Natural Consummated Lust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

48. Can prostitutes be permitted?

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

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

50. Is it lawful to serve prostitutes or concubinaries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

52. Is it lawful to have a concubinary maidservant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Eph. 5:5.

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

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

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

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

² St. Thomas, 2. 2ae, q. 10, a. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning these diverse sins we must now speak in particular.

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.