Fornication

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² C. unic., De voto, III, 15.

³ C. unic., Extravagantes, I, 6.

I. Notion. Fornication is intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman by mutual consent.

It is called of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Moreover, persons are here called unmarried who are bound by no special bond of marriage, vow of chastity, consanguinity, or affinity; in a word, by no bond from which, to the malice of lust, another malice would be added (St. Alphonsus III, 432).

It is called by mutual consent; by this is signified the distinction between fornication and seduction (n. 43) and rape (n. 45).

II. Morality. First note proposition 48 condemned by Innocent XI: It seems so clear that fornication in itself involves no malice and is evil only because it has been forbidden, that the contrary seems wholly discordant with reason.

1. Fornication is intrinsically and gravely evil. This is clear first from the texts of Sacred Scripture cited above (n. 27). Next, the act of generating must be done in such a way that provision is made for the education of the human being to be procreated, and indeed, since nature abhors the defective, that provision is made perfectly. But provision would not be made perfectly for education if the act of generating were permitted to those who were not joined by an indissoluble bond, that is, marriage; in other words, if fornication were lawful. Therefore fornication is unlawful, and that under grave sin, because the defect of ordering to education of which we have spoken is grave.

The minor is proved. Since education requires the cohabitation and cooperation of father and mother, and that a lasting one, only then is provision perfectly made for education when provision is perfectly made for lasting cohabitation and cooperation. But only an indissoluble bond, that is, marriage, of itself perfectly provides for the lasting or even perpetual cohabitation and cooperation of father and mother; not, however, a purpose, which can be laid aside; nor a common mutual contract, which can be dissolved by the consent of both; nor a vow, which at least can be removed by dispensation.

Concerning the lasting cohabitation required, St. Thomas notes: "It is manifest... that for the education of a human being there is required not only the care of the mother, by whom he is nourished, but much more the care of the father, by whom he is to be instructed, and defended, and promoted in goods both interior and exterior; and therefore it is contrary to the nature of man that he should use wandering intercourse, but it is necessary that he be of one male to a determinate female, with whom he remains not for a short time, but for a long time or even for the whole of life" (II-II, q. 154, a. 2).

The same argument can also be proposed in this way: The use of venereal things must be ordered, and indeed, since nature abhors the defective, must be perfectly ordered, to the perfection of the human being procreated; likewise, since the human being procreated is perfected through education, to education; likewise, since education requires the lasting cohabitation of the parents, to lasting cohabitation. But only intercourse between persons bound by an indissoluble bond, that is, marriage, is perfectly ordered to lasting cohabitation, as is clear from what has been said above. Therefore only intercourse performed by married persons is lawful, but not intercourse performed by unmarried persons, that is, fornication.

Objection 1. It can sometimes happen that fornicators, that is, those not bound by marriage, will make good provision for the education of the offspring to be procreated.

Response. Let it pass; but nature, or the Author of nature, must be judged on His part to have provided perfectly for the education of offspring. But this requires that generation be permitted only to those who are joined by an indissoluble bond (p. 26).

Objection 2. Fornication at least seems lawful if now offspring certainly cannot be generated, for example if those having intercourse are certainly sterile, or the woman has been deprived of her ovaries.

Response. Moral precepts attend to that which is according to nature, and not to that which is found accidentally in this or that constitution or age; but of itself semen is ordered by nature to the generation and perfection of offspring. And therefore concerning any emission of semen the common precepts, which are taken chiefly from the end - which is generation and the perfection of the one generated - must be observed, however much by accident generation cannot then follow (n. 27).

2. The fornication of a Christian is graver than fornication committed by another; the Apostle alleges the reasons for this assertion in these words: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Taking therefore the members of Christ, shall I make them the members of a harlot? God forbid. Or do you not know that he who adheres to a harlot becomes one body? For they shall be, he says, two in one flesh."¹ - "Flee fornication. Every sin whatsoever that a man commits is outside the body; but he who fornicates sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your members are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?"²

3. Concerning the gravity of the sin of fornication relative to other sins, take these words of St. Thomas: "Fornication... is against the good of the human being 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; but it is less than sins which are directly against God and than a sin which is against the life of a human being already born, such as homicide" (II-II, q. 154, a. 3).

¹ 1 Cor. 6:15-16.

² 1 Cor. 6:18-19.

III. To fornication are referred concubinage and prostitution; likewise, in a certain way, the intercourse of a castrated man and of one who has undergone vasectomy, and onanistic intercourse.

1. Concubinage is carnal and habitual commerce between the same persons, whether they live in the same house or in different houses. The circumstance of concubinage does not change the species of the sin, so that of itself it need not be opened in confession; nevertheless, it must be manifested to the confessor if he asks.

Concerning penalties, they establish:

Canon 2357, § 2: Those who... publicly live in concubinage... are to be excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical acts until they have given signs of true repentance.

Canon 2359, § 1: Clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, who are concubinarians, after a warning has been uselessly given, are to be compelled to withdraw from illicit cohabitation and to repair scandal by suspension from divine offices, deprivation of the fruits of office, benefice, and dignity.

Question: whether the public power can tolerate concubinage prevailing in colonies, in which, namely, officials both civil and military take an indigenous woman as a concubine, whom, when they return to their homeland, they abandon.

Response. In view both of the very great difficulty of removing that nefarious custom and of those things which will soon be alleged by some in favor of tolerating prostitutes, and which seem to have greater force for colonies than for other regions, the said concubinage can quite probably be tolerated.

Nevertheless Vermeersch rightly writes: "These things... the public power or magistracy ought carefully to guard:

a) That no legitimate wife, nor also any woman converted to the faith, be permitted to be admitted as a concubine, so that in this way due honor may be preserved both for marriage and for religion;

b) That every concubinage of a woman who has not fully matured, and every abduction and artful seduction of any woman whatsoever, be severely repressed.

c) That exterior decency be provided for. It cannot be permitted that these concubines as such be brought forward openly, and be led about as if legitimate wives and be treated with favors. On the contrary, it is necessary that the need of in some way veiling or concealing that shameful commerce contain a tacit reproof of the thing.

d) That those who preserve chaste morals be preferred, as being of themselves better for fulfilling offices, at least other things being equal.

Finally, it is to be wished that in Europe we prepare better cultivators of those regions; and that, by entering into a compact, those who there remain good may be better protected from human respect and from the contagion of vices."¹

2. Prostitution consists in this, that a woman is prepared to grant the use of her body to anyone. A woman given over to prostitution is called a prostitute; the house where - commonly with others - she dwells is called a brothel. Concerning the circumstance of prostitution, what has just been said about concubinage holds.

Prostitution is distinguished: 1. into public and clandestine, according as it is admitted by the public power, or is not admitted and is practiced clandestinely; 2. into brothel prostitution and free prostitution, the latter of which is practiced in streets and frequented places.

The public power cannot tolerate free prostitution, since it offers an occasion of sinning to those not seeking one. Nor can it tolerate brothel prostitution in smaller places. Whether it can do so, with the necessary conditions observed,² in great cities is disputed. Some affirm this, namely so that greater evils may be forestalled, such as pollution, sodomy, bestiality, the seduction of honorable girls, and venereal diseases.³ Others deny it, and judge that, on the one hand, greater evils are not notably diminished by tolerated brothels, while on the other hand sins are notably multiplied thereby. "Through prostitutes," says St. Alphonsus, "... greater evils are not avoided; because in lustful men, from easy and frequent intercourse with prostitutes, libido fixes deeper roots. And therefore, since this vice is increased more by frequency, they do not cease to commit pollutions and abominable sins, at least with the prostitutes themselves; nor for that reason do they abstain from soliciting honorable women. - Conversely, by the permission of prostitutes, innumerable other evils are added besides: namely more girls are prostituted, young men despise their parents, dissipate their goods, neglect scientific studies, stir up quarrels, and reject honorable marriages" (III, 434).

St. Augustine,⁴ whose words St. Thomas adduces (II-II, q. 10, a. 11), is commonly said to favor the milder opinion, to which also the author of the little work On the Governance of Princes⁵ adheres. St. Alphonsus, as is clear from the words cited above, already inclined to the more severe opinion, which today, because circumstances have changed, seems wholly to be followed. For - apart from the fact that brothels, as we have noted, always seem to have multiplied sins rather than diminished them - first, the crimes of which the adversaries speak are, because of the stricter public discipline, more forestalled. Next, brothels can now scarcely be relegated to the "meaner and remote" places of great cities. Moreover, in view of the greater ease of travel and the increased commerce with great cities, houses of prostitutes can easily be, and are, approached from everywhere, even from villages. Finally, the permission of brothels favors that detestable traffic in women and girls which internationally provides brothels of great cities continually with new victims of lust, not rarely unwilling or deceived; this reason alone has already impelled several nations, and even the League of Nations, both to oppose the system, hitherto quite commonly prevailing, of permitting brothels, and to promote "abolitionism," which reproves every connivance in this matter on the part of civil authority.⁶

3. The intercourse of a castrated man and of one who has undergone vasectomy⁷ (an unmarried man with an unmarried woman) is to be reduced to fornication. Onanistic intercourse of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman is pollution in effect, with an affection toward fornication added (n. 51).

¹ De castitate et de vitiis contrariis, n. 213.

² Namely, brothels must be relegated to the meaner and remote regions of the city.

³ Even prostitutes to whom a certificate of health has been granted infect very many with venereal disease.

⁴ "Remove prostitutes from human affairs: you will disturb all things with lusts" (De Ordine, l. 2, c. 4, n. 12; in Migne, Patrologia Latina, t. 32, col. 1000). It should be noted, however, that the aforesaid words do not so clearly express the opinion of St. Augustine. If we consider what the holy Doctor teaches in his Retractations and in his exposition against Faustus, he seems to adhere to the more severe opinion (Marc-Gestermann, Institutiones morales Alphonsianae I, n. 775, note).

⁵ L. 4, c. 14, after the middle.

⁶ Dutch law establishes penalties: 1. against pimps, that is, those who preside over a brothel (Penal Code, art. 250bis); 2. against those who take profit from a woman's lust, or souteneurs, as they are called (Penal Code, art. 452); 3. against those who for pay hand women over to prostitution (vrouwenhandelaars; Penal Code, art. 250ter).

⁷ Those castrated after puberty and those who have undergone vasectomy are capable of seminal emission in the first or second intercourse, namely until the epididymis has been emptied; after that emptying they can indeed preserve erectility and penetrate the vagina, and even ejaculate some liquid, but that liquid is not true semen.

Fornication.—Fornication is the copulation of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman who is not a virgin.

(a) It is copulation, or sexual intercourse suited for generation of children. Thus, it differs from lewdness, which consists in unconsummated acts, and from sodomitic intercourse, which is consummated but unsuited for generation. Onanism is an aggravating circumstance of fornication, or rather a new sin of unnatural intercourse. (b) It is committed by unmarried persons, and thus it differs from adultery. (c) It is committed with a woman, and is thus distinguished from sodomy. (d) It is committed with a woman who is not a virgin, and thus differs from defloration.

Sinfulness of Fornication.—It is of faith that fornication is a mortal sin.

(a) Thus, it is gravely forbidden by the divine positive law. Hence, whores and whoremongers are an abomination to the Lord (Deut., xxiii. 17); fornicators are worthy of death (Rom., i. 29-32), they shall not enter the kingdom of God (Gal., V. 19-21; Eph., v. 5; Heb., xiii. 4; Apoc., xxi. 8). The Fathers teach that fornication is a grave crime (St. Fulgentius), and that it brings condemnation on the guilty person (St. Chrysostom). The declarations of the Church on the evil of this sin are found in the Council of Vienne and in the censures of Alexander VII and Innocent XI (Denzinger, nn. 477, 1125, 1198).

(b) Fornication is gravely forbidden by the natural law. For it is seriously against reason to cause an injury to the entire life of another human being; but fornication does this very thing by depriving the unborn child of its natural rights to legitimacy, to the protection of both parents, and to education in the home circle. True, in some cases there may be no prospect of a child, or there may be provision for its proper rearing; but these cases are the exception, since fornication from its nature tends to the neglect of the child, and the morality of acts must be judged, not by the exceptional and accidental, but by the usual and natural. Those who commit fornication are thinking of their own pleasure rather than of duty, and will generally shirk the difficult burdens of parenthood. Society also would be gravely wounded if unmarried intercourse were at any time lawful. Hence, St. Paul reproves the pagans, though ignorant of Scripture, for their sins of fornication (I Cor., vi. 9-11; Eph., v. 1-6), since reason itself should have taught them the unlawfulness of this practice. It seems, though, that invincible ignorance of the wrong of fornication is possible among very rude or barbarous people, since the injury to the neighbor does not show itself so clearly in this sin as in many others.

Fornication Compared with Other Sins.—(a) It is less serious than those that offend a divine good (e.g., unbelief, despair, hatred of God, irreligion), or human life (e.g., abortion), or the human goods of those already in being (e.g., adultery). (b) It is more serious than sins that offend only an external good (e.g., theft), or that are opposed only to decency in the marriage state (e.g., unbecoming kisses of husband and wife).

Circumstances of Fornication.—(a) Circumstances that aggravate the malice are the condition of the person with whom the sin is committed (e.g., that the female is a widow, or the employee of the man, or his ward, or a minor).

(b) Circumstances that add a new malice to fornication are of various kinds. Thus, previous circumstances are the distinct desires of the sin entertained beforehand, the solicitation and scandal of the other party or parties with whom the sin was committed; concomitant circumstances are the quality of the persons (e.g., fornication is sacrilegious if one of the parties is consecrated to God, and also, according to some, if one party is a Christian and the other an infidel; it is unjust if one of the couple is betrothed to a third party), or the quality of the act itself (e.g., if it is performed onanistically, though pollution may be excused if it results accidentally from the good purpose to discontinue the sinful act); subsequent circumstances are injury done to the partner in sin (e.g., by refusal to pay the support or restitution due) or to the offspring (e.g., by exposure, abortion, neglect).

Whether the fornication of an engaged person with a third party is a distinct species of sin is disputed. (a) According to some, it is a distinct species, or at least a form of adultery on account of the infidelity. (b) According to others, it is a distinct species if the guilty party is the woman, but not if it is the man, for the infidelity of the former is a far more serious matter than the infidelity of the latter. (c) According to still others, it is never a distinct species, since engagement to marry is a dissoluble agreement and the injury to the contract is therefore not a notable one. In this last opinion the manner of the sin is an aggravating circumstance, not a distinct species that has to be declared in confession.

Forms of Fornication.—There are three special forms of fornication, which are all the same essentially, but which differ accidentally in malice or in results.

(a) Thus, ordinary fornication is that which is committed with a woman who is neither a harlot nor a concubine. This sin is in itself the least grave of the three, since it is not so harmful as whoremongering, nor so enduring as concubinage. Ordinary fornication also has its degrees of bad and worse: thus, engaged persons who sin together habitually are worse than those who sin only occasionally, and circumstances such as artificial onanism and abortion add to the guilt.

(b) Whoremongering is fornication committed with a harlot, that is, with a woman who makes a business of illicit intercourse and hires herself out for pay to all comers. Rarely does a harlot choose her life from passion or love, but is dragged in by white slavers, or enters from poverty, or after disgrace, or the like. This sin is worse than ordinary fornication from the viewpoint of propagation, since few harlots become mothers. But its most dire consequences are visited on the guilty persons themselves and on society: for the life of a prostitute is a most degrading slavery; to her patrons she communicates the most terrible diseases, which are then carried to innocent wives and children, and to the innocent she often becomes a cause of ruin, seeking her trade in the streets and public places. Today, according to reliable newspaper reports, many men and women have become rich in the terrible business known as the white-slave traffic. This horrible abuse has grown into a vast international machine which is efficiently organized, and which profits not only from prostitution, but from many other kinds of crime. The patrons of brothels, therefore, cooperate with the crying injustice that is often done the fallen woman, and with the criminals who destroy souls and bodies for their own advantage.

(c) Free love is fornication committed with one’s concubine, that is, with a woman who is not a public harlot but who has contracted with one man for habitual sexual intercourse as if they were man and wife. According to reports, this is quite common in Europe, where lawful marriage is very often preceded by free unions. The trial marriage advocated by some in this country, in which paramours agree to live together as husband and wife for a certain term of years or at pleasure, also falls under the category of concubinage. This sin is worse than mere whoremongering in one respect, namely, that it includes the purpose to continue in the state of sin, at least for a certain length of time. Moreover, there is often the public scandal and contempt for public opinion which other kinds of fornication may be free from. One who practises concubinage is living in a proximate occasion of sin, and hence he cannot be absolved unless he dismisses the concubine, if they cohabit, or agrees to keep away from her, if they do not cohabit.

The State and Places of Prostitution.—It is clear that civil government has no right to support or provide places of prostitution, or to give permission for its practice, since fornication is intrinsically evil. But what should be said of toleration or license given to prostitutes by the public authority?

(a) Theoretically, the civil power has the right to give toleration or license; for, if the common welfare will suffer from a greater evil unless a lesser evil is suffered to go on, the lesser evil should be endured, and it is certain that there are greater evils than prostitution (such as rape and unnatural crimes of lust).

(b) Practically, the question is open to dispute. Older moralists held that toleration was actually more beneficial to the common good than suppression. But under the conditions of the present time many moralists think it is a mistake to give any recognition to prostitutes, and much less to houses of prostitution. Even in large cities, where alone the license could be beneficial, the purposes of toleration are not fulfilled; for the moral evil seems to be greater, since an appearance of legality is given to prostitution, its practice is facilitated, its habitats become dens of every kind of iniquity, and the purpose of segregation is not realized; the physical evils also are not lessened, but perhaps increased, for even with medical inspection of prostitutes, syphilis and gonorrhea cannot be prevented.

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

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

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

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

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

The Potential Parts of Temperance.—The appetites of pleasure are the most difficult to restrain, and there is need of a perfect virtue like temperance to rule over them and keep them within the bounds of reason. The analogous or potential virtues of temperance are that one which is able to check, though it does not tame, the animal appetites (continency), and those that preside and rule over the less violent appetites for vengeance, exercise of authority, superior excellence, knowledge, amusement and display (meekness, etc.). See above, 2465 c.

Are touches which immediately follow fornicatory copulation a new sin? All these acts, as also complacency concerning the copulation had, are not a new sin if they are had immediately after copulation, and are in no way directed to a new copulation, because they are very probably employed as the complement of the copulation obtained. L. 41; Tamb., l. c., 72.

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.

To what is the damager bound because of stuprum and fornication? Two things must be distinguished: simple injury and damage. Simple injury is compensated by satisfaction; and this is owed both to the woman who unwillingly suffered stuprum, and, regularly speaking, to her parents; if namely it has become known to the father, and the daughter still remains in the father's family, although she is no longer under paternal power. By satisfaction: namely by asking pardon, showing honor, with humble submission of oneself. L. 641. For merely natural damage, or for lesion of bodily integrity and loss of virginity, nothing, at least more probably, must be restored, because that damage cannot be compensated by money. L. 640. Even for temporal damage which has followed from shameful intercourse, nothing, except the education of the offspring, must be restored when the woman consents to the solicitation; neither to the consenting woman herself, because injury is not done to one knowing and willing, nor to her parents, because no strict right of theirs is violated. Except nevertheless if the fornicator himself reveals the crime, and damage comes to the woman and her parents from the defamation; this certainly must be repaired. C. A. 1328; Gousset 1012; L. 641.

If the violator has violated the girl by force, fraud, deceit, threats, he is bound to repair every damage coming therefrom to her or her parents, because he is the efficacious and unjust cause of this damage. L. 641; C. A. 1328; C. B. 825, 847. Damage must be repaired, namely if the woman, from lost virginity, either can no longer marry, or cannot enter except into worse marriage. But damage from this is present if the stuprum is revealed, by no means if it remains hidden; and therefore restitution then ceases. But if it is revealed by the fault of the woman, although she herself suffered force, she must impute the damage to herself. But if it is revealed by the fault of the man, he is bound to compensate the damage, although the woman consented and had already been corrupted. But if it is revealed by the fault neither of the man nor of the woman, and the woman was unwillingly oppressed, the man took upon himself the danger of damage and is bound to restitution. L. 640, 641, 642, 646.

Restitution consists in this: that the man either dower the woman or take her as wife. Dower: namely if she has no dowry; or, if she has an insufficient one, that he increase it so that the woman can marry equally well. Take her: if namely the woman wishes, lest injury be added to injury if she is coerced. But it belongs to the woman to choose either to accept dowry or to enter marriage; for she cannot be compelled to accept dowry, since the damage inflicted cannot otherwise be repaired more to equality than by marriage entered into; and if the woman wishes marriage, the man, of himself, is bound to marry her in the forum of conscience, especially if he promised marriage, or if the girl whom he seduced conceived thereby, to impede scandal and to secure the lot of the child. Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 44. Yet, because coerced marriages often have an evil outcome, hence doctors commonly teach that it suffices if the man dower the woman, so that she can marry equally well; and, they say, the man is bound to marriage only if he cannot dower the woman, provided he can do this without far greater damage to himself, as, e.g., if the woman is of far inferior condition, if great scandal is feared from the marriage. But dowry is owed only to the woman whose interest it is to marry, and begins to be owed from the time when it is sought. Wherefore, if it has not been sought, and the woman marries equally well or dies, nothing is owed. - L. 641, 642, 644, 648, 649; l. 6, n. 104, 851; Lugo d. 12, nn. 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18; Resp. Mor. l. 6, d. 19; C. L. 2391. Each is bound to recognize and feed the son born, because he is the son of each. If the son cannot be recognized without infamy, and the woman suffered force, the man alone is bound to feed him, C. A. 1328; but if the woman makes gain from her body, she alone is bound to feed the son. But in default of the violator, the mother must undertake care of the son, although she admitted no fault, because she is the mother. But then she preserves recourse against the corruptor, who is bound to compensate her for all expenses which she made on the occasion of the offspring.

But if the woman consented to the sin, according to Roman Law the mother is bound to feed the infant for three years, and afterward the father must provide for him. According to C. I. and C. G. nothing is expressly established. Yet jurists recognize that parents are equally and in solidum obliged at least to feed and educate legally recognized children. This is drawn from C. I. 138; C. G. 203. According to C. A. 139, 141, 143, 163, 166 ff.; C. H. 165; C. B. 1707-1709, 1715, the father is principally obliged, and in his default the mother. But even if the children have not been recognized, nevertheless by natural law the same obligation falls on them. - Carrière 1371; Gousset 1016. According to C. B. 1717, an inquiry of paternity is had, and in cited arts. 1707-1709, 1715, there are obligations, toward the son, of the mother; and, toward the son and mother, of the father. Likewise according to C. He. 302 ff., the mother and son have the right of inquiring concerning the father; and the same obligations of the father toward the son and toward the mother are declared, and in the case also in which he promised marriage to the mother before intercourse. According to C. A. 163, 164, unless he confesses, the father is presumed to be he who had intercourse with the mother at a time apt for conception of the offspring. And the proof is full if his name has been duly consigned in the books of the baptized, with the testimony of the pastor and godparent added. According to C. H. 134 ff., the father and mother are bound to recognize a natural son when some writing of theirs is undoubtedly present, by which they expressly recognize their paternity or maternity; and when, as regards the father, the son is in continuous possession of the status of natural son of the required father, proved by direct acts of the same father or of his family; and when, as regards the mother, the fact of childbirth and the identity of the son are fully proved. A recognized natural son has a right not only to food, but indeed also to a hereditary portion which is owed to him according to the same Code, art. 840. Yet a recognized natural son is of a distinct condition with respect to a legitimated natural son. For the latter succeeds in the first place, and the recognized son in the third place after descendants and after ascendants, art. 807.

Is fornication a sufficient cause for dissolving betrothals? "If the fornication was before the betrothals, it is certain among all that the man, after the betrothals, once the fornication of the bride is known, can leave her. Conversely, the woman cannot rescind the betrothals on account of fornication of the bridegroom had before with another..., unless the man also had offspring from another, or unless he is known to have been given to this vice by mixing himself with many women." L. 861. The reason for the assertion is that the bride is thereby rendered notably less valuable, but not likewise the bridegroom. But the reason for the exception is that then it can rightly be feared that the bridegroom will not keep faith with the bride. Nevertheless St. Thomas says absolutely: "although those contracting betrothals have not yet given each other power over the body, nevertheless from this they become mutually suspect of not preserving fidelity in the future; and therefore one can provide for himself against the other by dissolving the betrothals." Suppl., q. 43, a. 3, ad 6. Add that the bride can also withdraw if, at the time of the betrothals, she would not have given consent if she had known that the bridegroom was a fornicator; for then there would be an error giving cause to the contract, and therefore consent would be lacking. And, if the bride is truly an honorable virgin, she by no means intends equally to marry an impure man as a chaste one. "But if the fornication was after the betrothals, it is certain that the bridegroom can leave the woman if she fornicated voluntarily... If the bride suffered fornication violently..., the more common and truer opinion affirms." L. loc. cit. But if the bridegroom fornicated after the betrothals, the authors more commonly and more probably say that the bride cannot withdraw, and much less if the man was compelled by fear. The reason is the same as that which is adduced for the preceding case. But as regards preserving the faith given, either the man or the woman is judged by equal right. Therefore, if the other party voluntarily fornicates, it seems more truly that the other can withdraw. Moreover, although the fall of the bride is held to be more shameful than that of the bridegroom, nevertheless the fall of the bridegroom produces a notable change of status. What fidelity can the bride henceforth hope for from such a bridegroom?

If both spouses fornicated, the first opinion holds that each is permitted to withdraw, because each is judged by the same right in preserving fidelity; the second opinion, that this is permitted to neither, because equal delicts are removed by mutual compensation; "the third opinion, more probable and common..., teaches that the bridegroom can well withdraw, but not the bride. The reason is that in this there would not be equal compensation, since the fornication of the bride is far more shameful than that of the bridegroom." L. 861, 862; H. A., tr. 18, n. 18; Diana, tom. 2, tr. 6, r. 14.

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.

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.

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.

300. - Complete use according to nature takes place in fornication, which, under the respect of lust, can be described as natural, extramarital copulation. And simple fornication is copulation which is vitiated by the defect of marriage alone; that is, which, in carnal commerce, violates only that order which specifically human or rational nature demonstrates to be necessary: this nature postulates a conjugal bond.

We prefer this definition to the customary one, according to which simple fornication is said to be the intercourse of an unattached man with an unattached woman by mutual consent. For the quality of being unattached, by which the sin is diminished, seems, from the place which it holds in the definition, to contribute toward constituting the sin; and, while it properly indicates persons who are not married, here it must designate every person who is joined neither by a matrimonial covenant with another, nor by a special obligation to God (from a vow), nor by a natural or legal bond of piety (from consanguinity, affinity, or legal relationship) with the person with whom he or she sins.

301. - Concubinage denotes carnal commerce prolonged in intention and in fact between the same persons, whether a certain express agreement has intervened for a fixed time ¹ or without a fixed day, or whether they have tacitly agreed ² upon a habitual relation or familiar intercourse; always excluding, however, that handing over of mutual right which is proper to matrimony.

¹ We know that in a certain large city women are now hired for this end for three or six months, and that hiring agencies exist. A most manifest agreement is present in civil marriage, which, where a priest is available, is nothing but concubinage for Catholics.

² Thus, in the colonies, a native woman is taken by Europeans for as long as the man remains separated from his own wife. Cf. no. 213.

Among the Romans, the institution of concubinage was in some manner legal; we described it above, in nos. 101 and 117, and here in the third footnote.

Today it is considered merely as "a continuous state of committing fornication and a perpetual occasion ³," which, because of the obstinacy of the will, is regarded as graver than accidental fornication, and must be disclosed at least to a confessor who asks, so that he can judge concerning the occasion that must be fled.

³ Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1037. Formerly, greater attention was given to the imitation of a legitimate state and to the hope of a better education afforded to offspring who seemed likely to be born from concubinage than to offspring born from promiscuous intercourse. Under this respect, promiscuous intercourse with several persons is worse than concubinage and is judged worse. Wherefore, as morals declined, the institution of concubinage began to exist alongside the institution of matrimony, so that until Constantine it was permitted by the laws to have a concubine in addition to a legitimate wife. Cf. law 4, Digest, 25, 7; and the Code, sole law, book 5, title 26.

Not rarely, concubinary adultery is also reserved by the bishop to himself. For fornicators to incur that reservation, a certain frequency of acts is required, which are not repeated merely by accident but are joined by a nexus of intention, so that there is a state or custom; in other words, so that the woman is in some manner destined to the same man.

Where this designation is clear, for example, after a civil marriage, even a few acts suffice ⁴.

⁴ Two then seem to suffice. Cf. Reiffenstuel, on book 1, title 4, no. 124.

In doubt, since it is not always easy to have the conditions ascertained, the case, according to the general canon, will have to be regarded as not reserved. Cf. canons 299 and 2245, 4.

Because of the reservation, the circumstance of concubinage will also have to be disclosed at least to that confessor who lacks power over reserved cases.

302. - Prostitution designates the condition of a woman who, prepared to grant access to almost anyone, is accustomed to make gain from her body. A prostitute - who among certain peoples is honored in certain circumstances - is accustomed to commit not a few specifically diverse sins, some according to nature, others against nature; nevertheless, her state does not impart a new species to her sins. Wherefore, this condition will not have to be accused except because of public scandal ⁵ and in order to reveal the occasion of sin.

⁵ Cf. Palmieri, Opus theologicum, vol. 2, no. 1006.

Moreover, once she has indicated her infamous trade, the burden of accusing herself now becomes lighter for her. In order to satisfy the precept of integral confession, it is sufficient that she declare the genera of sins in a few words; then, concerning interior sins, let her indicate the time during which she began and continued to act as a prostitute; but concerning exterior sins, let her state the principal species (insofar as she herself distinguished the persons): with married persons, with sacred persons, and about how often those rarer species occurred; adding the nearly usual number of her exterior sins in a day or week, insofar as she morally can. For although some, with Navarre ⁶, were content with an indication of the time during which she was situated in that wretched state, since in fact she can quite easily do something more, and the usual frequency varies greatly according to the nature of the place and certain times, no reason appears why she should not indicate in confession what she can indicate.

⁶ Manuale, chapter 6, no. 5.

303. - Onanistic copulation differs in species from fornicatory copulation, since it is consummated against nature. Penitents, however, often neither observe nor accuse this distinction. And when there is question of illicit commerce, it profits quite little to question guilty persons who have sinned with the other sex about another abuse and about abortion.

304. - But now, although fornication, with attention to its species, is the least among sins consummated in the genus of lust, nevertheless we defend this common and certain conclusion:

Every fornication is a mortal sin, even when considered by the natural law alone.

Before the birth of Christ, the pagans, certainly the Greeks and Romans, permitted fornicatory copulations to the young; nor can a prohibition be gathered from the sacred writings of the Old Testament. Yet in the days during which Christ lived a mortal life, the Jews seem to have professed purer counsels. Wherefore, when questioned concerning the precepts which were to be imposed upon converts from the Gentiles, the apostles especially commanded that they abstain from fornication. (Acts 15:29.)

Nevertheless, several heretics, both of the ancient age, such as the Gnostics, and of the sixteenth century, such as the Anabaptists, denied that fornication was unlawful by any law.

Certain Catholics thought that the malice of fornication was to be derived from positive law alone and not from natural law: either all of it, as Caramuel ⁷, or its grave malice, as Durandus, book 4, distinction 33, question 2, no. 10.

⁷ Book 3 of the Theologia moralis, no. 1600.

Among the propositions which were "condemned and prohibited as they stand, at least as scandalous and dangerous in practice" by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679, there is proposition 48: "It seems so clear that fornication of itself involves no malice and is evil only because it is forbidden, that the contrary appears altogether discordant with reason." Cf. Viva on this proposition, where he endeavors to dissolve the arguments of Caramuel.

Catholics, therefore, do not doubt the intrinsic and grave malice of fornication; but they labor considerably in assigning the reason, so that Palmieri ⁸ acknowledges that he does not recoil from the observation of Tamburini ⁹ that there indeed exists an efficacious reason by which this malice is derived from a natural source, but that "it has not yet been clearly discovered by us a priori."

⁸ Opus theologicum morale, vol. 2, no. 1008.

⁹ Explicatio Decalogi, book 7, chapter 1, section 2.

305. - Difficulties of this kind, which occur in this very treatise on purity and in other moral arguments, where a certain inward sense immediately perceives as grave what some despair of demonstrating to be grave, we consider to derive their origin from an excessively neglected metaphysical consideration of sin, and from that confusion by which a divine offense and a violation of the essential order have been equated with offenses among men and with a violation of the secondary order which human laws constitute.

The rationale of mortal sin, as is explained in its proper treatise, must be derived formally from a substantial contrariety to the order of reason or the divine order, and not from the harm which it brings to this or that good. But, with the generic difference between venial and mortal sin neglected, they began to place every sin under the common rationale of a disordered act, the various gravity of which they then wished to estimate after weighing the importance of the object and of the consequences. This rule for measuring human precepts - that is, precepts proceeding from an authority which, being constituted to protect either the common or a private good, can command acts only with respect to that good - is false, or at least without general application, when there is question of the essential order. For then this quantitative consideration is seen to be infected by the vice of "utilitarianism," that is, by excessive attention to the goods which lie nearest to us, and it opens a place for various difficulties, such as these: "Since the punishment of mortal sin is despised by so many and unknown to very many, one of two things must be said: either that punishment is not necessary for the common good; or God has not provided efficaciously enough for the common good"; "The rationale of common harm seems to be lacking in these or those circumstances: why, even when the rationale ceases accidentally, would the gravity of the guilt not also cease accidentally? For example, the good education of offspring requires birth from just nuptials; but when there is no hope of conceiving offspring, why do we even then call fornication a grave sin ¹⁰?"

¹⁰ Cf. Rev. Dr. Van Roey, Quaestio specialis, p. 24, at the end.

Theologians who adduce merely these secondary arguments emerge from this kind of difficulty only with difficulty.

We are indeed persuaded that it is supremely important to the private or common good of men that the essential order of things sanctioned by the most wise God be observed; but this connection between justice or honesty and our utility easily escapes our weak eye, nor ought it to be perspicuous, as the respect of the common good in human law ought to appear both to the ruler and to the subjects.

Therefore, we must begin from this other principle: Every human act substantially repugnant, that is, contrary, to the essential order is a grave sin. For the essential order, or that which is demonstrated by the essences of things, has its own substance and its own integrity, and an evil act can be opposed to it under a diverse rationale, perfectly or imperfectly.

An injury to the substance of this order constitutes a mortal sin; an injury to its integrity, although intrinsically evil, is of itself venial: it is an accidental violation. But every inversion of the order or contrariety, at least when there is question of the order of man himself or of his faculty, is a substantial violation: it is perfectly opposed to that order. Wherefore, it is also understood why St. Thomas, I-II, question 87, article 1, reply to objection 1, denies that venial sin is against the law, but contends that it is beside the law and is compared with mortal sin as an accident with a substance.

When the intrinsic malice, whether grave or light, has thus been known, it is then lawful to infer from it a relation to the common good according to the general rationale by which we trust the wise God; but we shall attempt a direct demonstration of a relation of this kind not as though it were something capital, but merely to illustrate and confirm the principal argument.

306. - Argument. 1. From Sacred Scripture, or rather from theological reason.

Fornicators, by an equal law with those who serve idols, adulterers, etc., are universally excluded from the kingdom of heaven. "Neither fornicators, nor those who serve idols, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, etc., shall possess the kingdom of God ¹¹." - "Those who do such things (fornication, uncleanness, etc.) shall not obtain the kingdom of God ¹²." - "But know this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean person, or covetous person, which is the service of idols, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God ¹³."

¹¹ 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

¹² Galatians 5:21.

¹³ Ephesians 5:5.

Observe, however, that according to the interpretation which several judge probable, by the name of the covetous person is designated one who desires illicit pleasure, who is among those concerning whom the Apostle had written above: "they have delivered themselves up to immodesty, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness" (Ephesians 4:19).

From this we gather that fornicators incur the wrath of God. But by what law and whether each fornication is prohibited gravely, Scripture does not say expressly; nor is one who has fornicated once or twice strictly a fornicator. Yet it does not appear why the rationale of mortal sin would first be present only in some plurality of acts which, moreover, cannot be defined; and it is sufficiently accepted that, in the New Law, if you except the laws concerning faith and the sacraments, no divine precept is promulgated besides those which are contained in the natural law ¹⁴.

¹⁴ Cf., for example, Cajetan, on II-II, question 184, article 2.

Therefore, it is indirectly established from the sacred writings that every fornication is infected with a grave and natural malice.

2. From natural reason. Unless in the end itself, at least in the manner in which it is exercised, carnal commerce must preserve its essential relation to the species; otherwise, it would be exercised against its own nature. Therefore, it is necessary that it take place in a natural manner by two persons who have completed one another as a principle of generation. But only through matrimony can they so complete one another, since nature holds no other compact of carnal commerce ratified. For the principle of human generation must be such as the human species to be multiplied demands. Wherefore, only two persons, joined into a stable unity, can constitute that principle. Cf. what was said in nos. 61, 104, and 105.

A. In every fornication, both parties will to institute copulation by a precarious consent, without mutual right, without a bond of mutual obligation, not as though stably made one, but as independent and separate persons.

Therefore, in every fornication, those lying together deprive carnal commerce of its relation to the species, and consequently violate the order in themselves insofar as they are parts of the human race essentially subordinated to that species.

Moreover, since they do this while carried away by carnal passion, they again violate the order in themselves insofar as, with the essential subordination of passion set aside, man allows himself to be carried away by carnal appetite against the rational mind.

The violation of the order insofar as they are parts of the human race appears especially in promiscuous intercourse, where copulation, with the essential order inverted, is manifestly referred to the pleasurable individual good alone of those who sin.

Cf. no. 258, where a similar demonstration was made concerning the intrinsic and grave malice of onanism.

307. - The demonstration is confirmed by the harms which fornicatory copulation brings to the common good. These harms would increase in number and gravity unless common sense marked it with the note of grave sin.

The grave harms can be demonstrated thus:

1. Insofar as copulation takes place without mutual right, it is capable, both before and afterward, of exciting most grave contentions, jealousies, discords, quarrels, struggles, and killings among several persons who desire the same woman, indeed among women who desire the same man. Hence the greatest danger to public peace is discerned. If, in order to protect the common peace, it was necessary to divide exterior goods which nevertheless can, by some agreement, be possessed in common, how much more necessary does the exclusive ownership of a thing appear which cannot be held in common and is desired with a more insolent concupiscence.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Fornication is copulation of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman by mutual consent; wherefore concubinage, which is the habitual commerce of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman, and prostitution, which is the state of a woman prostituted to all, are referred to fornication.

I say 1st. Fornication is always a mortal sin, because it is gravely prohibited by natural right. For if fornication were not forbidden under grave matter, men would generally withdraw from contracting marriage, and offspring received from fornication would be abandoned without any education: but this would redound to the grave harm of the whole society. Therefore. Besides, it is clear from I Cor. vi, 9; and Eph. v, 5.

I say 2nd. The circumstance of concubinage or prostitution is not necessarily to be declared in confession, since of itself it does not change the species of the sin. But by accident it must more often be explained for manifesting the state and kind of occasions, and it must always be disclosed to the confessor when he asks. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 432.

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.