Incest

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

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

A number of special questions must here be considered which touch on the integrity which is required in confession.

The Council of Trent, as we have just seen, teaches that those circumstances which change the nature of a sin must be made known; the theft of a consecrated chalice, which is a sacrilege, would not be adequately confessed by simply saying, “I committed theft.” Not only circumstances which change the specific nature of a sin must be confessed, but also those which make a venial sin mortal and vice versa. The quantity in theft, then, must be indicated sufficiently to enable the priest to judge whether it was a mortal or a venial sin. Divines are not agreed whether circumstances which merely increase the malice of a sin but do not otherwise change its nature or moral quality are necessarily to be confessed. Many, with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, teach that there is an obligation to confess them, but as they give no convincing reason for their opinion and the contrary is held by many approved theologians, we may safely follow the more easy and the more lenient view.

It is not sufficient to confess as an internal sin one which was completed in external act. It would not be sufficient for a penitent to say that he desired to steal when he actually stole. For although the malice of sin is in the internal act of the will, and the external act adds nothing to it per se, yet, considered as human actions, an internal is different from an external act, and therefore as sins are bad human actions, an internal sin is specifically different from the same sin completed in external act.

It is a matter of controversy whether the mere effect of a sin must be confessed. If a man wounds another with the intention of killing him, and then repents and confesses unlawful wounding with the intention of killing, but afterward the man dies, will his assailant be obliged to go to confession again and confess homicide? The opinion is more probable that there is no such obligation, for such an effect of sin is not a sin, and we are only bound to confess sins; a sin is a human action, and when the victim dies his assailant does not act; he would now prevent the death if he could, and so he does not sin.

A vicious habit or custom of committing sin is a cause of sin rather than sin itself, and as sins are the matter of confession, per se it is not necessary to confess a sinful habit. If, however, the penitent did not use sufficient diligence to correct his bad habit, and this caused him inadvertently to commit sin, to blaspheme, for instance, then although the blasphemy, because inadvertent, is not sinful in itself, it is nevertheless voluntary and sinful in its cause, and so the uncorrected bad habit must be confessed. It is sometimes of importance for the confessor to know whether his penitent has contracted a habit of sin in order to be able to direct him, and so the confessor has a right to ask in confession whether a habit has been contracted, and the penitent is then under an obligation to tell the truth.

If many sins have been committed with others it is usually immaterial whether they were committed with one and the same or with different persons. However, if a sin against chastity is committed with a married person, that circumstance must be mentioned, as it causes the sin to be against justice as well as against chastity. Similarly, if one or both accomplices in such a sin are bound by a vow of chastity, that must. be mentioned. A religious who is a priest, and even if he is solemnly professed, would satisfy his obligation of confessing a sin against chastity by mentioning it, and adding that he is under a vow of chastity. For it is probable that there is no specific difference between the violation of a solemn and a simple and even private vow of chastity, and a priest, like a religious, is bound to chastity by vow.

Sins against chastity committed with relations have the special malice of incest, but with the exception of the first degree in the direct line of consanguinity, it is probable that the several degrees of kindred or affinity do not constitute a specific difference in the sin. There is a special malice and difformity in a sin of impurity committed with parent or child, but among civilized peoples this is happily of rare occurrence. Hatred against relations is not only against general charity, but is also contrary to piety, which binds relations to love each other with a special affection. Grave hatred will be a serious sin also against this virtue of piety if it is indulged in against near relations, not if it is against more remote kindred with regard to whom the obligation is not so strict.

Mere superiority or position of itself does not change the nature of a sin committed by rulers, magistrates, and people in authority. And so if a master sin with his servant, the sin does not of itself differ from ordinary fornication. If, however, the sin is also a violation of a special duty, then of course it will have a special malice, and so if a schoolmaster corrupt a youth committed to his care, he must mention this circumstance in confession.

The time at which a sin was committed does not change its nature, and so even though a sin which has been committed recently be confessed as though it were a sin of one’s past life, the confession will be valid, but of course the practice is not to be commended, nor should it be indulged in.

I. Notion. Incest is said from in and castus, and is intercourse between relatives or affines within the degrees which constitute an impediment of marriage. It is said:

1. Between relatives, that is, relatives either naturally, or consanguineously,¹ or spiritually,² or legally;³ likewise between affines.⁴

2. Within the degrees which constitute an impediment of marriage, whether by ecclesiastical law alone or also by natural law itself. Namely, as St. Thomas teaches, "in the mingling of joined persons there is something which is in itself unbecoming and repugnant to natural reason, as that mingling should take place between parents and children, whose kinship is of itself and immediate. For children naturally owe honor to parents... But other persons who are not joined according to themselves, but by order to parents, do not have unbecomingness thus from themselves. But concerning this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom and human or divine law, because the use of venereal things, which is ordered to the common good, is subject to law" (II-II, q. 154, a. 9, ad 3).

One who, after a dispensation has been obtained for entering marriage, sins with a relative or affine, quite probably does not commit incest (St. Alphonsus III, 452).

¹ In the direct line of consanguinity, marriage is invalid between all ascendants and descendants, both legitimate and natural. - In the collateral line it is invalid up to the third degree inclusive, yet in such a way that the impediment of marriage is multiplied only as often as the common stock is multiplied (can. 1076, §§ 1 and 2).

² Only that spiritual relationship of which canon 768 speaks invalidates marriage (can. 1079). Canon 768, however, establishes: From baptism only the one baptizing and the sponsor contract spiritual relationship with the baptized.

³ Those who by civil law are held incapable of entering marriage with one another on account of legal relationship arising from adoption cannot validly contract marriage with one another by force of canon law (can. 1080).

⁴ Affinity in the direct line invalidates marriage in any degree; in the collateral line up to the second degree inclusive (can. 1077, § 1).

II. Morality. 1. Incest, besides the sin of lust which it involves for the same reason as fornication (n. 33) and adultery (n. 37), also contains a sin against piety. Incest, however, between those spiritually related seems to be opposed to religion rather than, or equally with, piety, because the Church seems to have established the law both from the motive of reverence due to those joined together and from reverence due to the sacrament (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 10, ad 2; St. Alphonsus III, 450). I said: incest contains a sin against piety; for it is opposed to reverence due from piety, according to these words of St. Thomas: "Naturally man owes a certain honor to parents, and consequently to other blood-relatives, who draw their origin proximately from the same parents... But it is manifest... that in venereal acts there especially consists a certain shamefulness contrary to honor; hence men are ashamed concerning these things; and therefore it is unfitting that such venereal mingling should take place between such persons with one another" (II-II, q. 154, a. 9). These things can also be applied to those legally related, because the adopter and the adopted are in the likeness of parent and child, and therefore the Church, in making the law, is judged to have been moved by the same motive.

2. Incests between those joined in diverse ways differ thus:

a) Incest between those naturally related, or consanguineous, those spiritually related, and those legally related differ in species. The reason is that the said relationships arise from an altogether diverse root, namely natural relationship from intercourse, spiritual relationship from the sacrament, legal relationship from adoption; hence they themselves, and consequently their violations through incest, seem morally diverse. With respect to incest between those spiritually related, it is added that this also seems opposed to religion.

b) Incest between affines, those spiritually related, and those legally related, for the same reason explained under a), differ in species.

c) Incest between consanguineous persons and affines more probably does not differ in species. The reason is "because a person who is affine is joined to someone on account of a person joined by consanguinity; and therefore because one is on account of the other, consanguinity and affinity make an unbecomingness of the same nature" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 9, ad 2; St. Alphonsus III, 449; VI, 469).

3. Incests between lines and degrees of diverse connections differ thus:

a) With respect to consanguinity, incest in the first degree of the direct line¹ seems to differ in species from others. But incest between other consanguineous persons seems not to differ in species. The reason is that among consanguineous persons in the first degree of the direct line the character of piety is found per se, whereas among the rest it is found only by participation, that is, by relation to parents. But what is such per se seems to differ in species from what is such by participation. But things which are such by participation seem to differ not in species, but only in degree (St. Alphonsus III, 448; VI, 469, 470; cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 9, ad 3). St. Alphonsus (VI, 470) and others judge that a sin with a person ascending in the direct line also differs in species from a sin with one descending, and therefore they teach that it must be explained whether a father sinned with his daughter, or a son with his mother.

b) With respect to affinity, incest in the first degree of the direct line, that is, between stepson and stepmother and between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, in the same way as incest in the first degree of the direct line of consanguinity, seems to differ in species from others. "The reason is that the debt of reverence which is the special motive prohibiting intercourse of parents with children is also the motive prohibiting intercourse between stepmother and stepson, or father-in-law and daughter-in-law." Thus St. Alphonsus (VI, 469) and others.²

Whatever is admitted theoretically, in practice the confessor, in order to consult the peace of the penitent, if he has a founded suspicion that incest was committed in the first degree of the direct line, whether of consanguinity or affinity, should ask about it; and he should proceed for the same reason if the discussion is of the first degree of the collateral line.

Corollary. A parish priest who sins with his parishioner, likewise a confessor who sins with a penitent, are not guilty of incest, because spiritual relationship, which is an impediment of marriage, is lacking (cf. can. 1079 compared with can. 768). Nevertheless the parish priest sins against justice, because from his office, to which a salary is annexed, he is bound to provide for the spiritual good of the parishioner (St. Alphonsus III, 451).

¹ Many assert the same concerning the first degree of the collateral line (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 448; VI, 470).

² Salmanticenses, tr. 26, c. 5, n. 31; Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 316 and 319.

Incest.—Incest is impurity committed with a person related to one within the degrees in which marriage is forbidden.

(a) It is impurity, internal or external. Internal desires are mental incest, while external unconsummated (e.g., kisses) or consummated (e.g., intercourse) acts are actual incest.

(b) It is committed with a relative, that is, with a person, male or female, who is near to one by the tie of common ancestry (blood relationship, kinship, consanguinity), or of marriage to one’s kin (marriage relationship, affinity), or of sacramental administration (spiritual relationship), or of adoption (legal relationship). Alias species cognationis non pertinent ad incestum, sed novam aliquam malitiam possunt tribuere; v.g., si partes sunt parochus et parochiana, confessarius et poenitens, habetur scandalum, seductio.

(c) The relationship is within the canonical degrees. Thus, marriage between blood relatives is forbidden in all degrees of the direct line (e.g., as to all female ancestry and posterity of a man) and in the first three degrees of the collateral line, which includes, for a man, his sisters, nieces, grandnieces, aunts, first and second cousins, grand aunts and their daughters and granddaughters. Marriage between those who are relatives-in-law is forbidden in all degrees of the direct line (e.g., as to wife’s mother, daughter, etc.) and in the first two degrees of the collateral line (e.g., wife’s sister, first cousin, aunt or niece). Spiritual relationship which is impedient of marriage exists between a person baptized and his baptizer, and also between the god-child and the god-parent in baptism. Legal relationship exists between the adopter and the adopted, when and as the civil law makes it a bar to marriage.

(d) Incest is committed within the forbidden degrees, and hence if a dispensation from an impediment of relationship had been granted to parties about to marry, a sin between them would not be incestuous.

Incest as a Distinct Species of Sin.—(a) There is a specific distinction between incest and other forms of lust, since incest violates not only purity, but also the piety and respect due each other by those who are so closely related as to be unable to contract a lawful marriage. Nature itself abhors this sin; for, apart from the exceptional cases in which a dispensation is given, even lawful marriage with near relatives would be an incentive to many sins before marriage and would prevent the widening circle of friendships between mankind which marriage with non-relatives produces, and would cause a physical and mental enfeeblement of the race. In Scripture incest is spoken of with peculiar horror as a nefarious deed deserving of death (Lev., xx. 11 sqq.), and as an act unworthy even of pagans (I Cor., v. 1 sqq.).

(b) There are three distinct sub-species of incest, namely, natural incest (between kin by blood or marriage), spiritual incest (between the baptized and his baptizer or god-parent), and legal incest (between persons who are kin in virtue of 8, marriage-impeding adoption). The first violates piety due to natural origin, the second that due to spiritual origin, and the third that due to legal origin. And in each species the nearer the relationship, the greater the sin (e.g., incest with a sister-in-law is less than that with a sister, incest with a sister is less than that with a mother).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: When there is question of one who wishes to marry a daughter after having fornicated with the mother, the condition is usually added in the dispensation, provided that copulation with the mother did not precede the birth of the daughter, namely so that the danger may be guarded against that someone marry his own daughter. But the condition can be judged sufficiently fulfilled if copulation with the mother preceded at such a time that that danger is entirely absent.

For contracting affinity it is certain that insemination by the man is required; but is insemination also by the woman required? Pontius and others deny it, because female seed is not necessary for generation. St. Bonaventure and others affirm it, "both because according to the opinion of many others the seed of the woman is also required for generation, and because, and this reason presses more strongly, affinity is not contracted unless those coeundum become one flesh; but they do not become one flesh unless the seeds are mingled. And this opinion is greatly strengthened from the authority of St. Thomas.... In doubt one must presume for perfect copulation (of the man), because from things that commonly happen it is prudently presumed to have been present.... And so also the insemination of the woman is always presumed when she felt great pleasure in coitus, even if she did not advert to the insemination. Indeed, in the external forum, where coitus is established, judgment must always be pronounced for the impediment of affinity contracted, and thus one must also judge in the internal forum, which must always conform to the presumption of the external forum, and it is not established that this presumption is false." L. 1075; Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, nn. 71-73. These are the words of St. Thomas, IV Sent., d. 41, q. 1, a. 1, q. 4, ad 2: "Man and woman become one flesh through the mingling of seeds. Hence however much someone may invade the barriers of modesty, unless mingling of seeds follows, affinity is not contracted from this." And Pyrrhus Corradus, Praxis Dispens. Apost., book 7, chap. 1, n. 18: "For causing affinity the concurrence of both seeds is required." But since the seed properly so called in the woman is not that humor which is secreted in the heat of pleasure and even shows itself externally, but the ovum, which is insensibly secreted from the ovary from venereal excitation, and also without any sense of pleasure, naturally, almost every month, descends into the uterus and is fecundated in the uterus by male seed, if the man has inseminated within the female vessel, it will indeed be difficult to pronounce that the act on the part of the woman has not been consummated. Cf. Joseph Antonelli, de Conc. imp. et sterilit., Rome, 1900.

Affinity contracted between spouses cannot dirimently impede their own marriage, since it supervenes upon this marriage already indissolubly contracted; nevertheless it impedes the use of the same marriage as a punishment of the adulterous and incestuous spouse, by depriving the guilty party of the right of asking the debt. C. Si quis, de Eo qui cognovit, etc. But this, since it is from illicit copulation, by force of the decree of Trent, sess. 24, chap. 4, de R. M., is not contracted except from copulation with the blood relatives of the other in the first and second degree. This is confirmed from the express Declaration of Gregory XIII in St. Alphonsus, 1070. But it probably does not impede imperfect acts, provided the danger of pollution is absent. For since the law is penal, it must be understood strictly, and is not to be extended also to these acts. L. 933.

The Italian Civil Code, 52; the French Civil Code, 162; the Austrian Civil Code, 40, do not seem to acknowledge any affinity except from marriage, whence under it the bond of public honesty also is comprehended. But it is otherwise according to the Spanish Civil Code, 84, which rightly distinguishes legitimate affinity from merely natural affinity; and under that, public honesty also is comprehended. As regards Roman Law, cf. Schmalzgrueber, book 4, tit. 14, n. 70.

73. Incest is intercourse with blood relatives or relatives by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage. Incest is a grave sin, and differs in species from other sins of lust; for it is not only against chastity but also against the piety and reverence which the very relatives mutually owe to one another. Billuart, diss. 6, a. 6; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 9.

74. Note. The prohibited degrees are up to and including the fourth degree in consanguinity and affinity arising from marriage, whether ratified or consummated; up to and including the second degree in affinity arising from illicit intercourse. Thus from Trent, sess. 24, c. 4, de Ref. Matr.

75. Do not only intercourse, but also all immodest touches among relatives put on the nature of incest, necessarily to be explained in confession?

R. Affirmatively. For those acts also are opposed to the reverence owed to relatives. L. 453, 469; Billuart, l. c., a. 6, 9. Cf. here nn. 31, 103.

76. Note. Billuart, diss. 6, art. 6, vers. fin., speaking of sodomitic acts, judges it not improbable that acts of this kind do not put on the nature of incest in degrees prohibited only by positive law. The reason is that "positive law prohibits only intercourse between persons between whom it prohibits marriage to be entered. For these degrees of consanguinity and affinity are constituted by the Church in order to diriment marriage; and thus they do not seem to affect persons of the same sex between whom marriage cannot be entered." And ibid., a. 9, speaking of sin against nature, he says that if someone knows a blood relative in the preposterous vessel, there is had the malice of incest; nevertheless it is not strictly and properly incest, because there is not made a commingling of seeds, from which affinity would be contracted... "wherefore, if incest were reserved, these things would not be reserved." Cf. Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 344-350, who in n. 349 teaches altogether the contrary as regards a sin diverse in species to be manifested in confession, "because if someone basely touches a blood relative in the third or fourth degree, he ought to explain in confession the circumstance of the person because of the specific malice which that touch participates in, diverse from that circumstance of consanguinity... Therefore a fortiori, if a man has had sodomitic intercourse with a blood relative in the third or fourth degree, he ought to explain the circumstance of kinship because of the malice diverse in species. For it would be astonishing that touching the hand of a blood relative adds a malice diverse in species, but the touch so obscene and base which is found in the sin of sodomy would not have a malice diverse in species from the circumstance of kinship. Whence we have at least... that that circumstance must be explained in sodomitic intercourse of a male with a blood relative in the third or fourth degree. Yet from this it again seems proved that it must also be explained in the same sin between two males related by blood in the same degree: both because among the same men other base touches seem to have a special malice to be declared... and also because if sodomy with a blood relative has special malice by reason of blood, why will it not also have special malice between two blood relatives, since there is the same conjunction of blood and debt of observance between them? Therefore on account of these things it seems more true that that circumstance must altogether be explained in this sin, whether it is with a blood relative, or with an affine, or with a spiritual or legal relative; for the same reason proceeds concerning all."

77. Is incest present among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty?

R. Some affirm, and Sporer, 613, hands it down as certain. But at least probably it must be denied. The reason is that incest is among cognates and affines. But among those who are bound by the impediment of public honesty, there is neither cognation nor affinity strictly such. Therefore. L., l. 6, n. 469.

78. Is incest with a blood relative the same in species as incest with an affine; and likewise are all incests, as regards degrees, of the same species?

R. "It is a probable opinion that all incests committed whether among blood relatives or among affines, and in whatever degree and line, are of the same species, and therefore that diversity of conjunctions and degrees does not have to be necessarily explained in confession, so that it suffices to say: I committed incest... The reason... is that in all those things there is one and the same species and deformity against the same virtue of piety and reverence owed to relatives; for that diversity of the conjunction of consanguinity and affinity and of diverse degrees brings nothing else except a greater or lesser conjunction; but more and less do not vary the species even in a moral matter, unless it is proved from another source to be against a particular virtue or against a special dictate of reason, which is difficult to happen here. Similarly, that intercourse in such a conjunction and degree is sometimes illicit from the intrinsic nature of the thing, as in the first degree of consanguinity, but sometimes only from the precept of the Church, as in all the rest: from this, however, nothing diverse in species is necessarily inferred, for the precept of a superior commanding something places the matter commanded in the same species of virtue by reason of which, or from the motive of which, he commands it. But now the Church prohibits congress in those conjunctions and degrees on account of the same virtue of piety and reverence owed to relatives; therefore the transgression remains of the same species." Sporer, 609. - St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 9; Cajetan, ibid.; Billuart, l. c.; Suarez, de Poenit., D. 22, S. 3, n. 12; S. 4, n. 7; Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 313.

St. Alphonsus, as regards the first question, whether incest with a blood relative differs in species from incest with an affine, responds: "Each opinion is probable. The first, with Croix, Cajetan, Lugo, Diana, from St. Thomas, denies, because in each case one sins equally against the reverence owed to relatives. The second opinion, with Vasquez, Dic., and others, affirms. The reason of these is that the reverence owed on account of conjunction of blood seems totally diverse from that owed on account of conjunction of affinity." L. 449. - As regards the other question, whether all incests as regards degrees are of the same species, he responds: "It is affirmed sufficiently probably, except only the first degree of consanguinity in the direct line, with Cajetan, Soto, Lugo, Bonacina, etc., which they infer from St. Thomas." L. 448, 449, and l. 6, n. 469, 470. But the same exception has force for the first degree of affinity in the direct line. For the reverence owed to parents and children is not of the same account as the reverence owed to other blood relatives and affines. L., l. 6, n. 469, 470.

79. Is incest among spiritual and legal cognates of a diverse species from that among blood relatives and affines?

R. "Absolutely it must be affirmed with the Salmanticenses and St. Thomas, who in 2.2, q. 154, a. 10, ad 2, teaches that by intercourse among spiritual relatives sacrilege is committed in the manner of incest. But must the degree of cognation then be explained? The Salmanticenses affirm; but La-Croix probably denies. Likewise incest among legal cognates, namely by reason of adoption, is of a diverse species from the others enumerated and must be explained." L. 450. - "It must be confessed that it [incest among legal cognates] is properly incest; whence there is no reason why we should say it differs in species from incest among blood relatives and natural affines... Whence... it will not be necessary to explain the difference of legal from natural cognation... But the circumstance of spiritual cognation is diverse in species from incest, because although it contains some malice of incest... nevertheless beyond this it adds the malice of sacrilege." Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, n. 327 seqq. - But Sporer, n. 612, 613, has these things: "He who sins carnally with a person joined by legal cognation (of which there is a fourfold degree: 1. between the adopting person and the adopted person and his or her descendants; 2. between the adopted and the legitimate children of the adopter; 3. between the wife of the adopted and the adopter himself; 4. between the wife of the adopter and the adopted) without doubt commits a special sin of incest, necessarily to be confessed as such, since among the same persons, on account of the reverence owed to relatives so often mentioned, the Church constitutes an impediment diriment of marriage. But whether this incest must be explained as a sin distinct from the other incests mentioned above, and whether that diversity of degrees or persons just mentioned must also be explained, again it is more probable and safer that it must, and sufficiently probable that not. - But he who sins with a person joined by spiritual cognation contracted from the Sacrament of Baptism and Confirmation (of which there is a twofold degree or species: spiritual paternity between the one baptizing and confirming, likewise between sponsors on the one side and the baptized and confirmed on the other side; and spiritual compaternity between the same one baptizing and confirming, and sponsors on one side, and the parents of the baptized or confirmed on the other side; for spiritual fraternity between the baptized and confirmed, and the children of the one baptizing or of the sponsors, has fallen into disuse) altogether commits incest distinct from all the aforesaid in consanguinity, affinity, or legal cognation; and therefore it must be specially explained in confession, because it adds a special malice of irreverence to the sacrament, by reason of which it is reduced to a certain genus of sacrilege. - But whether it must also be explained whether it was done from the Sacrament of Baptism or Confirmation; likewise whether in paternity or compaternity: it is most probable that not, because in all these things there is the same deformity, not much graver or lighter." - Thus also Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 6. But Cajetan, on 2.2, q. 154, a. 9, says: "To the second objection concerning spiritual and legal cognation, it is said that because such a conjunction is not ordered to consanguinity as its proper and proximate end, but according to a certain assimilation, therefore the violation of it is metaphorically called incest."

80. Must a confessor having relations with a spiritual daughter explain this in confession?

R. More probably, negatively. The reason is "because it is not incest, since no cognation intervenes between them; nor is it sacrilege (understand as regards this circumstance), since no injury is inflicted on the sacrament. Yet Elbel, l. c., with Henno, rightly observes that a parish priest sinning with such a penitent also sins against justice, since from justice he is bound to feed his sheep, from Trent, not only by word but also by example." L. 451; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 7. Some say the same proportionately about a guardian toward a ward and about all to whom the care of minors has been entrusted. But Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 2, App. 1, concerning the circumstance of tutor or curator, says only that it "seems a notably aggravating circumstance." Lugo, de Poenit., D. 16, S. 6, Sect. 3.

81. Do relatives, after a dispensation has been obtained for contracting marriage, commit incest if they fornicate before marriage?

R. There is a twofold opinion: St. Alphonsus, 452, holds each probable. The reason of the denying opinion is that, when the special repugnance of marriage ceases, consequently the special repugnance of fornication ceases; for if this remained, the marriage itself would be impeded. The reason of the affirming opinion is that the dispensation removes only the impediment diriment of marriage, not the conjunction.

82. What are the penalties against incestuous persons?

R. The penalty for incest with blood relatives of a spouse in the first and second degree, from Canon Law, is privation of the right of asking the debt. From the Italian Penal Code, art. 335, 345 seqq.; French Penal Code, l. 3, art. 333, 334, 335, the penalty is of fine, prison, reclusion, forced labors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

315. - 1. Intercourse with a consanguineous or affine person in the degrees in which matrimony is invalidated adds to the malice of lust a grave malice against piety, and is called

incest. For by using his jurisdiction, the legislator, beyond the natural prohibition but because of the same motive of piety or of the reverence to be preserved, effectively prohibited nuptials between those closely joined. Wherefore, when a dispensation has been given, the impiety will also cease and the malice of incest will be removed. And so one who, after obtaining a dispensation, sins with a consanguineous betrothed woman will no longer have to confess this circumstance. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 452.

2. Among Christians today, a diriment impediment arises from consanguinity or affinity in every degree of the direct line; but in the collateral line the first three degrees invalidate matrimony among consanguineous persons, and the first two among affine persons. While canonical affinity formerly arose from copulation, which could be licit or illicit, now, under the new Code, affinity is founded only upon valid matrimony, whether ratified only or ratified and consummated ¹. But a matrimony is not called ratified in the strict sense unless it is a sacrament. From this rationale you would say that no ecclesiastical affinity is generated by a matrimony validly contracted between a baptized and a non-baptized party. For a union of this kind more probably is not a sacrament. Yet because this mixed union is governed by ecclesiastical law, several think from the sufficiently manifest mind of the legislator that ecclesiastical affinity also arises from it. But this is deservedly doubted, so that the impediment is only doubtful with a doubt of law, and consequently practically nonexistent. For marriages between the non-baptized, however, civil laws, or, among less cultivated peoples, customs having the force of law, will define and govern affinity.

¹ Cf. canon 97.

Formerly, every affinity, even from illicit copulation, invalidated matrimony in every degree of the direct line; but in the collateral line, affinity from licit copulation invalidated matrimony in the first four degrees, and affinity from illicit copulation in only the first two.

3. Matrimony is indeed also impeded by public propriety. But this induces no special offices of piety. Wherefore this circumstance of fornication - that it was committed between persons among whom, because of public propriety, matrimony could not exist - need not be accused, at least under grave obligation.

4. As regards species:

a) Incest with a consanguineous person does not seem to differ specifically from incest with an affine person. For since an affine person is joined to the other on account of a consanguineous person, "consanguinity and affinity produce an impropriety of the same rationale." So St. Thomas himself, II-II, question 154, article 9, reply to objection 2. Vasquez speaks otherwise, on III, question 91, article 1, doubt 4, nos. 11-15; and Lessius, book 4, chapter 3, no. 79.

b) Neither the line nor the degree induces various species, whether among consanguineous persons or among affine persons, since specifically one piety is violated in all. Several, however, for example Lehmkuhl ², arguing from the fact that the rationale of piety is found of itself in parents but in others by participation, wish to except the first degree of the direct line. But in vain. First, as Cardinal de Lugo observes, that would have to be said of every line ³. And we have just heard from St. Thomas: when one thing exists on account of another, both are of the same species. Cf. Noldin, De sexto, no. 22.

² Theologia moralis, I, 1050, after St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 448.

³ De Paenitentia, disputation 16, no. 315.

c) But if another office of piety is violated at the same time, the circumstance will then have to be disclosed. Thus parents sinning with children constituted under their power gravely derogate from the office of right education. Thus also, as Lugo ⁴ and Lehmkuhl ⁵ hold, adulterous incest with a stepmother, while the father is living, is opposed to piety by this rationale also, because it contains an atrocious injury done to the father.

⁴ De Paenitentia, disputation 16, no. 222.

⁵ I, 1050.

316. - A sin of the flesh with a person spiritually related is not properly incest, but it has a special malice because of violated reverence of a diverse rationale ⁶.

⁶ Some, however, for example Noldin, De sexto, etc., no. 21, use the common name of incest to designate sins with persons spiritually or legally related. Cf. Palmieri, Opus theologicum, vol. 2, nos. 1020, 1021.

This malice is grave if this relationship induces a diriment impediment of matrimony. For today, under the new Code, although both baptism ⁷ and confirmation ⁸ produce spiritual relationship, only that which arises from baptism invalidates matrimony; and it is an impediment of a lesser degree (canons 1079 and 1042, 4). Moreover, this relationship is now contracted only by the baptizer and the godfather or godmother, and only with the one baptized (canon 768). Therefore, the relationship which was induced by way of co-parenthood between the minister of the sacrament and the parents of the person baptized or confirmed, and between the godfather or godmother and the same parents, has been abolished.

⁷ Canon 768.

⁸ Canon 797.

Formerly an impediment also arose from confirmation; but they admonished that in accusation the cause of baptism need not be distinguished from the cause of confirmation.

Whether the relationship is contracted with the minister or with the godfather or godmother, its violation through copulation does not change the species.

317. - Legal relationship, where and insofar as it invalidates matrimony, adds its own species to fornication. Although the gravity of this malice can deservedly be doubted. But the violation of the reverence induced by human law among those legally related is said to differ in species from the reverence of natural and spiritual relationship. Cf. Noldin, De sexto, no. 22.

I. Incest (bloedschande, bloedschennis) is copulation between blood relatives or those related by affinity. It is prohibited by natural law indeterminately for blood relatives; hence how far and to what degree the prohibition extends must be determined by positive law. For the non-baptized it is determined by civil law or custom; for the baptized, by ecclesiastical law. Thus incest is between those who, according to the law of the Church, cannot enter a valid marriage, or concubitus with a blood relative or one related by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage. The prohibited degrees in consanguinity extend to the third inclusive for the collateral line; in affinity, which now arises from marriage even ratified, to the second; in each, to any degree whatever for the direct line (can. 1076 and 1077). But if in some degree a legitimate dispensation has been obtained, it is no longer incest.

It is called incest (in-castus): as if by antonomasia it were against chastity.

II. Incest is a distinct species of lust because it contains a twofold grave malice, against chastity and against piety, or the reverence owed to relatives. Lev. XVIII, 6 and following; XX, 11, 12, 14; Deut. XXII, 20, 22, 23; I Cor. V, 1-5. Saint Thomas shows this thus, II-II, q. 154, art. 9:

"There it is necessary to find a determinate species of lust where there is found something repugnant to the due use of venereal things. But in the use of blood relatives or those related by affinity there is found something unfitting to venereal mingling for a threefold reason:

"First, because naturally man owes a certain honor to parents, and consequently to other blood relatives who draw their origin from the same parents in near degree.... But it is manifest ... that in venereal acts there especially consists a certain baseness contrary to honor; whence men are ashamed concerning these things. And therefore it is unfitting that such venereal mingling be done between such persons with one another....

"The second reason is that persons joined by blood necessarily live together. Hence, if men were not kept away from venereal mingling, too much opportunity would be given to men for venereal mingling ... especially because, as Aristotle says, Politics II, c. 2, since man naturally loves a blood relative, if there were added the love which is from venereal mingling, there would be too great an ardor and the greatest incentive of libido, which is repugnant to chastity.

"The third reason is that by this the multiplication of friends would be impeded. When a man takes an outside wife, all the blood relatives of the wife are joined to him by a certain special friendship, as if they were his own blood relatives."

III. Incests among blood relatives do not differ in species from those which are had among those related by affinity, because "a person related by affinity is joined to someone because of the blood-related person joined to him; and therefore, because one is for the sake of the other, consanguinity and affinity make an unfittingness of the same notion, not degree" (ibid., ad 2). Indeed, according to many, all incests are of the same lowest species; but others say that incest among blood relatives of the direct line is distinguished in species from all others, or even incest between brothers and sisters.¹

¹ Which the faithful easily judge.

Sometimes, however, another office of piety can be violated at the same time, and then certainly a diverse species is present: thus, for example, the incest of parents with children constituted under their power, because they detract from the office of right instruction; likewise, as it seems, the incest of a son with a stepmother while the father is living, by reason of the great injury toward the parent.

IV. Just as there is carnal kinship from the bond of blood, so there can be legal kinship from perfect adoption, which nevertheless is not recognized in Belgian law, and spiritual kinship arising from baptism between the one baptizing and the sponsors on one side, and the baptized on the other (can. 768). Such kinship differs in species from carnal kinship; and therefore besides incest properly so called, there can exist legal incest diverse in species, and there does exist spiritual incest, if copulation is had between the one baptizing or the sponsor and the baptized. This last includes malice against religion, because it is against the reverence of the sacrament.

V. Observation. Carnal sin committed by a bishop or pastor or rector of a college, and so forth, with subjects, although it is not spiritual incest properly so called because per se no spiritual kinship is present, nevertheless includes a malice of injustice diverse in species, insofar as someone induces to sin those whom by office he ought to draw back from vice. The mere cooperators of a pastor or moderator of a college do not necessarily sin in this way, although they can sin by scandal. Nor does the confessor who, outside confession, sins carnally with a penitent, because he neither contracts spiritual kinship nor acts as a spiritual superior, but as an equal, not in confession but outside it. But if he solicited on the occasion of confession, it would be carnal sacrilege.

VI. Warning. Sometimes it happens that the sinner does not perceive the special malice of incest in copulation had with more remote blood relatives or with those related by affinity. In such a case, so that he may conceive a greater horror of the sin, he will generally have to be instructed.

783. Definition. Incest is concubitus with a person joined by kinship or affinity, within the degrees in which it is not licit to enter matrimony. Moreover the malice of this sin is contracted not only by natural congress, but also by sins of lust against nature, or non-consummated sins.

Division. Since a threefold kinship is given, namely natural, spiritual, and legal, and since besides kinship affinity is also given, hence a fourfold incest is distinguished, namely: 1. incest with a blood relative up to the fourth degree; - 2. with an affine up to the fourth degree, if the affinity comes from licit copulation, and up to the second, if from illicit; 3. with a spiritual relative (which kinship arises from baptism or confirmation); - 4. with a legal relative (which kinship comes from adoption). Cf. n. 2015 ff.

784. Principles. I. Incest is a special sin, having most grave malice. For it is opposed both to chastity, and to piety and reverence owed to relatives and affines. Hence in Leviticus (20, 14 ff.) it is punished with the penalty of death; and Blessed Paul (1 Cor., 5, 1-5) gravely rebukes the incestuous man, handing him over to Satan, that he may be corrected.

785. II. Incests between spiritual and legal relatives differ in species both from one another, and from incest with blood relatives and affines; but incest between affines more probably does not differ in species from incest between blood relatives. The reason for the first is that the diverse kinships have their origin from formally diverse roots, namely: natural kinship from nature, spiritual kinship from a sacrament, legal kinship from law. Indeed, according to St. Thomas (2.2, q. 154, a. 9 and 10, ad 2), through copulation between spiritual relatives sacrilege is committed in the mode of incest. Hence this quality of incest is to be disclosed in confession. The reason for the second is that it is material whether the conjunction arises from blood or from marriage, since copulation with blood relatives and with affines is prohibited from the same motive of piety.

The opinion, indeed, that teaches these incests specifically to differ, is also probable; and the reason is that the conjunction of blood relatives arises from an intrinsic bond, i.e. from identity of the same blood received through generation; but the conjunction of affines draws its origin from an extrinsic bond, i.e. from copulation had with their blood relatives (III, 448-450; VI, 469). But in practice, this circumstance or distinction (for example, that someone sinned so many times with a sister-in-law, and so many times with his own sister) can be kept back before the confessor.

786. It is asked. Whether incests differ in species according to diversity of degrees?

Resp. 1. Incest between blood relatives of the direct line, in the first degree, differs in species from the others according to the common opinion of the Doctors; because this nearness of blood-relationship by natural law so dirimently impedes matrimony that the Church herself cannot dispense. Besides, incest committed in this degree injures piety of itself and properly, while, in other degrees, this happens only by participation.

Hence, in confession it is to be explained if a father has sinned with a daughter, or a son with his mother: which crime has a diverse malice by reason of the special reverence owed to a parent. In the same way, incest between a stepson and stepmother, and between father-in-law and daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, differ in species from incest between other affines (VI, 469, 470; H. Ap., IX, 17; Lehmkuhl, I, 1050).

Note. Recent authors indeed call probable the contrary opinion, which denies that incest in the first degree, between blood relatives or affines of the direct line, differs in species from other degrees. Thus Noldin, Genicot, Ballerini, and among the ancients Sporer, Suarez, Tamburini. But our opinion (which among the ancients was more common) is defended by Lugo, Cajetan, Salmant., Roncaglia, and weighty reason supports it. Cf. n. 63, 2, and 65. - See Berardi, II, n. 830, who follows St. Alphonsus.

2. It is disputed whether incest between blood relatives, in the first degree of the transverse line, namely between brother and sister, differs in species from the others. Some probably affirm, because the Church, with the law of nature apparently resisting, never dispenses in this degree. Others probably deny, because the prohibition of the Church does not seem to import any difference, and matrimony between brothers and sisters, children of Adam, was licit (VI, 470; H. Ap., IX, 18; cf. St. Thom., 2.2, q. 154, a. 9, ad 3).

As regards the other degrees of blood-relationship, according to the more probable opinion, incest does not differ in species, just as neither does it as regards the diverse degrees of affinity and legal kinship. The reason is that among them matrimony is prohibited only by positive law (ibid.).

Hence, for practice, you will conclude: a) Outside the first degree in the direct line, whether of blood-relationship or of affinity, the circumstance of degree, although it notably aggravates the sin, is not necessarily to be confessed.

b) Relatives, having obtained a dispensation for matrimony, probably do not commit incest if they fornicate before matrimony. The reason is that the dispensation takes away the prohibition of matrimony; but where matrimony is not prohibited, there is no incest (III, 452; IV, 1140). Cf. n. 2052.

c) A confessor more probably does not commit incest by having relations with his female penitent, since between them no spiritual kinship exists. But a pastor sinning with his female parishioner sins against justice, since by force of his office he is held to feed his sheep by word and example (III, 451). Several say the same of a guardian toward a ward, and of all those to whom care of minors has been specially committed. More probably otherwise, if a master sins with a maidservant, or a believer with an unbeliever, although the sin is graver. Cf. Porpora, V, 285.

The rest, as regards penalties, etc., will be explained in the treatise on Matrimony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹³⁶³ S. theol. l.c. a. 9, ad 2.

1012. Incest (inceste; bloedschennis) is intercourse with a relative by blood or by affinity.

By natural law it is prohibited indeterminately for relatives; hence how far and to what degree the prohibition extends must be determined by positive law. Hence, for Christians, incest is among those who according to the law of the Church cannot enter a valid marriage, or intercourse with a relative by blood or by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church. The prohibited degrees are in consanguinity up to the third degree inclusively for the collateral line; in affinity, which now arises even from a ratified marriage, up to the second; in both, to any degree in the direct line (can. 1076 and 1077). But if in some degree a legitimate dispensation has been obtained, it is no longer incest.

Incest is a determinate species of luxury. There it is necessary to find a determinate species of luxury where there is found a special and manifold repugnance to the due use of venereal things. But it is so in incest:

1. Because man, especially in those things which regard the act of generating, naturally owes a certain honor and reverence to parents as the principle of his origin, and consequently to relatives by blood and by affinity, in whom he sees parents, that is, the principle of his origin. But in venereal acts there is a certain turpitude contrary to honor and reverence, whence men are ashamed of these things.

2. Because persons joined by blood must necessarily live together with one another; hence if they were not kept away from venereal mingling, too great an opportunity would be given for venereal mingling, and so the minds of men would be softened too much through luxury.

3. Because by the mingling of blood relatives and affines, the multiplication of friends is impeded; for when a man takes a wife from outside, all the blood relatives of the wife are joined to him by a certain special friendship, as if they were his own blood relatives, because husband and wife become one flesh.

Therefore in incest there is found a special and manifold repugnance to the due use of venereal things, and therefore it is a distinct species of luxury (a. 9).

Accordingly it contains a double grave malice: namely against chastity, and against piety or reverence due to relatives (Lev. 18:6 sq.; 20:11, 12, 14; Deut. 22:20, 22, 23; 1 Cor. 5:1-5).

All carnal incests are probably of the same species; but many theologians say that incest between blood relatives in the direct line is distinguished in species from the others, or even incest between brothers and sisters. It is certain:

a) that a different species is present if another office of piety is also violated, as in the incest of parents with minor children, which derogates from the office of right instruction;

b) that incest is not distinct in species from the fact that it happens between blood relatives or between affines, because "an affine person is joined to someone because of the connected blood relative; and therefore, because one is for the sake of the other, consanguinity and affinity produce an inconvenience of the same account" (ad 2);

c) that legal or spiritual incest differs in species both from carnal incest and from each other by reason of legal kinship, where it exists, or spiritual kinship; because legal kinship, which is founded on perfect adoption, and spiritual kinship, which arises from Baptism, are distinguished in species both from each other and from carnal kinship, which arises from copulation, and they are after its likeness. For because an adopted son passes into the power of the adopter and receives from him food and inheritance as a natural son, and because a spiritual son receives spiritual being from the one baptizing as a natural son receives natural being from his father, the Church, moved by these likenesses, established among them a certain species of kinship diriment of marriage.

It should be noted that from the sacrament of Penance there does not arise spiritual kinship such as arises from Baptism and dissolves marriage; and therefore a confessor sinning with a penitent does not commit incest.

Incest is sexual intercourse with blood relatives or relatives by affinity within the degrees prohibited by the Church for marriage.

I say. Incest differs in species from other sins of lust, because it is gravely repugnant to the natural reverence owed to parents, and consequently to persons who are bound to them by a proximate conjunction of blood or affinity. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 448.

Whether incest with blood relatives differs in species from incest with relatives by affinity, and again whether incest differs in species according to the various degree of affinity and consanguinity, and therefore whether the degree must necessarily be expressed in confession, we shall say in the treatise on penance, where we treat of the circumstances aggravating sins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHERS hold that the degrees of consanguinity differ in species from the degrees of affinity, of legal and of spiritual cognation; but that the degrees of consanguinity are not distinguished among themselves. The same they say of the degrees of affinity among themselves, Lessius lib. 4. cap. 3. dub. 11. num. 79. Azor 3. part. lib. 3. cap. 9. quaestio 1. Filliucius tract. 30. cap. 5. num. 96. Bassaeus num. 3.

However it may be, the degrees of incest are to be specified, as Sayrus lib. 8. cap. 4. says, with others there.

YOU WILL ASK, whether with the consanguinean of one's wife in a ratified marriage there is incest.

THOSE ASSERT who place affinity from ratified marriage; as D. Thom. 4. dist. 41. Sot. there quaest. 1. art. 2. Sylvester V. matrim. 8. quaest. 14.

D. Bonaventure DENIES, 4. dist. 41. quaest. 1. Tolet. lib. 7. cap. 11. Ledesma de matrim. quaest. 55. art. 4. Conrad. quaest. 151. Henriquez lib. 2. de matr. cap. 16. Sanchez lib. 7. disp. 64. Fagundez in 6. praecep. lib. 6. cap. 6. It is proved by D. Bonaventure from 35. quaest. 3., where it is decreed that affinity requires copulation and emission. Nay, they require the emission of both, Sanchez lib. 7. disp. 83. Praeposit. 3. part. de matrim. disp. 9. n. 81. Diana 4. part. tract. 2. resol. 43. and others apud Bassaeum num. 6. In the external forum, however, copulation is presumed to have taken place, Sanchez disp. 15. lib. 7.

¶ FROM ratified marriage, however, there arises nonetheless the perpetual impediment of public honesty, cap. fraternitatis, dist. 34. cap. 7. That between confessor and penitent there is no incest, Filliucius tract. 30. numero 105. Sa V. Confess. 25. Caspens. tom. 1. tract. de pecc. dub. 2. num. 56. Diana part. 2. tract. 5. misc. resol. 11. Azor 3. part. lib. 3. cap. 9. quaesito 5. Bonacina loco cit. num. 89. Caramuel num. 1015. Sancius select. disp. 11. Rodriquez tom. 2. qq. reg. quaest. 27. art. 1. 2. Naldus V. confessar. num. 26. teach.

OTHERS, however, apud Bassaeum num. 5. assert [it]. See Diana p. p. De Circumst. resol. 12. and 56., where others assert it. Certainly there is some aggravating circumstance, for by Canon law it is punished, apud D. Bonaventure in Confessionali, cap. 3. partic. 3. If, however, he used confession to solicit, let him be denounced to the Holy Inquisition. See Diana 4. part. tract. 5. throughout.

¶ But if she was baptized by him, it is incest of spiritual cognation, as all confess apud Bassaeum, and the S. Doctor indicates loco cit.

FROM the union of sodomy in the first and second degree incest arises. So Azor part. 3. lib. 3. cap. 18. quaesito 5. Graff. de arbitr. cons. lib. 2. cap. 34. and commonly apud Bassaeum num. 1.

It is not, however, a reserved case by the force of incest. So Diana part. 3. tract. 4. resol. 101. and part. 1. tract. 7. resol. 31. and part. 7. tract. 12. resol. 18.

NAY, Sanchez denies incest between these, lib. 7. de matr. disp. 67. num. 8. Sancius sel. disp. 40. num. 21. Similarly many admit no affinity from this source. See Diana part. 7. tract. 12. resol. 17.

INCEST is of the mixed forum, and so it is punished by the laws of both fora. So the DD. apud Fagundez num. 36.

By Canon law, besides the penalty of impediments to marriage, those who knowingly contract incestuous marriages in the forbidden degrees are excommunicated ipso facto, Clem. 1. de consang. et affinit. An incestuous Clerk is by Canon law to be deposed, as Covarruvias notes, 4. decretal. Julius Clar. §. Incestus, Farinacius tom. 4. quaest. 149. But he who is copulated with a stepdaughter or his wife's sister is to be separated, 32. quaest. 7. from the Council of Mainz apud D. Bonavent in Confess. cap. 3. part. 45.

By CIVIL law they are deported, or cast into exile to the Islands, Texts in leg. si quis viduam, ff. de quaest.; and because the penalty of deportation is not in use at this time, they say this penalty is discretionary, Bald. consil. 429. ad finem leg. 5. Iul. Clar. lib. 5. sent. §. Incestus, Menoch. de arbitr. qq. lib. 3. casu 501.

If, however, incest is joined with adultery, he will incur the penalty of death which is enacted for adulterers in civil law. So the Glossa in leg. si adulterium, ff. ad leg. Iuliam, de adult. Menoch. casu 502. Clarus num. 3. supra, and others apud them.

By CIVIL law also the goods of those who contract incestuous marriages are published, Auth. de incestuosis nupt. A declaration of the judge, however, is required, as Sanchez warns lib. 7. de matrim. disp. 9. Fagundez loco cit. num. 42.