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.

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.

Natural consummated lust is an act of lust which of itself is apt for generation. Six species are distinguished, namely: fornication, adultery, seduction, rape, incest, and sacrilege.

The said sins differ specifically, since their objects are specifically diverse, or have a specifically diverse repugnance to right reason; St. Thomas explains this as follows: The matter or object of natural lust can fail to agree with right reason in two ways:

I. "In one way because it has repugnance to the end of the venereal act," namely insofar as "the due education and promotion of the offspring born is impeded; this is simple fornication, which is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman."

II. "In another way the matter in which the venereal act is exercised can be unsuitable to right reason by comparison with other human beings. And this in two ways:

1. "First, indeed, on the part of the woman herself with whom someone has intercourse," because the honor due to her is not preserved, either because of kinship, and this is incest; or because of a vow, and this is sacrilege.

2. "Secondly, on the part of him in whose power the woman is; and if she is in the power of a husband, it is adultery; but if she is in the power of her father, it is seduction, if violence is not brought to bear; but rape, if violence is brought to bear" (II-II, q. 154, a. 1).¹

Moreover, they are called species of lust, both because the enumerated sins are committed from an affection of libido rather than from an affection of injustice, and the moral species is taken primarily from the end; and also because in them there is a special repugnance to chastity, situated in the fact that one commits lust with some person notwithstanding the circumstance that that person is joined to another, or is consanguineous, or is sacred, and so forth (cf. St. Thomas, De malo, q. 15, a. 3, ad 3).

¹ Cf. Billuart, De temperantia, diss. 5, art. 3. Note that seduction and rape are not taken by all in the same sense as by St. Thomas (nn. 43, 45).

I. Unnatural consummated lust is: a completed venereal act which is unsuited for generation. Moreover, in order that an act be of itself apt for generation, there are required: 1. the carnal union of two; 2. the union of two of the same species; 3. the union of two of diverse sex; 4. union in the due vessel of the diverse sex. Hence there are four species of lust against nature, namely: pollution, which excludes the union of two; bestiality, which excludes the union of two of the same species; sodomy, which excludes the union of two of diverse sex; finally, intercourse which excludes union in the due vessel of the diverse sex (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 11; St. Alphonsus III, 412).

II. The enumerated sins differ in species, because in morally diverse ways they are repugnant to right seminal emission (St. Alphonsus III, 464). There is added proposition 24 condemned by Alexander VII: Softness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species, and therefore it is enough to say in confession that one has procured pollution.

III. Concerning the relative gravity of the said sins, take these words of St. Thomas: "Gravity in sin is considered more from the abuse of some thing than from the omission of due use; and therefore among the vices which are against nature, the sin of uncleanness holds the lowest place, which consists in the mere omission of intercourse with another (pollution); but the gravest is the sin of bestiality, because the due species is not preserved; hence on that verse of Genesis 37, 'He accused his brothers of a most wicked crime,' the Gloss says that they were mingled with beasts. After this is the vice of sodomy, since there the due sex is not preserved; after this is the sin from the fact that the due manner of lying together is not preserved; but more if there is not the due vessel, than if there is disorder according to some other things pertaining to the manner of intercourse" (II-II, q. 154, a. 12, ad 4).

With these things having been noted generally, we shall speak specifically about the individual unnatural sins.

I. Notion. Unnatural intercourse is here understood as intercourse of a man with a woman in the posterior vessel or - as others add - in the mouth. Namely, the malice of this sin consists in mingling with a person with whom someone can procreate offspring, but with whom he is here and now mingled in such a way that offspring cannot be procreated. It is said in mingling; hence congress in a vessel is required. It is said with whom he is so mingled that offspring cannot be procreated; hence congress in an undue vessel is required, that is, in the anus. There is dispute about congress in the mouth, which according to some is pollution, to which an affection toward fornication is added; but according to others it is equated with coitus with a woman in the posterior vessel, because here likewise there seems to be mingling with a person of diverse sex (St. Alphonsus VI, 935).¹ Intercourse with a woman in the posterior vessel is more often called sodomy improperly so called or imperfect; intercourse in the mouth is called irrumatio. Moreover, imperfect sodomy and irrumatio do not differ in species, because the malice of each consists in mingling with a person of diverse sex in an undue vessel.

Note. Intercourse in another part of the body - besides the posterior vessel and the mouth - is pollution with an affection toward fornication; it does not matter in what part it takes place.

¹ Cf. however St. Alphonsus III, 466 and Homo Apostolicus, tr. 9, n. 25.

II. Morality. 1. The unnatural intercourse of which we are speaking - equally and for the same reasons as pollution, sodomy, and bestiality - is intrinsically and gravely evil.

The Sacred Penitentiary responded on April 3, 1916: "If the husband wishes to commit with her the crime of the Sodomites, since this Sodomitic coitus is an act against nature on the part of both spouses thus coming together, and by the judgment of all doctors is gravely evil: hence for absolutely no cause, not even for avoiding death, can the wife licitly comply in this matter with her immodest husband. And the Sacred Penitentiary vehemently marvels that the opposite opinion, with disgrace to human nature, could have persisted in the minds of certain priests, as is reported."

2. The sins of the agent and of the patient do not differ in species. The circumstance of seminal emission, however, if it has taken place, must be made known, and therefore the things set forth under n. 53, 2, are to be observed.

3. Unnatural intercourse perpetrated with a blood-relative or affine, equally as direct intercourse had with them, takes on the malice of incest; likewise of adultery, if it is perpetrated with a married woman.

Note. Inquiry should not be made into unnatural intercourse with a person of diverse sex; for if the penitent is silent about it, it is presumed not to have taken place. Besides, if intercourse was had outside the anus and mouth, the penitent should not be asked in what part of the body it occurred, because, as we have noted, that matter is irrelevant.

I. Intercourse with a dead woman, necrophilia, seems to be pollution in act, with an affection toward fornication added (St. Alphonsus III, 466). The same must be said of intercourse with a statue or picture representing a woman.

II. Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality, because it is with a diverse and living species. But there is added a sin of superstition on account of commerce with a demon; likewise an affection toward fornication or toward sodomy according as the demon presents itself under the form of a person of diverse or of the same sex as the one lying with it. But the fact that the demon presents itself under the form of a married woman, a nun, or a blood-relative does not cause there also to be present an affection toward adultery, sacrilege, or incest; for from the woman as married and so forth, pleasure and affection commonly abstract (St. Alphonsus III, 475).

Scholion II

The Consummated Sins of Impurity.—There are in all seven species of completed acts of impurity. (a) Thus, some sins of impurity are against reason because they do not observe the ends of sexual intercourse. These ends are, first, the begetting of children (to which is opposed unnatural impurity), and, secondly, the rearing of children (to which is opposed fornication).

(b) Other sins of impurity are against reason because they violate a right of the person with whom intercourse is had (incest), or of a third party to whom that person belongs. If the third party is injured in conjugal rights, there is adultery; if in parental rights, there is defloration or rape, according as the injury is done without or with force; if in religious rights, there is sacrilege. This second category of sins is classed under impurity rather than under injustice, because the purpose of the guilty person and his act belong to venereal sin.

Comparative Malice of the Sins of Consummated Lust.—(a) In the abuse of an act, the worst evil is the disregard of what nature itself determines as the fundamentals upon which all else depends, just as in speculative matters the worst error is that which goes astray about first principles. Now, the prime dictates of nature as to sexual intercourse are that it serve the race and the family. Hence, the sin of unnatural lust (which injures the race by defeating its propagation) and the sin of incest (which injures the family by offending piety) are the worst of carnal vices.

(b) In the abuse of an act a lesser evil is that which observes the natural fundamentals, but disregards what right reason teaches about things secondary, in the manner of performing the act. But reason requires that in sexual intercourse the rights of the individual be respected. A most serious violation of individual right is adultery, which usurps the right of intercourse belonging to another; next in gravity is rape, which violently seizes for lust a person under the care of another or undefiled; next is defloration, which trespasses on the right of guardianship, or removes bodily virginity, but without violence; last among these sins is fornication, which is an injury done not to the living, but to the unborn.

Multiplication of Sins of Lust.—The various kinds of lust may be combined in one and the same act, as when unnatural vice (e.g., sodomy) is practised with a relative (incest). Sacrilege, of course, aggravates every other kind of carnal sin, and thus there is sacrilegious sodomy, sacrilegious adultery, sacrilegious incest, etc.

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.

Is incest between spiritual and legal relatives of a diverse species from that between blood relatives and relatives by affinity? "Absolutely one must affirm with the Salmanticenses and S. Thomas, who 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10 ad 2 teaches that through intercourse between spiritual relatives a sacrilege is committed after the manner of incest... Likewise incest between legal relatives, namely by reason of adoption, is of a diverse species from the others enunciated, and must be explained." L. 450, 469. Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 154, a. 9: "To the 2nd objection concerning spiritual and legal kinship, it is said that because such conjunction is not ordered to consanguinity as its proper and proximate end, but according to a certain assimilation, therefore violation of it is metaphorically called incest." But Lugo, de Poenit. d. 16, n. 327 seqq.: "It must be admitted that it [incest between legal relatives] is properly incest; hence there is no reason why we should say it differs in species from incest between natural blood relatives and relatives by affinity... Hence... it will not be necessary to explain the difference of legal kinship from natural... But the circumstance of spiritual kinship is diverse in species from incest, because although it contains some malice of incest... nevertheless beyond this it adds the malice of sacrilege."

Sporer n. 612, 613, has these things: "He who sins carnally with a person joined by legal kinship, of which there is a fourfold degree, 1. between the adopting person and the adopted person and his descendants, 2. between the adopted person and the legitimate children of the adopter, 3. between the wife of the adopted and the adopter himself, 4. between the wife of the adopter and the adopted, without doubt commits a special sin of incest, necessarily to be confessed as such, since between the same persons, because of the often-mentioned reverence due to those joined, the Church establishes a diriment impediment of marriage. But whether this incest must be explained as a sin distinct from the other incests mentioned above, and whether also that diversity just mentioned of degrees or persons must be explained? Again, it is more probable and safer that yes; and sufficiently probable that no. But he who sins with a person joined by spiritual kinship contracted from the sacrament of baptism and confirmation, of which there is a twofold degree or species, spiritual paternity between the one baptizing and confirming, likewise between sponsors on one side, and the baptized and confirmed on the other side; and spiritual co-paternity between the same, the one baptizing and confirming, and sponsors on one side, and the parents of the baptized or confirmed on the other side; for spiritual fraternity between the baptized and confirmed and the children of the one baptizing or sponsors has become obsolete, altogether commits incest distinct from all the aforesaid in consanguinity, affinity, or legal kinship, and therefore to be specially explained in Confession, because it adds a special malice of irreverence by reason of the sacrament, by which it is reduced to a certain genus of sacrilege. But whether it must also be explained whether it was done from the sacrament of baptism or confirmation; likewise whether by paternity or co-paternity? It is most probable that no, because in all there is the same deformity, not much graver or lighter." So also Billuart Diss. 6, art. 6.

If relatives, having obtained a dispensation for contracting marriage, fornicate before marriage, do they commit incest? - There is a twofold opinion; St. Alphonsus 452 has each as probable. The reason of the opinion denying is that, when the special repugnance of marriage ceases, consequently the special repugnance of fornication ceases; for, if this remained, it would impede the marriage itself. The reason of the opinion affirming is that a dispensation removes only the impediment of marriage, not the connection.

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege, insofar as it is a sin of lust, is the violation of a sacred place, thing, or person through a venereal act. Therefore besides sin against chastity, it also embraces sin against religion. Sacrilege "can be placed as a species of lust," because chastity consecrated to divine worship is violated. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, a. 10; L. 454.

What is personal sacrilege? - Carnal and personal sacrilege "properly and in rigor is called illicit intercourse or any sin of the flesh of a person bound and consecrated to God by a solemn vow of chastity, as through profession of an approved religion, or through reception of sacred order from the subdiaconate inclusively. The reason is that sacrilege properly and in rigor is the violation of a sacred thing; but a sacred thing is properly called that which by public authority and rite has been instituted and consecrated to the worship of God. But by the solemn vow alone of profession, or of sacred order, a person is consecrated to the worship of God by the public authority of the Church, solemnly accepting that vow in the place of God; not likewise by a simple vow privately emitted. Therefore sin of the flesh of a sacred person bound by only a simple vow of chastity is not, in rigor, sacrilege properly so called, since it is not of a sacred person; nevertheless it is a special sin against the virtue of religion and the 2nd precept of the Decalogue, namely violation of a vow and promise made to God, and therefore also necessarily to be explained in Confession, according to all." Sporer 615. Cf. here 500.

You will resolve: Hence he who is bound by a solemn vow of chastity and sins carnally perpetrates a sin containing triple malice: of immodesty against chastity; of infidelity against God, because of non-fulfillment of the promise made to Him; of sacrilege because of violation or profanation of a person consecrated to God. But the gravity of sacrilege has a threefold degree if he has an accomplice: 1. Grave, if the carnal sin is of a non-sacred person with a sacred person. 2. More grave, if it is of a sacred person with a non-sacred person. 3. Most grave, if it is of a sacred person with a sacred person. L. 456.

Note: It is probable that there is no need to express whether the vow was solemn or simple, because the opposite opinion is also probable, namely that the violation of a sacred person bound by a simple vow of chastity is true sacrilege. Likewise it is not necessary to say if the person is sacred by a double title, for example because he is a religious and priest, because one constituted in sacred orders, more probably and more truly, is bound to chastity only by reason of the vow annexed to the order; this is gathered from C. Cum olim de Cler. coniug. L. 454, 455. Cf. here 500.

"It is altogether to be held that a religious commits sacrilege who is morosely delighted concerning the carnal sin of another, or who pollutes another with his hands, even without his own pleasure." L. 457. Likewise he commits sacrilege who induces a sacred person to a sin of lust, although he himself does not sin with that person; for he cooperates in sacrilege. On the contrary, it is sufficiently probable that he does not commit sacrilege who, having a vow of chastity, by his counsel induces another to carnal sin, because one emitting a vow of chastity regards not another's chastity but only his own; hence then he would sin by scandal. Understand, however, if he did this for another end than from positive affection of lust; otherwise he would now sin directly against his own chastity, of which he emitted a vow. L. 457. Personal sacrilege in affection would be if someone polluted himself by thinking with pleasure of a Saint, male or female, or, what is most horrible, of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself or of the Blessed Virgin herself.

What is the sacred place in local sacrilege? The sacred place here is understood only as a church, that is, a place consecrated by the Bishop for divine offices, or even simply blessed from roof all the way to pavement; and a cemetery, that is, a place blessed and deputed for burying the dead. Therefore private oratories are excluded, since they are not true churches; all other parts of the church also are excluded which are by no means contained between roof and pavement, such as cells, cloister, sacristies, dormitory, the roof above the church, the door outside the threshold of the church, the atrium. L. 460.

Are internal sins in a sacred place sacrileges? - Merely internal sins are not to be held as sacrileges, gravely such, because they do not seem specially to affect the sacred place, unless there is a desire of sinning externally in the sacred place itself, even if that desire is had outside the place; for it is then sacrilege in affection. For since irreverence consists in fact, sacrilege cannot be in reality. Cf. 502.

What about external sins? - As regards external sins it is certain among all that sacrilege is committed through consummated acts, namely through voluntary pollution, fornication, etc. Here it must be noticed that many from St. Alphonsus 458 probably hold that sacrilege is committed in a church only through public emission of seed, which is prohibited by ecclesiastical law. But others probably say that even hidden emission is sacrilege. For although by ecclesiastical law the sacred place is not polluted, nevertheless the sanctity of the sacred place is violated. And concerning marital intercourse others likewise hold that, scandal being set aside, it can never be sacrilege; others still hold that through hidden marital intercourse sacrilege is committed, and the church is polluted, unless it is done from moral necessity; nevertheless, since it is a hidden crime, there is no obligation of abstaining from divine offices. L. 36, 334, 458; l. 6, n. 920; Cf. here 502.

Besides consummated acts, is sacrilege committed through other grave external sins not consummated? Some more probably affirm, because of themselves they import grave irreverence against the sacred place. Others not improbably deny, because only that has the nature of sacrilege which the sacred canons forbid; and by these only emission of seed is prohibited, as polluting the sacred place. L. 459, 461; Spor. 619. "Yet Lugo and others generally deservedly make exception, unless someone exercises immodest acts of this sort in a sacred place with great irreverence of the church, as if he publicly touched a prostitute immodestly before the altar, if he exhibited lascivious comedies in a sacred temple, etc.; for then it would not be denied that the crime of sacrilege properly is committed; for a grave irreverence would be done to divine worship, to which the sacred place has been deputed and consecrated." Sporer ib. But if sacrilege is irreverence, this does not seem to be lacking, and it is grave, in base looks, conversations, touches, if they are grave and manifest. Cf. here 502.

What special cases are to be noted in real sacrilege? - He commits sacrilege who, vested for Mass, pollutes himself. Likewise a priest carrying the Most Holy Eucharist who sins carnally; or who pollutes himself within half an hour after Communion. But by no means he who sins carnally while carrying relics, agni Dei, etc., or on a feast day. The reason is that all these things seem to be per accidens with respect to carnal sin. Nor in reality is the sacred thing itself violated. On the contrary, in the first, second, and third case there would be grave irreverence toward the Most Holy Eucharist, and toward the sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacred vestments destined for offering it. Likewise he would not commit sacrilege who gave relics of the Saints to a mistress by title of simple donation. But otherwise, if he gave them as the price of sin; for then it would be sacrilege and simony.

To this, however, pertains solicitation to base things in Confession, namely when the confessor abuses the sacrament of penance for carnal sin; and the absolution of an accomplice in this, for most grave irreverence is inflicted on the sacrament. Elbel De Actib. hum. 104; Sporer 621; L. 463.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48. Can prostitutes be permitted?

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

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

50. Is it lawful to serve prostitutes or concubinaries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

52. Is it lawful to have a concubinary maidservant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. There are various penalties of fines, prison, detention, forced labors, French Penal Code, l. 3, 331-333; Italian Penal Code, art. 331-336.

421. • Fornication is the copula of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent.

Fornication is gravely prohibited by natural law and positive divine law, so that it can never be excused from grave sin. This is clear, 1. from Scripture, 1 Cor. 6. 9: "Nor shall fornicators possess the kingdom of God." - Ephes. 5. 5: "Every fornicator or unclean person... does not have inheritance in the kingdom of Christ." - 2. From reason: for if fornication were permitted, men for the most part would withdraw from contracting marriage, and offspring received from fornication would be left without any education, whence also the subversion of the social order would necessarily follow.

To fornication are referred, 1. concubinage, which is the habitual commerce of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman; - 2. prostitution, which is the state of a woman prostituted to all.

The circumstance of concubinage or prostitution is not necessarily to be declared in confession, since per se it does not change the species of the sin. But per accidens it is often to be explained in order to manifest the state and kind of occasions, and always must be opened to the Confessor when he asks. - St. Lig., n. 432.

422. • 1. Adultery is copula with the spouse of another, or it is access to a bed not one's own.

2. Adultery, besides sin against chastity, includes another against justice. It is evident from reason, and clear from various places of Sacred Scripture.

3. Adultery is committed even if the other spouse consents, because in every case the rights of the Sacrament and of the indissoluble contract are violated; which rights indeed nature itself requires to be altogether inalienable.

4. Adultery between two married persons is double, and is a violation of a double bed; and therefore this circumstance is to be set forth in confession. - St. Lig., n. 445.

423. • Incest is intercourse with consanguineous persons or affines within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage.

Incest differs in species from other sins of lust, because it gravely conflicts with the natural reverence owed to parents, and consequently to persons who are bound to them by proximate conjunction of blood or affinity. - St. Lig., n. 448.

Whether incest with consanguineous persons and incest with affines differ in species, and again whether incest differs in species according to the varied degree of affinity and consanguinity, and therefore whether the degree must necessarily be expressed in confession, we shall say in the Treatise on Penance, where there is question of circumstances aggravating sins.

425. • Stuprum is the violation or oppression of a woman against her will. Thus commonly ¹. - According to others, under the name of stuprum comes only the deflowering of a virgin who does not consent. Any illicit intercourse is also called stuprum in a broad sense.

¹ In this place the Author takes stuprum not in the theological sense, but rather from the norm of civil law, indeed also in a certain broader signification. For civil law, by the name of stuprum, insofar as it is a crime distinct from others and to be punished by a special penalty, understands the violent oppression of a virgin or widow living honorably; but the Author comprehends the oppression of any woman whatsoever, even one not honorable, or even one joined in marriage, as is clear from the second resolution; namely he extends stuprum to all cases in which force is brought upon a woman, and therefore the crime of injustice accedes to the sin of immodesty.

But Theologians and Canonists do not so take it; although they note that stuprum in a certain broad sense is taken for any illicit intercourse, nevertheless in the proper and strict sense they take it for the illicit violation of a virgin according to c. Lex illa, 2, § fin., caus. 36, q. 1, where it is said: "Stuprum properly is the illicit deflowering of virgins"; and they find that the species of stuprum to be expressed in confession is only in the unjust deflowering of a virgin. Yet they distinguish this very thing as twofold, namely violent and voluntary. Violent, indeed, when she is subjected and oppressed by force and physical violence. But voluntary, not indeed when the virgin consents freely and of her own accord (in which case according to the more common opinion of the Doctors, as regards the species to be expressed in confession, it is judged mere fornication), but when a virgin, induced by deceit or another unjust reason, consents to deflowering, as happens 1. through reverential fear, 2. through fear falling upon a constant girl, 3. through a fraudulent promise of marriage or of a great dowry for another marriage, 4. through repeated importunate prayers, at least if threats are joined to these. See Struggl, Th. moral., tr. 7, q. 4, n. 28.

Now when there is question either of reservation of cases or of penalties to be inflicted on a violator by the sacred canons, stuprum is always taken in that strict sense which we have said was received by Theologians, nor does St. Alphonsus, alleged here by the Author, have anything else.

Stuprum, besides grave sin against chastity, also involves grave fault against justice, necessarily to be opened in confession. - St. Lig., n. 443.

426. Resolves. - 1. It is stuprum to fornicate with a woman who is insane, drunk, or sleeping, because she is violated without her consent, and therefore grave injury is brought upon her.

2. It is stuprum to bring force even upon a woman already corrupted or upon a widow; because it consists in the violence and injury which is brought upon a woman by oppressing her against her will. Consequently if someone oppresses a married woman, he commits adultery and stuprum at the same time.

3. It is not stuprum to fornicate with a virgin plainly consenting, even if she is corrupted for the first time; because she is mistress of her own body and freely yields her right.

4. The circumstance of the virginity of a girl who has been violated, if she herself consented to the matter, is not necessarily per se to be declared in confession, because stuprum more probably consists only in violence brought upon a woman, not in the violation of virginal integrity.

427. • Raptus is the abduction of a person for the sake of lust from a safe place to an unsafe place by force or grave fear brought upon that person or upon those under whose power that person is. - St. Lig., n. 443.

As regards raptus, hold these things:

1. Raptus is a special sin, although the wicked act of lust does not follow ¹; because it consists chiefly in the injury which is brought in violent abduction for the sake of lust.

¹ Nevertheless in raptus itself there is a double sin; for on the part of the end and intention it is a sin of lust, and on the part of the action there is a sin of injustice.

2. If after the raptus the desire of lust is fulfilled, it constitutes a diverse species of lust, which must be declared in confession ².

² Namely, the crime of raptus must also be declared at the same time.

3. It is not to be judged raptus if a woman fully consenting is abducted, unless nevertheless she is a minor, and at the same time her parents or tutors or curators suffer this against their will ³. - See the things to be said in the Treatise on Marriage ⁴. - St. Lig., n. 444.

³ Namely, the crime of raptus is had whether force is brought upon the abducted person alone, or only upon those under whose power the person is, or upon both.

⁴ Yet in the treatise on Marriage there is not treatment of raptus insofar as it is a species of lust, which namely is done for the sake of lust, but insofar as it is an impediment of marriage, and the person is abducted not for the sake of exercising lust, but for the sake of contracting marriage.

But concerning raptus the recent declaration of the S. Congregation of the Council must be noted, from which it must be established that it is to be called back to the crime of raptus not only if a person is abducted by force and fear, but also if by deceit and fraud.

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

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

¹ Eph. 5:5.

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

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

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

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

² St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 10, a. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

313. One species in the genus of lust, fornication receives diverse names and is assigned to diverse species because of the various heterogeneous malices which accrue to it.

The usefulness, common to the whole treatise, is not only the distinct knowledge of sins, but especially a good demonstration of the solutions which, in this matter, are received in the Catholic Church. When that demonstration is lacking, the convictions themselves waver: which, in a rough matter, is very harmful; or even exceptions are conceded, in singular cases, by which the integrity of the inviolate order of nature perishes.

— The excellence of honest celibacy above the conjugal state, which, after the Apostle, Catholic tradition teaches us, is confirmed by the very opinion of a false etymology. For already Quintilian had to disapprove the error of those thinking that the word caelebs was derived from caelum, because celibates would lead as it were a heavenly life¹.

This excellence proceeds chiefly from the additional pursuit of virginity. Concerning this pursuit a few things are had above, and we have spoken more fully in the work De Castitate. But, such a noble purpose being set aside, honest celibacy nevertheless merits for itself the praise of a more perfect command over vehement concupiscence, since outside matrimony every voluntary use of the generative faculty is prohibited, so that now we must treat only of lust or of sins.

This argument begets, in all who devote themselves to the amendment of morals, too great a solicitude for its usefulness to have to be demonstrated.

¹ Thus Forcellini, Lexicon, v. caelebs. Yet the writer corrected by Quintilian derived the word caelebs from caelum rather on account of the felicity of exemption from a burden than on account of heavenly pursuits. Behold the words of Quintilian: "Gavius seemed clever to himself in saying caelibes, as if caelites, because they are free from a most grave burden, and this by a Greek argument; for he affirms that ἠϊθέους is said for the same cause." De institutione oratoria, I, 6, 36. Today the more accepted etymology, from κοίτη, bed, and λείπειν, to lack, explains coelebs as one deprived of the marriage-bed. But the matter remains uncertain.

I. Fornication. Complete use according to nature occurs in fornication, which, under the respect of lust, can be defined: natural, extra-conjugal copulation. And simple fornication is copulation which is vitiated only by the defect of marriage.

Concubinage, graver than accidental fornication, is had in the same species; it bespeaks a long-lasting carnal commerce, in intention and in fact, between the same persons, whether they have agreed expressly, or tacitly, concerning a habitual relation or custom. Where a concubinary relation is a reserved case, it requires a certain frequency of acts repeated not merely per accidens, but from a certain destination of the woman to the same man, or a certain custom of state.

Prostitution designates the condition of her who, prepared to give access to almost anyone, is accustomed to make gain from her body.

Every fornication, even when considered by the law of nature alone, is a mortal sin. This opinion, which must be held today on account of the common agreement of theologians, we confirm by this brief reason, that fornication deprives carnal commerce of the order which the good of the human species demands. On account of the necessity of the education of offspring, the good of the human species demands that copulation not be done except by two persons who have completed themselves as a principle of generation, which is done by marriage alone. Nor does the intention of the parties who wish to nourish the offspring in common well restore this order, nor does certain sterility of copulation restore this order, so that in every fornication this substantial violation of order is found. (Cf. the fuller and more ample demonstration in De castitate, n. 306.)

II. Additional Malices. Fornication, one species in the genus of lust, on account of various additional heterogeneous malices, receives diverse names and is ascribed to various species.

1. The conjugal bond having been despised, adultery is committed, concerning which see above n. 74-76.

2. When it is done with a person consecrated to God by a vow of chastity, at least by that vow which the Church has accepted, sacrilege is committed. He also is sacrilegious who fornicates (indeed who, in the Latin Church, uses marriage) with a person who is constituted in sacred order, even if this person has emitted no vow (cf. Cod. can. c. 132). And now, on account of complicity, he is sacrilegious who induces a sacred person to carnal sin, while he is not sacrilegious who, bound by vow or sacred order, impels a non-sacred person to sin with another, provided he himself remains free of lust. Violation of a private vow of chastity carries with itself only malice against religion; yet an extrinsically probable opinion makes violators of such a vow guilty of sacrilege, so that there is no practical obligation of distinguishing public vows from private in confession. And he who is bound to chastity from sacred order and as a religious contracts the same malice of sacrilege by a double title, which therefore he need not accuse distinctly in confession. But if both accomplices were sacred, this must be declared in confession.

Fornicatory copulation performed within a half-hour after Communion puts on the grave species of real sacrilege, just as solicitation itself in confession does. Performed in a sacred place, perhaps today it will not put on the malice of local sacrilege, because a sacred place is no longer polluted by it, unless it was so public that it constituted an impious use by which the sacred place is violated. A sacred place here is only a church or public oratory, dedicated to divine worship at least by solemn blessing.

III. Incest. Fornicatory copulation with consanguineous persons with whom, whether by natural law or by ecclesiastical law, nuptials cannot be made, at least without dispensation, adds to lust the malice of incest against piety.

And the same must be said of copulation with an affine. Indeed, since an affine is joined to another on account of a consanguineous person, "consanguinity and affinity make an inconvenience of the same character" (II-II, q. 154, art. 9, ad 2), so that each incest seems to be of the same species. Yet others deny this, for example Vasquez, in 3 p. q. 91, art. 1, d. 4, n. 11-12.

Neither line nor degree induces various species, since in all one specific piety is violated. Yet Lehmkuhl, I, 1050, after St. Alph., l. 3, n. 438, and others, wishes to except the first degree of the direct line, since the reason of piety is found in parents through itself, in others by participation. But when one thing is on account of another, both are of the same species. Nor, as Lugo observes, Paen. 16, 315, does it appear why they wish only the first degree to be excepted.

Yet it happens that another duty of piety, for example of right instruction, is violated, for example if parents sin with children constituted under their power: this will have to be declared. Thus also a son sinning with his stepmother while his father is living is atrociously injurious to the father himself.

— Special malice is contained also in carnal sin with a person spiritually related, and it is grave if there is a diriment impediment.

A special reverence also, distinct from the reverence of natural or spiritual relationship, is violated by fornication with persons legally related. But it is not certain that this is grave.

— Public honesty does not cohere with special duties of piety.

Wherefore the circumstance of violated public honesty by copulation with the mother, grandmother, or daughter and granddaughter, or with the father, grandfather, or son and grandson of the person with whom an invalid marriage had been contracted (knowingly or unknowingly), or with whom one sins by public or notorious concubinage (for example by merely civil marriage), is not to be declared under grave sin in confession.

— The oppression of an unwilling woman, whether she has been compelled by force or deceived by fraud, puts on the character of stuprum, which is opposed to justice. He is doubly injurious who at the same time takes away from an unwilling virgin the seal of virginity.

And besides, fornication which redounds to grave dishonor of the family or sorrow of the parents contains grave fault against charity.

When, however, stuprum is a reserved sin, it is understood as the unjust oppression of a woman who has preserved the seal of virginity. (Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., I, 1048.)

— Raptus, in moral theology, means the injurious deprivation of liberty inflicted upon some person for fulfilling lust. That force can be brought either upon the person whom someone abuses, or upon those under whose power she is.

She also is morally abducted who by deceit and fraud is deprived of her liberty.

Canonically, from this raptus there must be distinguished the raptus which dirimently impedes marriage and the raptus which is a delict punishable in the external forum. For the delict there is required the violent or deceitful abduction of an honorable woman from one place to another, whether for the cause of entering marriage or of fulfilling lust. To violent or deceitful abduction is equivalent the abduction of a consenting minor woman, done without the knowledge of or against the will of parents or tutors.

— A carnal sin committed with a person whose spiritual or moral good one must care for from an obligation of justice which cannot be dissolved by the consent of that person is also opposed to justice: thus a bishop, as to his own diocesans; a pastor, as to parishioners; a tutor, as to a ward; an instructor or superior of a college, as to pupils entrusted to him by parents. Cooperators of the pastor or superior are not held by this obligation of justice, but easily will be at the same time gravely scandalous.

A confessor sinning outside the occasion of confession does not have an obligation of justice, nor does a freely chosen spiritual father, at least when he uses no coercion or deception: for by mutual consent the special relation of direction is removed or interrupted. But one must speak more severely concerning him who is deputed to exercise the office of spiritual father, for example to a monastery.

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.

794. Practical Rules. 1. Those polluting themselves should also be asked about immodest touches separated from pollutions, and they should be admonished that such touches are mortal sins, namely by reason of the proximate danger of falling into pollution or into venereal pleasure (III, 454; Praxis, n. 41).

2. From boys and girls one should not ask whether effusion of semen was present, or great pleasure: for it is better that something be lacking in the material integrity of confession than to give knowledge of those things that are unknown, or at least to sharpen dangerous curiosity (H. Ap., tr. ult., n. 37). Yet let the confessor know what skilled physicians say, namely: that girls, although naturally less prone to venery than boys, give themselves earlier to masturbation, on account of an itching in the private parts so easily existing among them (Antonelli, II, n. 246 ff.; Bossu, Anthropol., II, p. 48).

3. It is never to be asked of women whether pollution was present; for the question is useless. They are held polluted when from vehement movement of the organs great pleasure arises in them; once this is completed, the venereal appetite is satisfied and rests. Hence it suffices if they are asked whether they have satisfied themselves in a dishonorable manner, or have fulfilled passion (Scavini, I, n. 778, adn.).

4. If boys ask about this or that sin concerning which they have heard in preaching, one must respond either by general words, by inspiring horror of this sin, or by turning the mind away to other things.

5. If someone, most miserably agitated by pleasure for hours, indeed for days, by help of a light action that of itself does not tend to pollution, for example by placing leg over leg, procures emptying for himself, do not condemn him a priori of the guilt of directly willed pollution, provided the intention of pollution is lacking. In this manner of acting, there is present rather licit permission than volition (Lehmkuhl, I, 1042).

The question of the imputability of indirectly voluntary pollution is not to be confused with the question, although related, concerning the danger of consent.

Indirectly voluntary pollution is that which, at least confusedly foreseen, comes from an action more or less influencing it, and voluntarily posited.

795. Principles. I. Indirectly voluntary pollution is imputed unto fault when no reason of necessity or utility is given for positing the action from which it is foreseen as about to follow. But the fault is grave or light according as the action, posited without sufficient reason, gravely or lightly influences pollution. This is established from what was said concerning the indirect voluntary (n. 314-315).

Hence: 1. It is a grave sin whenever the action that is posited without necessity is a proximate or direct cause of pollution: as, for example, reading or hearing of very shameful matters, voluntary and lingering sight of entirely obscene things, a prolonged conversation with a girl inordinately loved (at least on account of the danger of consent), injections, shameful and lustful touches, especially on another's body, attentive thought concerning concubitus, etc. For these of themselves gravely influence, and he who posits such a cause, adverting to the danger of pollution at least confusedly, by that very fact wills the effect connaturally joined to it, even if he does not intend it (III, 424-426, 482; H. Ap., IX, 33).

2. It is venial when the action that is posited without necessity and without utility is a remote cause of pollution, i.e. such that danger is rarely or by accident joined to it. - Actions of this sort are: curious sight of a beautiful woman, or of an indecent picture, or of the coitus of animals (provided the sight is not prolonged), curious reading of a lightly shameful book, and similar things, which in the genus of lust are venial sins. Except if someone knew that pollution frequently comes to him from there; because then from that special disposition these would be, with respect to himself, a proximate cause of pollution¹ (cf. n. 769).

Yet it would be said more mildly "if the causes (in the genus of immodesty) were altogether light, as would be sight of the honorable parts of a woman, lightly shameful reading, conversation with a woman not prolonged, or lightly obscene; because it is as if morally impossible commonly to avoid all these causes" (III, 484).

3. Likewise, pollution is imputed to venial fault if the cause is indeed mortal, but not in the genus of lust, such as drunkenness or gravely sinful intemperance; because such a cause is judged to influence not of itself, but rather from the weakness of nature, and by accident² (H. Ap., IX, 35).

796. II. Indirectly voluntary pollution is free from every fault, if there is present a sufficient reason for positing its cause, with all consent to venereal pleasure and its danger removed. This is established from what was said concerning the indirect voluntary, n. 315. But the reason of acting is reputed sufficient when it is proportionate, i.e. grave for proximate danger, light for remote danger. Thus any reasonable cause of necessity, utility, or convenience excuses from a light influence (even in a shameful genus). Cf. III, 483; H. Ap., IX, 34, 35; Berardi, Theol. mor., n. 760.

Hence, it is not of itself a sin: for the sake of recreation to ride; to take heating foods temperately; to perform gymnastic exercises; to lie in bed in a certain posture; from an honorable cause to speak with a person of the other sex; to kiss or embrace a relative according to the custom of the country; to serve the sick; to help them in baths; to exercise the surgical art; to hear sweet singing; to hear the confessions of the faithful, and similar things; although pollution is foreseen as about to follow by accident, provided it is not intended, and there is present a firm purpose of not assenting to it, if perhaps it comes. See also n. 810.

Note. Where, besides the danger of material pollution, some danger of formal consent is given, a graver reason and special caution are necessary, as was said n. 375. - See n. 800, concerning cautions or remedies to be applied.

797. Principles. I. Involuntary and natural pollution is free from every fault. The reason is evident of itself. Cf. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 154, a. 5; 3, q. 80, a. 7. It is called involuntary and natural: namely that which, without any cooperation (neither direct nor indirect) of the will, comes from merely natural causes and can stand with pleasure. Thus pollution sometimes arises from the superfluity of nature, weakness of the organs, excessive heating of the body, etc. Directly to intend and procure nocturnal pollution is mortal (Genicot, I, n. 400).

798. II. There is not of itself an obligation of restraining pollution occurring spontaneously; provided both consent to pleasure and its proximate danger are absent (which each one can judge from past experience). The reason is both because it is most difficult to restrain it once begun, and because man is not held to impede this natural effect with danger of a graver temptation or of another inconvenience (cf. n. 353, q. 2). - Yet it is expedient for the health of the body to restrain or impede it, especially for those who are weakened by frequent pollution (III, 479).

St. Alphonsus notes: 1. He who suffers pollution ought to take care that at that time he turns the mind away from pleasure, and devoutly and trustingly invokes the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, so that thus he may avoid consent. 2. He who, half asleep, takes pleasure concerning pollution is not to be condemned of mortal sin, since for mortal sin both full advertence and perfect consent are required. And the same is to be said of nocturnal touches (H. Ap., IX, 32).

799. What, you will ask, about distillation and carnal movement?

Resp. 1. "If it is with some venereal pleasure, or with movement of the spirits, it will indeed be mortal if it is not avoided, just as pollution is to be avoided. But if it happens without sense and movement, it can be permitted, as the emission of another excrement, but it can never be procured deliberately" (H. Ap., IX, 30). In other words: no concern is to be had about it, nor is there an obligation of omitting the causes of such effusion.

2. The same, with proportion observed, seems to be said of movement of the genital parts. If it is grave and lustful, it ought to be avoided, as pollution itself is, and with the same cautions applied; if light, and coming from an honorable action, or from weakness of nature, it is better to disregard it, and divert oneself to other things (cf. n. 322). - Generally it can be said that the same principles that are established concerning pollution have force here.

800. Note. Remedies for healing those accustomed to the sin of pollution are: 1. In the natural order, abstinence from warm or irritating liquors and foods; discreet mortifications; labor and weariness of the body; custody of the senses; prompt repulsion of shameful thoughts; flight from occasions, bad books, persons of the different sex, sadness, solitude, idleness, etc. They counsel also covering and compressing the moved parts with clothing (St. Alph., V, 8; Berardi, de Sexto, n. 772; Sani, de Sexto, n. 1885, I and II). 2. In the supernatural order, fervent prayer, and invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially in time of temptation, alms, but especially frequent approach to the sacraments. "I scarcely think there is another efficacious remedy than to use most frequent confession; for this sacrament is the greatest bridle, and he who does not use it, let him not promise himself amendment, except by miracle." Thus St. Alphonsus with Toletus (VI, 464). Cf. Antonelli, II, n. 176 ff., where many very useful things are given. See below (n. 1831) how one must act with the habituated and relapsing.

801. Notion. Onanism (or the sin of Onan) is copulation so performed that from the semen poured out generation cannot follow. This crime perpetrated among unmarried persons is a double sin, namely fornication begun and effective, and pollution in effect. Concerning onanism between spouses it will be said in the treatise on Matrimony (2114 ff.).

The special malice of onanism, when it is committed by unmarried persons, is not rarely unknown; because they easily persuade themselves that less evil intervenes there, where scandal is avoided and the honor of the girl is consulted. Therefore let the confessor not press questions if the penitent seems to be in good faith, nor a special reason is present for admonishing him or asking whether the sin was consummated, for example on account of suspicion of attempted abortion.

Note. To onanism is referred, insofar as inducing its danger, inordinate congress, in which, namely, the natural order of lying together is not preserved: for example when the man lies beneath, or approaches backward in the manner of beasts, or from the side, or standing, or sitting, or in another unusual mode. Whether and what kind of sin it is, see n. 2100.

802. Definition. Sodomy is concubitus with an undue sex, or in an undue vessel (III, 466). It is said: concubitus, i.e. conjunction of bodies: for in this is found the constitutive reason of this sin; penetration of the vessel does not necessarily pertain to it, except in imperfect sodomy.

Sodomy is a vice of particular friendships, and is called pederasty or lesbian love, according as males pursue males, or females pursue females, with undue love mutually. Today in many regions physicians move every stone so that sodomites (Uranists, tribades, the third sex) may not be punished so severely by civil law.

Division. A twofold sodomy, and indeed diverse in species, is distinguished: namely perfect and imperfect. Perfect is concubitus toward a non-due sex, as of a male toward a male, or of a female toward a female. Thus more probably with St. Thomas (2.2, q. 154, a. 11). Imperfect is concubitus with a person of diverse sex, but in an unnatural vessel. Each, by reason of the effect, is either consummated, if it happens with effusion of semen inside the undue vessel, or non-consummated, if semination is lacking, or if semen is poured out outside the vessel.

The whole specific malice of perfect sodomy consists in affection toward an undue sex; and therefore among persons of the same sex "perfect sodomy is present in whatever part of the body congress happens, because ordinarily affection toward the undue sex is then always present" (H. Ap., IX, 24). But the malice of imperfect sodomy consists in affection toward an undue vessel. Wherefore, if the sex is diverse, copulation in a posterior vessel is required to contract the malice of this sodomy.

Principles. I. Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution. This is established from the horror that it excites among all, and also from the unheard-of punishments that God inflicted on Sodom (cf. Gen., 19; and Rom., 1, 26, 27).

803. II. Sodomites, whether they are agents or patients, are punished by each law. 1. If they are laymen, they deserve by civil (Roman) law the penalty of death and burning of the corpse. These are no longer in force today, but other penalties are imposed. 2. If they are clerics or religious, they incur by canon law (but after sentence) deprivation of offices, benefices, and every clerical privilege; and they must be handed over to the secular arm, when namely sodomy is perfect, consummated (in the posterior vessel), and repeated. Const. Horrendum of St. Pius V (cf. III, 470; de Privil., n. 19).

Bishops also are accustomed to reserve this case to themselves, if the sodomy is perfect and consummated, i.e. if it is carried out with a person of the same sex, and penetration of the posterior vessel and semination are present.

These are of a twofold genus: some according to nature, others against nature, according as the conditions necessary for generation are observed or not observed.

Six sins of this sort are recounted, namely: 1° simple fornication; 2° adultery; 3° incest; 4° sacrilege; 5° stuprum; 6° raptus.

493. Definition. - Fornication, if it is taken in a broad sense, is every illicit concubitus. - But strictly it is defined: Concubitus of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman from mutual consent. - Here "unmarried" is understood as one who is free from every bond of Matrimony, vow, or kinship in a prohibited degree.

Principles. - I. Fornication is utterly forbidden by natural right and by positive divine right, so that it can never be excused from grave sin. - This is clear: 1° From Sacred Scripture:¹ Neither fornicators shall possess the kingdom of God. Every fornicator or unclean person ... has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ: 2° From reason; for, if fornication were permitted, men would generally withdraw from contracting Matrimony, and offspring received from fornication would be left without any education. But from this the subversion of social order would necessarily follow. St. Alphonsus adds:² "of itself it is against the right of nature to subject reason to the flesh, as happens in fornication on account of the delectation of the act; but in Matrimony, although the same delectation intervenes, God nevertheless by a special providence disposes that such disorder be absent."

II. To fornication, as to the same species, are referred concubinage and prostitution. - Concubinage properly so called is the habitual commerce of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. It will be treated in n. 1438 sq. Prostitution is the state of a woman prostituted to many, at least to more than two. It is a most grave sin by reason of the disposition of soul, scandal, and harm of offspring, which is rarely born from prostitution, and, if ever it is born, is usually educated most badly.

The circumstance of concubinage or prostitution, although by reason of species it need not necessarily be declared in Confession, nevertheless per accidens it must ordinarily be explained for manifesting the state and genus of occasions, and must always be opened to the confessor when he asks.

494. Definition. - Adultery is copula had with a married person.³

Principles. - I. Adultery is a most grave sin, both against chastity and against justice. This is clear: 1° From Scripture:¹ If a man sleeps with the wife of another, each shall die, that is, the adulterer and the adulteress; and you shall take away evil from Israel. ... Neither adulterers shall possess the kingdom of God. 2° From reason: for adultery violates in a grave matter the right of another, namely of the other spouse; it obstructs the good of offspring; it harms the family; often it begets scandals and quarrels, and produces innumerable other evils, as daily experience teaches.

II. Adultery committed with a married woman is a graver sin, of itself speaking, than if a married man were to sin with an unmarried woman. The reason is that in the prior case copula either harms generation (which happens not rarely), and then the husband is unjustly deprived of children; or it introduces false heirs into the family, or at least often begets uncertainty of offspring.²

Note. - 1° It makes no difference that the spouse consents, because such a cession of right is null, since the right over the body of the spouse belongs to each not only for the private good, but also for the public good. Hence this proposition 50 was proscribed by Innocent XI:³ "Copula with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery."

2° If a married man sins with a married woman, there is a twofold adultery; which must be expressed in Confession.

3° He who knows his wife sodomitically, by the common opinion more probably commits adultery; because this is against the good of the faith given, and this circumstance must be declared in Confession.³

495. Definition. - Incest is concubitus with a person joined by kinship or affinity within the degrees in which it is not licit to enter Matrimony. But kinship is threefold: natural, namely among blood-relations up to the fourth degree inclusive (the same is valid concerning affines); spiritual, arisen from Baptism or Confirmation; and legal, proceeding from adoption.

Principles. - I. Incest is a special and most grave sin. For it is opposed both to chastity, and to the piety and reverence owed to kin and affines. Hence in Leviticus⁴ it is punished by the penalty of death; and Blessed Paul¹ gravely rebukes the incestuous man, handing him over to Satan that he may be corrected.

II. It is certain that at least four species of incest are given which must be explained in Confession. - For they commonly teach: Incest among blood-relations or affines differs in species, both 1° from incest among spiritual relatives, and 2° from incest among legal relatives, because they arise from a formally diverse root: indeed, according to St. Thomas,² by copula among spiritual relatives, sacrilege is committed in the manner of incest. 3° Likewise incest among blood-relations or affines in the first degree of the direct line differs in species from every incest of an inferior degree; because conjunction between parents and children, and especially between mother and son, is altogether prohibited by the right of nature on account of the reverence owed to parents; likewise from the same motive, says St. Alphonsus, conjunction between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, between stepmother and stepson, is prohibited.³ See the rest in n. 1365. q. 2°.

Note. - A confessor more probably does not commit incest in having intercourse with a penitent; for there is no spiritual kinship between them, since this arises only from Baptism and Confirmation. But a pastor sinning with his parishioner offends against justice, from which he is bound to feed his sheep not only by word, but also by example.⁴ Several say the same of a guardian toward a ward, and of all to whom the care of minors has been committed.⁵

496. Definition. - Sacrilege (in matter of luxury) is the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act.

It is a great sin: for reason dictates that holy things are to be treated holily; and it contains a twofold malice, one against chastity, the other against religion.

Principles. - I. Concerning the person, sacrilege is committed if someone sins luxuriously having a vow of chastity, or with one having it. Hence a priest sinning with another sacred person commits a twofold sacrilege.

St. Alphonsus notes:¹ 1° "A Religious who is also a priest, by harming chastity, more probably commits one sacrilege"; because he offends one virtue of religion. - 2° "A priest inducing by his counsel a layman to fornicate commits sacrilege, if he induces him to lust from affection. Otherwise, if from another evil end."²

II. Concerning the place, every luxurious action in a sacred place will be sacrilege. Thus, for example, voluntary pollution in a church is sacrilege, although it is secret and the church does not need reconciliation, as it needs in notorious pollution.

Note. - 1° Lightly base touches in a church are more probably not sacrileges; because from them there does not result a great irreverence against a sacred place. 2° Enormously grave touches are commonly held as sacrileges; and St. Alphonsus affirms the same as absolutely more probable if the touches (likewise words and sight) are simply grave. 3° Internal acts are not sacrileges, if you except desires of sinning externally in a sacred place.³

III. "Concerning the thing, he commits sacrilege who abuses sacred things for base things. - The same must be said concerning a priest who sins basely vested for Mass, or while carrying the Eucharist, or immediately after Communion, for example, within half an hour."⁴

497. Definition. - Stuprum strictly taken (as in Canon Law) is the defloration of a virgin, she herself being unwilling. In a broader sense (as in civil law) it is the oppression of any woman whatever, even a married one.

Principles. - I. Stuprum in each sense has a special malice; because beyond fornication it contains an injury certainly grave on account of violence inflicted on the modesty of a woman; which malice is increased, but more probably within the same species, when someone violently takes integrity from a virgin: for this is reputed, and deservedly indeed, as a good of the greatest price, by which especially virgins are honored and are sought for suitable nuptials. Therefore the stuprum of a virgin is punished in canon law with special penalties.⁵

498. • II. For the crime of stuprum, moral and interpretative violence suffices. - For commonly even he is judged guilty of stuprum who has oppressed a girl not yet enjoying the use of reason, a drunk, foolish, or sleeping woman. - Likewise he is called a violator who has induced a virgin to evil by fraud (for example, by a false promise of Matrimony or of a great dowry), or by grave fear, even reverential fear.¹

Indeed, even if more commonly and more probably it is taught that of itself it is not a special sin if a virgin plainly consents, because properly speaking an injury is not done to one consenting; nevertheless it can be such from elsewhere, "namely by reason of infamy or sorrow of parents, or of quarrels, hatred, etc."²

499. Definition. - Raptus is committed in two ways: either by violently leading away a resisting woman from place to place for the sake of contracting Matrimony; - or by leading away a man or woman for the sake of fulfilling lust, from a safe place to one not safe, through force or grave fear inflicted either on the person carried off, or on those under whose power she is, that is, parents, or guardians, or husband.

Principles. - I. Raptus for the sake of Matrimony is not only a grave sin, but also induces a diriment impediment, and is punished in Canon Law with most grave penalties.

II. Raptus for the sake of lust (of which here there is question) is a grave sin, by which both chastity and justice are harmed. - 1° Chastity, on account of the fornication itself, or at least on account of the libidinous intention. 2° Justice, because force is inflicted either on the one carried off, or on those whose power she is under, or even on both.

Note. - If a woman sui juris (of age or emancipated) consents to one wishing to carry her off, and departs of her own accord, even without the knowledge of her parents, it is not properly raptus, but flight (elopement), which does not add a malice distinct in species from fornication.³

But importunate prayers also constitute raptus; likewise deceit and fraud. This, with respect to Matrimony, was decided by the Sacred Congregation of the Council on Aug. 27, 1864.⁴

Sins against nature are four, diverse in species: 1° pollution or softness; 2° onanism; 3° sodomy; 4° bestiality. They are called against nature because they offend not only rational nature, as other sins do, but also right animal nature.

500. • Definition. It is the effusion of semen with libidinous delectation without congress with another. - It differs from distillation, which is a flow of a certain humor of lesser moment, almost drop by drop, and accustomed to happen without vehement delectation or movement.¹

Division. Pollution can be either voluntary in itself, or direct; or voluntary in the cause, or indirect; or involuntary.

501. Principles. - I. Pollution directly and perfectly voluntary is always a mortal sin; so that it is never licit to procure it. - This is clear 1° from Scripture: Neither the soft shall possess the kingdom of God.² 2° By reason: both because pollution has an intrinsic repugnance with nature, which has ordered the effusion of semen in each sex solely to the work of generation; and because, on account of the vehement delectation in this effusion, the order of nature would soon be overturned, unless pollution were gravely prohibited. Most easily a habit of the same is contracted, which is wont to be followed by alienation from the licit pleasures of marriage, dullness of sense and reason from frequent failing of the mind, weakening of the body, an accumulation of diseases, finally the abominable corruption of the whole man. 3° It is confirmed by the condemnation of proposition 49 by Innocent XI, p. XVII.³ Hence it follows:

1° In no case, and not even for preserving life, is it licit to intend or procure the effusion of semen, however slight, or to promote one begun.

2° It would probably be licit to expel semen certainly corrupted, provided it could be done without the sense of lust and without direct effusion of healthy semen, for example by the help of a medicine.¹ But today physicians testify that semen is not corrupted, but only not elaborated, and therefore that the hypothesis of corrupted and disease-producing semen is vain.²

II. All pollutions according to themselves are of the same species, provided they occur without concubitus. We say according to themselves; because by reason of circumstances there can be annexed to it other malices, for example, if a priest or a married man is polluted; if it is done with a desire of sinning, or by delighting in concubitus with another imagined person, or through alien touches. Hence:

1° He who is polluted by touching a dead person, a sleeping person, or one incapable of deceit, or an infant (provided affection toward the sex or concubitus is absent), need not declare in Confession anything except the sin of pollution.

2° He who is polluted by the touches of others, without affection toward sex, is not bound to explain whether he was polluted by the touches of a man or a woman, but only to say whether that other was a married person, blood-related, etc.³

3° He who is polluted from contact with a beast is not bound to express this circumstance if concubitus was not present;⁴ a fortiori nothing is to be said about the use of an inanimate instrument.

4° The pollution of eunuchs, boys, and girls, although they do not have perfect semen, theologically differs in nothing from the pollution of others. Nor are diverse grades (inside or outside the womb, etc.) in the pollution of a woman to be distinguished; although by accident a man or woman ought to express grave harm inflicted on himself or on offspring to be born, if it was foreseen.

Note. - Physicians of today see in women no semen properly so called in the humor which is poured forth in them inwardly or outwardly, and they say that that semen improperly so called is not necessary for generation. And this sentence indeed already seemed more probable to St. Alphonsus. Nevertheless effusions of this sort, just as also inordinate motions of women, of themselves speaking, must be declared in Confession; and effusions indeed as sins of luxury consummated (since in women they are the final term of venereal delectation, inasmuch as it is satiated and comes to rest through them), and against nature, since they have been destined by the Creator for the commerce of the sexes. Thus Craisson in the periodical Revue des sciences ecclés.¹

Practical rules. - I. Those polluting themselves are to be questioned also about immodest touches separated from pollutions, and admonished that they are mortal.²

II. From boys or girls it is not to be asked whether effusion of semen was present; because with these it is better to be lacking in the material integrity of Confession than to be the cause that they apprehend things which they do not yet know, or are placed in curiosity to learn them.³

III. Commonly they also teach that it is never to be asked of women whether an effusion of this sort was present; for the question is useless. - Women polluted are recognized when, from vehement movement of the organs, great delectation arises in them, by which, when completed, the moved parts are satiated and come to rest.⁴

502. Principles. - I. Pollution indirectly, or in the cause, voluntary is then a sin when no reason of necessity or utility is given for positing the action from which the loss of semen is foreseen as going to follow. It follows from what was said in n. 7. - Moreover:

1° It is a grave sin whenever the action is a cause per se and proximate of pollution, as certainly are those things which are gravely culpable in matter of luxury, for example, reading or hearing of very base things, voluntary and morose looking at things altogether obscene, a prolonged conversation with a girl loved inordinately (at least on account of the danger of consent), base and libidinous touches, especially on another's body, morose thought of concubitus, etc.; ... for these things of themselves gravely influence it, and he who posits such a cause, adverting at least in a confused way to the danger, by that very fact wills the effect connaturally joined to it, although he does not intend it.⁵

2° It is venial when the action is a cause per accidens or only remote of pollution, or venial in base matter, to which danger is joined per accidens, or rarely. Such is, for example, a curious look at a beautiful woman, or a less honorable picture, or the coitus of smaller animals, a lightly base reading, a base word uttered in jest, and similar venial sins in the genus of luxury. Likewise causes which are indeed mortal, but not mortal in the genus of luxury, as, for example, intemperance in food or drink gravely sinful. The reason is because these are judged to influence not of themselves, but rather from the infirmity of nature and per accidens. Except, as is clear, if someone knew that pollution frequently happened to him from causes evil of themselves venially in base matter; because then, from that special disposition, these would be respectively a proximate cause of pollution. But otherwise, "if the causes are altogether slight, as would be the sight of honorable parts of a woman, a lightly base reading, a conversation with a woman not prolonged, or lightly obscene"; for "to avoid them all would be morally impossible."¹

II. Indirectly voluntary pollution is free from all fault if a sufficient reason is had for positing its cause, provided that 1° the pollution is in no way intended by the agent, 2° the danger of consenting to it is excluded. - The reason is that celebrated one of St. Thomas: Where two effects follow from the same cause indifferent per se, one evil, the other good, it is licit to posit the action by intending the good effect and permitting the evil one.² But the reason of acting (or the good effect intended) is called sufficient when it is proportionate, that is, grave for grave danger, slight for slight danger. Thus any reasonable cause of necessity, utility, or convenience excuses from a slight influence (even in the genus of the base), as they commonly teach.³

Hence it is not a sin of itself: to ride horseback for the sake of recreation; to take heating foods temperately; to lie in bed in a certain position; from an honorable cause to speak with a person of the other sex; to kiss or embrace a female relative according to the custom of the country; to serve the infirm; to help them in baths; to practice the surgical art; to hear sweet singing; to receive Confessions, and similar things; although there is foreseen as going to follow by accident a pollution, provided it is not intended and a firm purpose is present of not assenting to it if perhaps it happens.

Note. - If beyond the danger of material pollution there is given some danger of formal consent, a graver reason and special caution will be necessary. It follows from what was said in n. 8.

503. Principle. - There is no obligation to restrain pollution occurring of its own accord, that is, in sleep or in wakefulness begun against the will, provided consent to the delectation is absent, or proximate danger of it (which from past experience each one will be able to judge). - The reason is that it is most difficult to restrain it, when it has already begun, nor is man bound to impede it with danger of disease, temptation, or another inconvenience: for then he does not will it, but suffers it. - Yet ordinarily it is very expedient to restrain or impede it, also for the health of the body; and this is valid especially for those who labor under frequent pollution.¹ Craisson assigns a certain material means,² which I would prefer to leave to the judgment of wiser men, how much it is worth and whether it can be used by all without danger of soul.

St. Alphonsus notes: 1° "He who suffers pollution ought at least to take care that at that time he avert his mind from delectation and devoutly and trustingly invoke the Names of Jesus and Mary, that he may avoid consent. - 2° If a person exists in half-waking and then is delighted by the copula begun, he is by no means to be condemned of mortal sin, since full advertence and perfect consent are altogether required for mortal sin; and these certainly he lacks who is half-asleep, and therefore does not have the use of reason perfectly free and ready."³ Hold the same also concerning nocturnal touches.

What, you ask, concerning distillation and carnal movement?

Resp. 1° Concerning distillation St. Doctor hands down these things: "If it is with some venereal delectation, or with movement of the spirits, it will indeed be mortal if it is not avoided as pollution is to be avoided. - But if without sense and movement, it can be permitted as the emission of another excrement, as they most commonly teach. - But it can never be procured on purpose."¹

2° The same things, with proportion observed, seem to be said concerning movement of the genital parts. If it is grave and libidinous, it must altogether be avoided, as pollution itself; if it is slight and proceeding from an honorable action, or from the infirmity of nature, it will be more advisable to contemn it, by turning to other things. (Cf. n. 234.)

Note. - Remedies for curing those accustomed to the sin of pollution are: 1° In the order of nature: abstinence from liquors and foods that heat or irritate; discreet mortifications; custody of the senses; prompt repulsion of base thoughts; flight from occasions, bad books, persons of different sex, etc. 2° In the order of grace: fervent prayer and invocation of the B. V. M., especially in time of temptation; - alms; - but especially frequent approach to the Sacraments. "I scarcely think," says St. Doctor with Toletus, "there is another efficacious remedy than to use most frequent Confession; for this Sacrament is the greatest bridle, and he who does not use this should not promise amendment to himself except through a miracle."²

504. • Onanism is copula begun with effusion of semen outside the vessel. This crime committed among the unmarried is a twofold sin, namely fornication begun or affective, and pollution in effect. - Note that the special malice of onanism, when it is committed by the unmarried, is not rarely unknown; because they easily persuade themselves that there is less evil there where scandal is avoided and the honor of the girl is consulted. Therefore the confessor should not press questions if the penitent seems to be in good faith, nor is there present a special motive of inquiring about it, for example suspicion of abortion procured or attempted, of affinity contracted, etc.

505. Definition. - The horrendous crime of sodomy is concubitus with an undue sex, or with a due sex, but in an undue vessel.

Division. - One sodomy is called perfect, which is the congress of two of the same sex, namely a male with a male, a female with a female. Another is imperfect, which is concubitus with a person of diverse sex, but in an unnatural vessel. L. IV. 466.

Principle. - Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution. This is clear from the horror which it excites among all, and also from the unheard-of penalties which God inflicted on Sodom.¹

St. Doctor notes² with the more probable sentence: 1° Perfect sodomy is any concubitus whatever with a person of the same sex; therefore, as regards this species, it is not to be expressed either by men or by women in what part of the body the congress or pollution occurred, because its whole malice consists in affection toward the undue sex.

2° Imperfect sodomy is not any unnatural concubitus whatever of a man with a woman, but coitus in the preposterous vessel; for its specific malice consists in affection toward the undue vessel.

3° Yet concubitus or conjunction of bodies is essential in each crime. Hence:

506. You will resolve. - 1° If only mutual touches have intervened, even with pollution, it is not sodomy. Nor is it sodomy if a man pollutes himself between the legs, arms, in the bosom, or even in the mouth of a woman; but they are two other sins, namely pollution in effect and fornication in affection.³

2° In Confession there must be expressed: 1) The sex of the accomplice. 2) The sodomitic copula itself, or in the preposterous vessel, if the sex was diverse. 3) The quality of the person, whether married, blood-related, etc. 4) Whether the guilty party was active or passive, by reason, namely, of the danger of pollution, which in the active party happens much more easily than in the passive. Moreover, the circumstance of pollution is supposed from things commonly occurring; wherefore only then, when it was not present, is one to speak about it. 5) Whether force was applied.⁴

3° But when the confessor understands that a woman has been known outside the natural vessel and preposterously, he ought not to ask further in what place or in what way.⁵

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

The enormity of this crime is clear of itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

698. Those sins of consummated lust are called according to nature from which generation can follow, as was already said above. Six such sins are customarily enumerated: simple fornication, stuprum, abduction, incest, adultery, and sacrilege.¹³⁴⁶

1. Simple fornication, taken in the strict sense, is intercourse performed by mutual consent between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman already corrupted.

It is said: intercourse, that is, an act apt for generation. But if intercourse is had in an onanistic manner, the sin is of itself graver, because the malice of a sin against nature is added; nevertheless, many penitents erroneously think that this is a diminishing circumstance, because in this way provision is made for the honor of the woman.

It is said: by mutual consent, so that fornication may be distinguished from violent stuprum, concerning which below, n. 699.

Finally, it is said: of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman already corrupted, that is, between persons who are free not only from the bond of marriage, but also from mutual blood relationship, affinity, and a vow of continence, since otherwise the malice either of adultery, incest, or sacrilege is added. Moreover, it is required that the woman not be a virgin; for otherwise there is stuprum.

The malice of fornication was denied by the Nicolaitans, certain Gnostics, Anabaptists, Mormons, and several modern Liberalists. Durandus, Caramuel, Martinus de Magistris, and a few others taught that by the law of nature fornication is not evil or is only venially evil.¹³⁴⁷ Against all these the thesis is stated:

Fornication is not only gravely prohibited by divine law, but is also intrinsically evil, and therefore contrary to the natural law.

The divine law is clearly manifested in several places of Sacred Scripture: "For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from fornication."¹³⁴⁸ "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust ... since they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."¹³⁴⁹

St. Thomas proves that fornication is contrary to the natural law: 1. because it implies a disorder which tends to the harm of the offspring to be born; 2. because it deprives the offspring of the care of a father; 3. because it removes certainty concerning the offspring.¹³⁵⁰ Hence Innocent XI deservedly condemned proposition 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."¹³⁵¹

It is asked: Is a man inducing a woman to fornication bound to express in confession this circumstance of inducement or scandal? If he did not employ force or fraud, he is bound to express nothing except the fornication committed, because from what commonly happens it is presumed (and the confessor easily understands) that the man first solicited it.

Concubinage and prostitution are reduced to fornication as aggravating circumstances. Concubinage¹³⁵² is illicit carnal commerce which is habitually carried on between two persons from a certain agreement. Therefore, intercourse frequently repeated between two persons does not suffice for concubinage properly so called; for otherwise betrothed persons frequently having intercourse would already be concubinaries. In addition, at least some agreement concerning intercourse habitually to be performed is required. Hence a concubine is nothing other than an illegitimate wife who lives with the male concubinary either in the same house or in a different house. Not rarely the sin of adultery is added to the malice of concubinage. Notorious concubinage induces the matrimonial impediment of public propriety and other ecclesiastical penalties.

Prostitution is habitual carnal commerce carried on indiscriminately with diverse men, principally for the sake of gain. Prostitution is very rarely practiced principally for the sake of lust, as is related of the Empress Messalina, wife of the Emperor Claudius. After St. Augustine and St. Thomas,¹³⁵³ all theologians commonly teach that prostitution can be tolerated by the magistrate in order to avoid greater evils. But whether and when greater evils are truly avoided through prostitution is a very difficult question of fact. For prostitution in the places where it is permitted not only does not avoid greater evils, but rather causes greater evils of scandal, seduction, syphilitic diseases, etc.

¹³⁴⁶ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, aa. 1 and 10.

¹³⁴⁷ Cf. Concina, Diss. de luxuria c. 6.

¹³⁴⁸ 1 Thess. 4:3.

¹³⁴⁹ Gal. 5:19-21.

¹³⁵⁰ S. theol. l.c. a. 2. Cf. Cajetan on this article.

¹³⁵¹ Denzinger, n. 1198.

¹³⁵² Cf. Code of Canon Law, canons 1078 and 2357, § 2.

¹³⁵³ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 10, a. 11.

699. 2. Stuprum is taken in a threefold sense: 1. for the illicit defloration of a virgin (with her consenting);¹³⁵⁴ this is the common acceptation among the older authors; 2. for the defloration of a virgin against her will; thus several older and modern authors, for example, Dominic Soto, Sanchez, Lessius, Noldin, etc.; 3. for intercourse with any woman whatsoever against her will; in this sense civil laws are wont to take stuprum.¹³⁵⁵

Stuprum taken in the first sense, when, namely, a virgin voluntarily consents to her own violation, is indeed an aggravating circumstance of fornication, to which, however, it does not add a mortal malice necessarily to be declared in confession. Thus holds the common opinion of modern authors.¹³⁵⁶ The reason is that the physical integrity of virginity is indeed a great good, but nevertheless no special injury is committed against a virgin freely consenting. Stuprum taken in the second and third senses includes, besides the sin of fornication, a grave sin of injustice, because it implies unjust violence. By violence, however, is understood not only physical but also moral violence, such as fraud or fear; likewise altogether importunate entreaties and blandishments which are equivalent to moral violence, such as, for example, those which are accompanied by great gifts or lustful kisses or touches. In one word: This moral violence is everything which a respectable woman can scarcely resist.¹³⁵⁷ He also commits stuprum who violates a woman altogether drunk, sleeping, or hypnotized. - Special ecclesiastical penalties are inflicted upon laity and clerics perpetrating stuprum taken in the second and third senses.¹³⁵⁸

In order that a woman oppressed by force may be immune from every sin, she is bound not only inwardly to resist venereal pleasure, but also outwardly to repel the violator with all her strength; but she is not bound to cry out if grave inconvenience thereby threatens her.

¹³⁵⁴ Entjungferung [defloration].

¹³⁵⁵ Notsucht, viol [rape].

¹³⁵⁶ Cf. Billuart, De temperantia diss. 6, a. 3, dico 3; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 443. St. Thomas (S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, a. 6) teaches: "It is manifest that stuprum, which implies the illicit defloration of virgins existing under the care of their parents, is a determinate [Leonine edition: determinately] species of lust." But it is not so certain whether the Angelic Doctor taught that this determinate species of stuprum contains a mortal malice added to simple fornication, so that it must necessarily be declared in confession. And in truth the sin of lust committed, for example, by a virgin fifty years of age now altogether free and incapable of bearing children, or that committed by a virgin eighteen years of age still existing under paternal care, does not seem to be diverse in species. The older authors thought that in the defloration of a virgin there was always a bodily violation, namely, destruction of the hymen, and that such bodily violation was always evil outside legitimate marriage, just as any other bodily mutilation made without a sufficient cause was also illicit. Modern physiologists, however, rightly deny that such violation is always present, since in some virgins the hymen is absent or is not ruptured even by carnal intercourse; but if it is present, they assert that the violation is minimal.

¹³⁵⁷ Cf. Billuart, l.c.

¹³⁵⁸ Code of Canon Law, canon 2357 ff.

700. 3. Abduction is taken in a twofold sense: 1. for an impediment of marriage, and then it is the abduction of a woman from a safe place to an unsafe place for the sake of entering marriage; discussion of this abduction will return in the tract on marriage; 2. insofar as it is a species of lust, and then it is force inflicted upon a woman (or her parents) for the sake of satisfying lust. Therefore, the distinction between the two acceptations is taken from the end on account of which the woman was violently carried away. Abduction insofar as it is a species of lust is judged also to be present if a consenting minor woman is abducted for the sake of lust, but without the knowledge or against the will of her parents or guardians. There are authors who take abduction in a broader sense, so that even the violent abduction and corruption of a person of the male sex is contained under abduction.¹³⁵⁹

Abduction, insofar as it is a species of lust, is a special sin, because besides the malice of fornication it includes a grave injury inflicted either upon the woman or upon her parents.¹³⁶⁰ Abductors of women are punished with special ecclesiastical penalties.¹³⁶¹

¹³⁵⁹ Cf. Billuart, De luxuria diss. 6, a. 4.

¹³⁶⁰ Cf. S. theol. l.c. a. 7.

¹³⁶¹ Code of Canon Law, canon 2353.

701. 4. Incest is carnal intercourse between blood relatives or relatives by affinity who according to natural or ecclesiastical law cannot enter marriage. Under the name of relationship comes also spiritual and legal relationship. Grave external acts of immodesty committed between these persons, or even venereal desires, are referred to incest.

Incest contains a twofold grave malice: one against chastity, the other against the virtue of piety. If, however, the relationship is only remote, that is, in the third collateral degree, the violation of piety does not seem so great that it constitutes a grave sin, and consequently it is not absolutely necessary that the circumstance of incest be declared in confession. But in the first degree of consanguinity or affinity, not only the incest but also the degree seems to have to be declared.¹³⁶² Incest committed between blood relatives or relatives by affinity does not differ in species,¹³⁶³ but it differs in species from incest committed between legal or spiritual relatives. Moreover, this latter incest is rare today on account of the great limitation of these impediments of marriage. - Incest is prohibited by the natural law itself, not only because it is repugnant to the virtue of piety, but also because otherwise a) the greatest dangers to chastity would exist, b) the good of human society would be injured, and c) the offspring to be born would often be impaired as to body and soul.

The Code of Canon Law, canon 2357 ff., treats the ecclesiastical penalties against the incestuous.

¹³⁶² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 469.

¹³⁶³ S. theol. l.c. a. 9, ad 2.

702. 5. Carnal sacrilege is sacrilegious lust and is committed by the violation of a sacred person, place, or thing through a venereal act. It contains a twofold malice: one against chastity, the other against religion.

Personal sacrilege is committed when a person dedicated to God either through a public vow (solemn or simple) of chastity or through sacred order is contaminated by lust, whether internally through morose delectations, or externally through immodest acts committed either upon himself or upon another person. But if this other person is also sacred, then there is a twofold sacrilege, because two sacred persons are contaminated. Likewise sacrilege is committed if a non-sacred person has venereal desires toward a sacred person. Whether violation of a private vow of chastity is sacrilege properly so called is controverted; cf. above, n. 544.

Sufficient was already said above, n. 546, concerning local sacrilege.

Real sacrilege of lust is committed when sacred things are employed for a lustful act. A very grave example of this real sacrilege is solicitation to shameful things in the confessional. Whether pollution or fornicatory intercourse performed within a half-hour after Communion takes on the grave species of real sacrilege seems doubtful and not solidly proved, unless, however, such sins are committed with a willed relation to Communion.¹³⁶⁴

The ecclesiastical penalties against the diverse species of sacrilege are treated in their proper places.

¹³⁶⁴ See the diverse opinions concerning this matter in St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 463.

703. 6. Adultery is carnal intercourse between persons of whom at least one is bound by marriage, or the violation of another's bed. It is simple if a spouse sins with an unmarried person; it is double if each accomplice is joined in marriage.

Besides the sin against chastity, adultery includes a grave sin against justice. How justice injured by adultery must be repaired, see above, n. 151 ff., in the tract on justice. - Even if a husband consents to the fornication of his wife, nevertheless true adultery is present, because the husband cannot cede his right.¹³⁶⁵ Proposition 50 was condemned by Innocent XI: "Intercourse with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery."¹³⁶⁶

The character of imperfect adultery is also assumed by a) other gravely immodest acts which a married person exercises or admits with another person; b) pollution which a married person perpetrates upon himself. Hence a married person committing something of this kind must declare his marital state in confession.

¹³⁶⁵ Cf. Billuart, l.c. a. 5.

¹³⁶⁶ Denzinger, n. 1200.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 1.

1005. Seven species of luxury are numbered, namely, simple fornication, adultery, incest, defloration, rape, sacrilege, and the vice against nature.

It is proved: Species in sins is taken from the moral deformity of the object and its diverse repugnance to reason. But in the sin of luxury there is found a diverse repugnance to reason:

a) in one way, as to the end of the venereal act, and this in two ways:

1. Either because the generation of offspring is impeded, and thus there is the vice against nature;

2. Or because the due education and promotion of offspring born is impeded, and thus there is fornication;

b) in another way by comparison to other men, and this in five ways:

3. Either because the woman is too near by kinship, and therefore due honor is not preserved toward her, and there is incest;

4. Or because she is joined to another, and thus there is adultery;

5. Or because she is a virgin under the power of parents, and there is defloration, even if violence is not inflicted;

6. Or because violence is inflicted upon her, and there is rape;

7. Or because due honor is not preserved on account of a vow or the law of the Church guarding sacred things, and there is sacrilege.

As to touches, kisses, and similar immodesties, they are reduced to the species to which they dispose; for example, if they are done with an unmarried woman, to fornication; if with a married woman, to adultery, and so with the others.

I. Simple fornication (hoererij) is a wandering concubitus, namely of an unmarried man with an unmarried corrupted woman, by mutual consent.

It is said: 1. of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, namely between persons who are altogether free from every bond of marriage, relationship and affinity, vow or sacred order; otherwise it will be another species;

2. corrupted, because if the woman is a virgin, it pertains to stuprum;

3. by mutual consent, because if violence is employed, or an unjust means, it is reduced to raptus.

II. Simple fornication is intrinsically and mortally evil, and therefore is not evil because prohibited by positive divine law, but is prohibited by natural law because it is evil.

It is proved: 1. from the Scriptures, which say that fornication excludes from the kingdom of heaven (Gal. V, 19-21; I Cor. VI, 9-11; Eph. V, 5-6); moreover this also regards the gentiles, who before Christ did not have the positive law, since the newly converted are said to have been washed, sanctified, and justified from this;

2. from the condemnation of proposition 48 by Innocent XI¹ and proposition 25 by Alexander VII;²

¹ "So clear does it seem that fornication according to itself involves no malice and is evil only because prohibited, that the contrary seems altogether dissonant from reason."

² "He who had copulation with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: I committed with an unmarried woman a grave sin against chastity, without explaining copulation."

3. from reason, which Billuart proposes from Saint Thomas (II-II, q. CLIV, art. 2; Contra Gentiles III, 122; De Malo XV, 1) thus: "Simple fornication is concubitus according to itself deprived of the natural order to its end, namely the education of offspring, and therefore according to itself imports an inordination which tends to grave harm, not only of him who is to be born from such concubitus, but also of the common good and of human society, upon which very many and very grave evils rush in from the evil education of its members; therefore according to itself it is mortal sin.

"The antecedent is proved: the due education of offspring in the human species requires between male and female a lasting society, marriage, after coitus ... for it is manifest that for the education of man there is required not only the care of the mother by whom he is nourished for a time, but much more the care of the father by whom he is to be instructed, defended, corrected, and promoted in both interior and exterior goods.³ But fornicary concubitus according to itself neither supposes nor imports a lasting society of male and female, but rather imports the contrary: for it is of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, that is, of those who are bound by no bond between themselves; from which it happens that, so far as concerns the nature of the fornicary act, one party after coitus can at will desert the partner, not acknowledge the offspring, and exercise no care of him. This certainly occurs most frequently, and consequently there is the worst education of offspring. Therefore."

³ Saint Thomas notes that nature itself inclines toward this permanent society: "For we see, first, in all animals in which the care of male and female is required for the education of offspring, that in them there is not wandering concubitus, but that of a male with a certain female, one or several, as is clear of birds ... and from this, secondly, it is naturally in males in the human species to have solicitude concerning the certainty of offspring, because the education of offspring is incumbent on them. But this certainty would be removed if there were wandering concubitus." II-II, q. 154, a. 2.

Nor does it stand in the way that in a determinate case someone could sufficiently provide for the education of offspring, indeed oblige himself to this and swear it; whence then fornication would be licit. "For the response is that this is per accidens to the fornicary act, but it belongs to it per se that the parties are not bound to remain together after coitus, since by it they are constrained by no bond to this insofar as they are fornicators, nor is anyone prohibited, so far as concerns the very notion of the fornicary act, from approaching any other woman; and therefore, so far as it is of itself, it is an act deprived of the natural and due order to the education of offspring. Therefore, that the fornicator after coitus long remains with the woman and helps her for the education of offspring does indeed cause fornication not actually to harm the offspring and the common good, but it does not remove the fact that it is according to itself harmful and disordered from the end of generation.... Moreover, in human acts specific goodness or malice is considered according to that which belongs to them per se, not according to that which belongs to them per accidens."⁴ In other words: then the detriment which the inordination per se brings is per accidens absent or removed; but the natural order in concubitus is not restored, not even per accidens. Hence Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 2: "That which falls under the determination of law is judged according to what commonly happens, and not according to what can happen in some case." Similarly, book III Contra Gentiles, ch. 122: "Natural rectitude in human acts is not according to those things which happen per accidens in one individual, but according to those things which follow the whole species."⁵

⁴ Palmieri excellently says: "Although a pact may be made for educating offspring, this is per accidens, not per se, namely superadded to this union, which through itself remains according to its essence: therefore that obligation is not marital, but such as could be undertaken by anyone, even on behalf of another. Therefore, considered per se, that union is opposed to the law of nature, even if that pact is superadded. Namely, the pact must be of the essence of the union, because this union from its essence is ordered to that end, the education of offspring." De Matrimonio, thesis 6.

⁵ The argument is valid even if the concubitus is sterile, because concubitus according to itself expresses an order to generation; and consequently the law of nature must be understood according to those things which that order demands. "The common law," says Saint Thomas (Disputed Question De Malo XV, a. 2, ad 14), "is given not according to particular accidents, but according to common consideration. And therefore that act from which generation cannot follow according to the common species of the act is said to be against nature in the genus of lust, but not that act from which it cannot follow on account of some particular accident, such as old age or infirmity."

In one word: fornicators exercise copulation as if separated and act as individuals without due subordination to the species, and they partly deprive the carnal work of its natural order to the species.

III. Fornication, nevertheless, is not the gravest sin. For it is "against the good of the man to be born. And therefore according to its species it is a graver sin than sins which are against exterior goods, such as theft and other things of this sort," for example detraction; "but it is less than sins which are directly against God," or against divine good, for example directly against the theological virtues or religion, "and than sin which is against the life of a man already born, such as homicide,"⁶ which is graver than all the species of lust.⁷

⁶ Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 3.

⁷ Ibid., ad 3.

IV. Fornication, by reason of some circumstance, is sometimes called by a special name:

1. Meretricium (openbare hoererij, prostitution), if someone approaches a woman who publicly offers herself, as it were, to all, for the sake of gain or libido. Per se it does not change the species; nevertheless a prostitute will easily be guilty of adultery or sacrilege, being ready for all.

2. Concubinage (bijslaping, samenhuizing), if one has the custom of approaching some determinate woman, whether he has her at home or not. It is a notably aggravating circumstance because of the virtual proposal of remaining in sin; however, sometimes concubinage is understood of a habitual adulterous commerce, in which case it differs also in species.

3. Onanistic fornication, if from the very mode of exercising copulation the generation of offspring is prevented. This differs in species, because the sin is begun as fornication according to nature, but consummated according to a mode against nature: fornication begun, pollution consummated.

In practice, however, this distinction can be unknown; for the circumstance of onanism among unmarried persons is often customarily apprehended not as libidinous but rather as lessening the fault. Hence although onanistic fornication is objectively a graver sin, nevertheless it is not always so subjectively; but according to the affection and intention it will be graver or less grave than perfect fornication. He who chooses onanistic copulation so that he may harm the woman and society less is led by a less perverse affection than he who despises the burdens to be feared by the woman, so that he may satisfy himself more fully. But he who seeks pleasure without burden will sin more than he who, with resigned mind, strives to bear the connected burdens, so that he may act according to nature.⁸

⁸ Castillon, "Peccata secundum naturam," in Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 47, p. 429.

V. Observations. 1. Fornicators are to be questioned discreetly: whether offspring was born; whether they impeded generation or procured abortion, for example whether the girl could have become pregnant; why not; whether they neglected offspring born.

2. The circumstance of seduction to fornication per se does not have to be declared in confession, because the other party by consenting was also a cause of the sin of the seducer.

3. It is licit, with the evil will changed, from displeasure at the sin, to break off fornication begun, even with danger of pollution, because we are always bound to cease from evil and pollution then is beyond the intention. On the contrary, it is illicit for him who perseveres in the affection of sin, because then he intends the loss of semen, for example from fear of infamy, and the sin is consummated in a mode against nature.

VI. Warning. It can happen that there is ignorance, even invincible ignorance, concerning the malice of fornication; in which case the one ignorant is altogether to be instructed.

I. Stuprum (viol, verkrachting, maagde- of vrouweschennis), as a distinct species of lust, is violent concubitus. And indeed:

1. by more recent authors it is taken in the stricter sense, and is the violent or unjust defloration of a virgin, she being unwilling;

2. among the ancient scholastics, as Saint Thomas, it is taken in a less strict sense, as the illicit defloration of a virgin existing under paternal power, even when she herself consents;¹

¹ II-II, q. 154, art. 6. The etymology of the name, which indicates violent concubitus, is nevertheless preserved; for there is a physical breaking of the seal of virginity. Violence is done to the body, not to the consenting person.

3. but in a broad sense, it is so called as the oppressive or injurious seduction of an honorable and unmarried woman, even one not a virgin or not a minor.

But in the aforesaid cases a virgin is understood not in the moral sense, but in the physical sense, as one who, although perhaps she has sinned, preserves the seal of virginity.

Raptus (oplichting), as a distinct species of lust, is taken by Saint Thomas in the broader sense, and is present whenever some violence in lust is employed in any way whatever, and it can be defined as force inflicted upon any person, or upon her parents, for the sake of fulfilling libido. But according to more recent authors it is taken strictly of a special violence, and is the violent or injurious abduction of a person for the sake of fulfilling libido. Hence what recent authors call stuprum strictly so called is called raptus by Saint Thomas.

II. Stuprum exercised with violence, even with one not a virgin, is evidently a distinct species of lust, because it imports grave injustice, since the right of the woman over her own body is violated; but if the woman is a virgin, a twofold injury is committed, since the seal of virginity is violently taken away. Stuprum is called violent not only when the woman is oppressed by physical force, but also when other unjust means are employed, as if copulation is extorted by threats or by fear unjustly inflicted, or by touches brought about by force, or by prayers so importunate that they are equivalent to violence, or by deceit or fraud, for example by abusing the ignorance of a girl who did not know copulation to be illicit, by fictitiously promising marriage, by oppressing a woman in sleep or in drunkenness, and so forth; but not if it is obtained by mere prayers, persuasions, blandishments, gifts.

III. Stuprum in the less strict sense, according to Saint Thomas,² is also a distinct species of lust, both because it is against paternal power, which exercises solicitude concerning the guarding of the virgin, and thus tends to the dishonor and grief of the father; and because the girl can be impeded from legitimate marriage and is placed on the road to fornicating further and acting as a prostitute, from which she was drawn back by the seal of virginity. Hence, even if the father were to consent and renounce his right, to which, moreover, he cannot fully renounce, this other malice would still remain.

² Ibid., a. 6.

Yet because the virgin herself consented, stuprum is not proved to import a new grave malice; and therefore it seems to be only a venial species, which per se does not have to be declared necessarily in confession.

IV. Every raptus contains injustice, because in it man uses an unjust means. Understood in the stricter sense, it is a special injustice, namely deprivation of liberty inflicted for the fulfillment of libido, and thus it constitutes a sin distinct in species. Hence it differs from the impediment of raptus, which is incurred when abduction is done for the sake of marriage. But if a girl of majority age is taken away from her parents by her own consent, it is not raptus, but flight; on the contrary, if a minor consents, when the parents or guardians are unaware or contradicting, it is raptus (can. 2353).

V. Observations. 1. A woman to whom violence is inflicted cannot bear herself merely passively; and therefore she is bound not only to resist pleasure internally, but also to manifest dissent externally, by crying out and by repelling the aggressor according to her strength. Nevertheless she is not bound to resist in that exterior mode which would expose her to danger of death or infamy, provided the proximate danger of internal consent is absent.

2. To a woman who has not had copulation voluntarily, but was oppressed by force or deceit, it is illicit to expel not only a fertilized ovum but also semen before conception. For man does not have dominion over semen, and moreover it is a greater injury, against human generation and the common good, to expel semen from the final seat destined for this by nature, than to procure pollution by which it is expelled from its instrumental seat.

But as to what some say, that in this case, immediately after copulation, before conception occurs, the semen bears itself in the manner of an unjust aggressor whom it is licit to repel: this is true during the action of copulation, but not once copulation has been posited, because then the aggression has ceased and the semen is already in its proper natural place. For copulation is ended by the very introduction of semen into the female genital canal,³ because, the semen having been ejaculated, the work of man ceases and the work of nature alone begins, whereby it happens that the emitted semen, by its natural propensity and by the attraction of the female genital canal, enters the female organs more deeply for fertilization. But to break off the work of nature in human generation is illicit.⁴

³ And not by fertilization itself, as the adversaries suppose; otherwise the impossibility of generating would make one not only sterile but impotent, and would render marriage invalid.

⁴ The question is only touched upon in passing, because it does not directly pertain to the present matter; and moreover it makes little difference for practice, because the case in which the oppression of a woman is to be attributed to violence alone and was altogether involuntary is very rare. For if it began by force or deceit, to which subsequent consent acceded, it will already not be simply unjust; and there will already be no place for blameless protection, since the woman ought to have used other licit means.

3. Nevertheless, an oppressed woman can and ought to move and turn herself and in every way impede and break off copulation lest she receive the semen, although it is to be poured out, because she has the right and obligation of impeding copulation, and the effusion of semen is to be ascribed to the malice of the man alone.

But it is permitted to observe that the doctrine which we propose, which is that of Saint Alphonsus, can be strengthened especially by a twofold consideration:

1. a priori: he who does not have dominion over human life or the human body also does not have dominion over that which is nothing but the principle of human life and body. But human semen is nothing other than the principle of human life and body. Therefore man does not have dominion over that semen, which is man in proximate potency (Saint Thomas, Disputed Question De Malo XV, a. 2). And therefore every action which is directly exercised about semen is illicit, except that which is intended by nature, namely matrimonial copulation.

2. also a posteriori: if it were licit directly to expel semen before conception, because it would bear itself in the manner of an unjust aggressor, by parity, indeed a fortiori, it would be licit directly to expel the fetus after conception, because in that case it would be more of an aggressor and unjust. But the Church teaches that this is illicit. Therefore the same must logically be held concerning the expulsion of semen.

And although a woman oppressed by prevailing force can protect the ovum lest it be fertilized, nevertheless she would not licitly do so by an action which would directly touch the semen or harm it; just as neither is it licit directly to kill an innocent person in order to protect oneself against unjust harm. Here the principle holds: evils are not to be done that goods may come.

He who desires more may go to our Questions concerning Embryology, p. 43, and in the appendix, "Concerning Conception Impeded after Stuprum."

Consummated sins of lust are of a twofold kind; for some are according to nature, and others against nature. The first are reduced to fornication, adultery, incest, sacrilege, stuprum, and raptus; and the second to pollution, sodomy, and bestiality. Of each a brief word will be said.

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."

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.

These, indeed, nearly all take the reason from the injury inflicted on the future husband, and especially on the parents, under whose power she is.

I argue ad hominem. Every act to which the laws impose penalties is evil, having a special malice: But voluntary stuprum of a girl is punished by Civil and Canon law, as the adversaries concede: Therefore. The major is evident, for a special penalty is inflicted for a special fault. The minor is proved from the Laws.

By Canon law the ravisher of a violated Virgin is compelled to endow her and to take her to himself in marriage, even if he is unwilling to marry her after the constitution of the dowry; he is beaten with rods through the streets of the city, cap. 2. de adult., and many teach this with Fagundez num. 21., and D. Bonav. reports it in Confessionali, cap. 3. particula 56. Excommunication to be imposed is added, and confinement in a monastery.

But if the deflowerer is married, he will be bound to endow her, and will be beaten with cudgels, or punished with a fine at the judge's discretion. If he is a Clerk in Holy Orders, he will be bound to endow her, and will otherwise bear penalties at the judge's discretion, such as suspension, deposition, etc. That this penalty for the ravisher of a spontaneous Virgin obtains in the use of all tribunals of both fora, Fagundez num. 27., Julius Clarus §. stuprum, Farinacius tract. 4. quaest. 147. teach.

IN CIVIL law, if the ravisher is noble, half his goods are published (confiscated); if of humble station, he is beaten with rods and punished with exile, according to the text in §. Lex Iulia, Institut. de public. Iudic. Now, however, only the Canonical penalty is in use in the whole world, as Fagundez num. 27. Farinacius, Clarus, and others above say.

NOW indeed this condition is no longer imposed, that she be under the power of her father, or wish to marry. Therefore it is a sign that it is given on account of the violated enclosure of the Virgin.

I ADD the penalties imposed on a violent ravisher, which by civil law are capital punishment, leg. 1. §. finali, ff. de extraord. crim. §. qui puero, where the ravisher of a boy and of a girl are treated as equal. See Farinacius Tract. 4. quaest. 147. and others apud Fagundez num. 28.

The same penalty the civil laws inflict on one who violates an honest widow by force.

BUT IF an honest widow consents spontaneously, she is punished according to some with a pecuniary penalty, as many say apud Fagundez num. 31., but others teach that no penalty is due.

MOREOVER, the deflowerer of a consenting virgin is held in conscience to restore to her parents the loss resulting from it, by supplying the increase of the dowry: It seems so to D. Thom. quaest. 154. art. 6., Cajetan there, Abulensis in cap. 5. Matth. quaest. 201. Many sustain it expressly apud Fagundez lib. 6. cap. 5. num. 3. Others, however, cited by him num. 5., say he is not held, unless he has defamed her.

BUT IF he violated her with a prior promise of marriage, he is bound to take her, or to repair the loss. So many apud Fagundez num. 3.; much more if he deflowered the Virgin by force, fraud, or importunate entreaties; for he is held in conscience either to marry her or to repair the loss; but it suffices if he only add in gifts as much as she needs, because she is corrupted. So Nauar. summa, cap. 16. Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 1. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 3. §. an, et quando, Lessius Tom. 1. de iust. lib. 2. cap. 10. dub. 1. Sylvester V. luxuria, quaest. 5. Some say this is true if the entreaties are joined to threats, or reverential fear.

BUT IF the girl, deflowered in the manner said, finds marriages equally advantageous, and consequently suffers nothing, I judge with Lessius num. 15. Fagundez num. 8. that nothing is owed, because restitution is for a loss inflicted.

BUT IF he corrupted her under the hope of marriage, or by a promise.

IT IS ANSWERED, that he is held to marry her, provided the disparity is not so great that it would persuade the contrary. So D. Thom. in 4. dist. 28. quaest. unic. art. 2. ad 4. Lessius Tom. 1. lib. 2. cap. 10. de iniuriis per stuprum, dub. 3. Sanchez lib. 1. de matr. disp. 10. num. 6. Sayrus lib. 11. cap. 1. Sotus 4. dist. 27. quaest. 1. art. 3. Nauar. sum. c. 16. Richardus 4. dist. 28. art. 1. quaest. 3. Palud. q. 1. art. 2. D. Antonin. p. p. tit. 5. cap. 6. Rosella V. matrim. 4. Angel. V. stuprum, 1. Sylvester V. Luxuria, quaest. 5. Tabiena verbo restit. quaest. 22. Armilla num. 22. Victoria sum. de matrim. num. 266. Ledesma 2. part. 4. quaest. 18. art. 2. Veracruz 3. part. speculi, art. 19. Corduba in summa, quaest. 50. et lib. 1. qq. quaest. 13. Beia sum. casu 18. Lopez p. p. Instruct. cap. 76. Rodriquez tom. 1. cap. 208. Copua lib. 2. decis. cap. 78. Spino spec. rest. glos. 15. Fagundez in 6. praecep. lib. 5. num. 12. cum D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 28. quaest. 1. See also Bassaeus.

THE REASON is, because it is a contract, and when she on her part has fulfilled the contract, the other party is held too; whence by that union she acquired a right.

IF, however, there is a grave disparity, which she herself knew, and could judge to the contrary, he is not held. So Sanchez cited num. 6. Rodriquez tom. 1. cap. 208. Sylvester V. matrim. 4. Fagundez num. 15. and others apud these.

BUT IF she was ignorant of the disparity, and had no external cause for suspecting fraud, the deflowerer will be bound to marry her. So Lessius Tom. 1. de Iust. lib. 2. cap. 10. Petrus Nauar. lib. 2. de restit. cap. 5. from num. 444. Sanchez lib. 1. de matrim. disp. 10. Fagundez num. 14.

IF stuprum is not a species distinct from fornication, it would not be necessary to specify it in confession; but say the opposite with D. Bonaventure.

INCEST is a congress committed against consanguinity, affinity, or compaternity. So D. Bonavent. p. p. Centil. sect. 24. Or: It is the union by which the bond of consanguinity, or affinity, or compaternity is corrupted, as D. Bonavent. lib. 3. Compend. cap. 21. says. It is a sin distinct from fornication, as in 1 Cor. 5: Fornication is heard among you, such as is not even among the Gentiles, so that one has his father's wife.

THE REASON is, because beyond the deformity of fornication it has another against the honor owed to parents, whence within the forbidden degrees arises an impediment of marriage; and it is a greater sin with consanguineous relations than with affines, because with the former there is a greater conjunction, as D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 41. dub. 3. litterali. notes.

THE FORBIDDEN degrees are four; and indeed affinity is contracted by lawful union up to the fourth degree, but by illicit union up to the second, as is found in the Council of Trent sess. 24. cap. 4. de reform. matrimonii; but beyond these degrees there will be no incest.

The degrees, however, are numbered by remove from the stock, this aside. Thus sisters and brothers are in the first degree; sons of brothers in the second, and so of the rest; but these things are treated in the Tract. de Matrimonio.

IT IS CERTAIN, however, that the first degree of ascendants and descendants is forbidden by natural law for marriage, as between parents and children; for it has turpitude, as is said in Levit. 18. As to the others, there are various opinions, of which there will be discussion when I treat of Matrimony.

MANY say that all degrees of consanguinity are distinct in species. So Nauar. man. cap. 16. Valent. tract. 3. disp. 9. quaest. 3. puncto 3.

OTHERS will that all degrees and incests are of the same species. Diana de Circumst. resol. 31. part. 1. and part. 4. resol. 234. Caietan. 2. 2. quaest. 154. art. 9. Bonacina de matrim. quaest. 4. puncto 16.

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.