tampering with honesty in business transactions. There is plenty of evidence to show that secret commissions in trade are demanded and given to a very large extent. They corrupt both buyer and seller and add to the high price of commodities. Adulteration and the selling of one commodity or quality of goods for a higher and better is another fraudulent practice in business. It is done even in the sale of foodstuffs and drugs where human lives and people’s health are directly concerned.

The rules of morality bind all men, and they should be observed between one nation and another as well as between one man and another. The Great War was an object-lesson to the world on the neglect of this truth.

What I have said is matter of common knowledge, and I have tried to avoid all exaggeration in my statements. They are enough to show that His Holiness had very good reasons for asking the members of the Apostleship of Prayer to pray specially for Purity and Dignity in Morals. Prayer can do much; it merits God’s help and grace, without which nothing can avail. It focuses the mind on what is really important, directs attention to real needs, and prevents us from being led astray by false issues and wasting time and energy on visionary schemes. For the problem of morals is at the root of all our ills. If only we could get the Ten Commandments decently observed we could afford to dispense with all other reforms and remedies.

This truth suggests that we can all do something more for the world than pray. We can all lead good lives, and by so doing we shall secure our own contentment and happiness, and contribute very powerfully by our example to the contentment and happiness of our fellow-men. A good life gives dignity to the humblest position, and without it the highest position ceases to command our respect. Many years ago a friend who has long been at rest told me that when he was a boy he often, in company with his father, passed by the statue of a certain king of England who was more distinguished for his position than for moral qualities. The father of my friend would raise his hat as he passed by the statue, and as he did so he would remark to his son: ‘ I do that to the office, not to the man.” Purity of morals is the best title to true dignity, and the only real test of worth. We shall be ranged in heaven or hell for all eternity by that standard alone.