Non-consummated Acts of Impurity

Sins of lust not consummated, in which effusion of semen has no place, are of two kinds: some contain lust itself; others do not contain lust itself, but only a cause provoking lust. Of the first kind are carnal movements; of the second are acts of immodesty.

Immodesty is defined as voluntary occupation about things which provoke venereal delectation. To it belong both internal acts, thoughts and desires, and external acts, sights, touches, kisses, embraces, words, and readings.

48. Declaration. 1. Carnal movements, base movements, venereal movements, rebellion of the flesh, are called stirrings of the genital members and of the humors existing in those organs, joined with pleasure. Ordinarily they have joined to them erection of the virile member or of the female clitoris. Erection must be attributed to blood flowing together to those members.

2. Movements are distinguished: a. light and transitory, and grave and lasting. The latter induce proximate danger of pollution, the former remote or no danger.

b. Voluntary, whether in themselves or in the cause, and involuntary, which either arise spontaneously and naturally, without the one who suffers them contributing anything, or in such a way that he indeed posits their cause, but ignorantly.

a. The cause from which carnal movements arise is either external: the mode of sitting, lying down, touch, etc.; or internal, namely images of the phantasy, which are excited either spontaneously or from sight, conversation, or reading.

b. Carnal movements ordinarily manifest themselves through erection of the virile member or of the female clitoris; this erection in this case is joined with pleasure and can be called venereal. But there is also another, merely natural erection, which arises from physical causes that are not venereal and is had without sense of pleasure. In each case erection must be attributed to blood flowing together to those members.

49. On the malice of carnal movements. Since carnal movements have venereal delectation joined to them and are evil only on account of this, those things which are said here concerning their malice are easily understood from those things which were explained above, n. 11 f.

1. Carnal movements directly voluntary, which are either deliberately excited or to which consent is given if they arise spontaneously and involuntarily, are a grave sin, however light they may be: for there is had consent to venereal delectation, which is always a grave sin, since this delectation does not admit smallness of matter.

2. Carnal movements involuntary both in themselves and in the cause, however grave, are no sin, unless consent and complacency of the will are added; for without consent of the will there cannot be sin.

3. Carnal movements voluntary in the cause, or the cause from which movements are excited beyond intention, are a grave sin if the cause by its nature gravely influences toward exciting them and no sufficient reason is present for admitting them.

Although causes lightly influencing toward base stirrings need not be avoided under grave sin, not even by those who suffer from them grave carnal movements, indeed even pollutions, unless proximate danger of consent is present, nevertheless those who admit actions of this kind from a just cause must be earnestly and insistently admonished to omit them unless they are necessary. For on account of the supreme inclination of corrupted nature toward venereal things, great danger threatens lest gradually graver things be admitted. Moreover the danger of self-deception easily occurs: for those who admit actions of this kind easily persuade themselves that in admitting them they are led only by curiosity or courtesy or friendship, but in reality they are impelled to them by the heat of libido.

50. On the resistance to be opposed to these movements. 1. If involuntary movements are light and transitory, no care must be had about them, but they are to be neglected and despised, both because the causes exciting such movements are most frequent and therefore the obligation of repressing them would be too difficult, and because they are better and more efficaciously repressed by contempt: for solicitude about impeding them is accustomed to excite the imagination and increase the movements.

2. If no reasonable cause is present for admitting carnal movements, it is not licit to have oneself passively toward them, but the obligation of resisting them positively presses, and indeed under light sin if the danger of consent or pollution is remote, under grave sin if the danger of consent or pollution is proximate. The reason for the first: one who does not repress the movements when he can is judged to consent to them indirectly and virtually. The reason for the second is that we are then bound to impede both the danger of consent and pollution.

a. He has himself passively or permissively who neither approves them nor represses them by applying means, but admits them until they vanish of themselves. Therefore some positive resistance is necessary, whatever it is, provided it is apt for the end. Since the end consists in this, that the movements themselves be restrained, an act of simple displeasure concerning the movement and carnal delectation does not suffice for positive resistance, because that act is ineffective for repressing the movements themselves.

b. Positive resistance is either direct, by which the stirred parts, covered by clothes, are compressed, or indirect. Direct resistance is not to be advised, because it does not contribute to the intended end, but rather irritates the nerves and increases the movements. Indirect resistance is either external or internal. To external resistance belongs: to change place or position, to interrupt the work, to take up another occupation, to excite a sense of pain by pinching the hand or arm, by pricking, or by striking oneself, etc. To internal resistance belongs: to turn the mind to other things, to implore divine help, to invoke the most holy names, to elicit an act of love of God, to renew the resolution not to sin, etc.; these things also contribute to guarding against consent to base delectation.

c. When movements are excited from a voluntary action and one that is superfluous, due resistance consists in this, that their cause be removed and that the action cease. Therefore one who is vehemently excited from an action of this kind is bound under grave sin to break it off immediately; but one who notices that he is lightly stirred is bound under light sin to desist from it. But if he continues it longer, he sins gravely on account of the grave danger of proceeding to further things and finally of consenting. Therefore, for example, a prolonged idle sight of a beautiful woman, or a prolonged vain conversation with a girl, or continued impure thought, when these actions already excite libido rather vehemently, are a grave sin. St. Alphonsus, n. 422.

3. There is no obligation of positively resisting carnal movements, even the more vehement, if a just cause is present for admitting them: for the just cause itself excludes indirect and virtual consent. Therefore in this case it is licit to have oneself negatively toward the movements themselves, provided the firm resolution of not consenting is retained.

a. A just cause of permitting them is present: a. if someone knows by experience that resistance rather increases them; b. if they are excited from a necessary action or one useful in any way, e.g. from hearing confessions, from useful reading, from necessary touch.

b. Because no one is bound, in order to avoid carnal movements, to omit actions that are necessary or useful, penitents must be admonished not to abandon a good work begun for this reason, that they suffer miseries of this kind, such as base movements, provided the danger of consent is absent. The same persons must be admonished not to omit prayers or exercises of piety because they are especially troubled by depraved images and movements during prayer. The movements are to be despised and repressed by persisting in the work begun.¹

c. Although positive resistance in this case, if, for example, more vehement movements are excited while working or lying down, is not necessary, nevertheless it is greatly to be advised, whether external or at least internal; but to avoid consent of the will an act of displeasure concerning those movements must be elicited.

d. It happens that pious women, especially nuns, in prayer or in Holy Communion are so inflamed with sensible love that they perceive venereal delectation, indeed even suffer pollution. In this case great discretion is necessary. If they are not hysterical, it must be said to them that they are not to care about these evil effects, unless on account of them they are troubled by anxieties in the spiritual life; in that case it is expedient that the affections of love be moderated. Frequently, however, women of this kind, who are carnally excited during prayer, labor under religious hysteria: for it is established that hysterical persons willingly foster obscene phantasms and consequently suffer vehement stirrings of the genitals even to pollution. These must be admonished, as far as can be done, to reject phantasms of this kind.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri I, n. 597.

51. Declarations. 1. In order that judgment can be made concerning the malice of external acts in particular, first the parts of the body must be distinguished with respect to honesty. Thus the honest parts are: face, hands, feet; the less honest, not base, are: breast, back, arms, legs; the indecent, base, obscene parts are: the genitals and the parts near them.

2. In external acts venereal pleasure itself is not found; those acts in themselves are not evil, but indifferent, and therefore can be performed both from a good end and from an evil end. But all by their nature are apt to excite base movements and the sense of delectation and therefore pollution; therefore they cast one into danger of sinning through consent to delectation and through pollution. Wherefore it is not licit to perform those acts without a sufficient cause, more or less grave according to the measure of the influence which they exercise in provoking delectation and pollution.

The true doctrine must be held, that base sights and touches are opposed to the sixth precept of the Decalogue not of themselves and by their nature, but only because they bring danger of venereal delectation, pollution, and danger of consent to it. Therefore if there were any, which indeed will rarely happen, who from these actions suffered no danger either of base movement or of consent to base delectations, those actions for them would contain only the sin of idle action, of sensuality, but in no way a sin against chastity. But insofar as non-consummated acts are performed either explicitly or implicitly from a libidinous end, they must be regarded as the beginning and commencements of the consummated venereal act. They are performed implicitly from a libidinous end if they have no other end of the one acting.

3. Acts of immodesty, both external and internal, differ in species from perfect or consummated acts, pollution and intercourse: for in the former either venereal delectation is not contained, or, if it is intended and perceived, in them there does not intervene the special malice of effused semen. Therefore it does not suffice to accuse impure touches if pollution was had.

But incomplete venereal delectation does not differ in species from complete delectation, n. 8; and just as pollutions considered in themselves are of the same species, so incomplete venereal delectations or carnal stirrings are all of the same species. Therefore one who provoked in himself or voluntarily admitted carnal movements and delectation need not confess in what way they arose: by thoughts, sights, touches, kisses, or impure speeches.

52. Their moral malice from the end of the agent. To determine the moral malice of acts of immodesty, attention must be paid to the end on account of which they are performed by the agent, and to the danger which they induce, of venereal stirring, pollution, and consent to delectation. As regards the first, outside marriage they can be performed for a fourfold end: a. from the intention of venereal delectation or from libidinous affection; b. from the intention of sensual delectation; c. from play, levity, and curiosity; d. from a just and reasonable cause.

a. If they are done from a depraved and libidinous affection, although of themselves they have little influence upon libido, as the sight of a woman, handling of the hand, etc., they are always a grave sin because of the gravely evil intention; therefore it makes no difference whether the acts themselves are more or less base.

b. If they are done from the sole intention of sensual delectation, they are a light sin, unless they induce proximate danger of carnal stirring and of consenting to venereal delectation, as can happen if they are performed with some affection and delay.

a. In these acts had from sensual delectation alone, a twofold malice is found: that they are disordered, i.e. that they are not referred and cannot be referred to a rational end, and that they induce danger of venereal delectation and of consent to it; but each is a light sin unless the danger is proximate. Now the greater the affection and delay in those acts, the greater is the danger of venereal delectation and consent; indeed a longer delay with which they are performed is frequently a sign not only of great affection, but also of a libidinous soul, although a just cause for performing them is present, e.g. for giving a kiss. Therefore touches, kisses, embraces, if without a reasonable cause they occur on account of sensual delectation alone, are of themselves light sins.

b. St. Alphonsus teaches, n. 416, that there is no smallness of matter in sensual delectation, e.g. in the touch of the hand of a woman, as there is in the touch of a smooth thing, e.g. of a rose or silk cloth, because it is impossible that sensual delectation be intended and venereal delectation not also be intended, or at least because it is mortal to expose oneself to the proximate danger of consenting to venereal delectation; and one who acts from the intention of sensual delectation exposes himself to this danger. Therefore he denies that touches and kisses among young persons of diverse sex, had on account of sensual delectation, are venial sins. But it seems that it must be admitted that actions of this kind can occur on account of sensual delectation without intention and proximate danger of libido or of venereal delectation or of consent to it. For sensual delectation indeed disposes toward venereal delectation, but does not include it; therefore it can happen that sensual delectation alone is intended, both if venereal delectation is explicitly excluded and if it is only not thought about.¹

c. If they are done from levity, play, or curiosity, and therefore briefly and cursorily, although of themselves they can excite very strongly toward libido, as base sights or touches, they are a light sin, both because curiosity is light and because the influence upon base movements in these is light and remote.

d. If they are done from a just cause, even if a sense of delectation or even pollution is excited beyond intention, they are no sin, provided consent is absent. A just cause of positing them is: decency, utility, necessity. But the more modesty is injured, the greater the cause is required which excuses the immodest action; hence only necessity excuses a gravely immodest action, as to look at or touch the indecent parts of a person of the other sex, as in physicians and surgeons.

¹ Cf. Sporer-Bierbaum, III, tract. 10, n. 686 f.; Elbel-Bierbaum I, pr. 4, n. 183 ff.

53. Their moral species. External acts of immodesty are: sights, touches, kisses, embraces, speeches, songs, readings. Now if their moral species is treated, the question properly concerns sights and touches: for kisses and embraces are reduced to touches, but speeches, songs, and readings had from the intention of venereal delectation are of themselves the same sins as thoughts and desires which are fostered interiorly while the words are spoken.

Between sights and touches this difference must be noted, that sight is not so material and concrete, and therefore easily abstracts from the circumstances of the person as such and regards that person as a man or woman, not as married, sacred, or related by blood; but touch by its nature is more material and concrete, and therefore does not abstract from the circumstances of the person who is touched.

a. Sights and touches performed on account of venereal delectation are not sins of diverse species; therefore in confession it need not necessarily be asked whether venereal delectation occurred from touch or from sight or from a depraved thought, unless the touch was done on another, and this on account of cooperation.

Although sight and touch differ essentially by reason of the act, because they proceed from essentially diverse faculties and tend toward diverse objects, by reason of moral malice they do not differ specifically: for their proper malice consists in the venereal delectation sought through them, which does not obtain a specific difference from the fact that it is procured by this or that sense or mode, but is of the same species in all these acts.¹

b. Touches, kisses, embraces, which from a depraved intention are done on another, are sins of diverse species according to the diversity of circumstances in the persons who are touched indecently; for since touch attains the person materially and in the concrete, as happens in the very acts of lust, they are of diverse species, just as the perfect acts to which they are naturally ordered.

Therefore touch on a person of the same sex and touch on a person of diverse sex differ in species: for the latter by its nature is referred to fornication, the former to sodomy. Touch on an unmarried person and touch on a married person differ in species: for the latter naturally tends toward adultery, the former toward fornication. Hence in confession the object of the touch must be explained.

c. But base sights which from a depraved intention are done on another, unless desire is added, are not sins diverse in species according to the diversity of circumstances in the person who is seen. For sight attains the object less materially and concretely than touch, so that ordinarily it abstracts from the circumstances of the person, unless the libidinous affection is borne precisely toward such a person. Therefore in confession the quality of the person basely seen, whether she was related by blood, married, sacred, etc., need not be declared.

Nevertheless a base sight of a male and of a female differ in species, and therefore also venereal delectation sought from the base sight of a male or female: for sight can indeed abstract from the circumstances of the person, but not from the diversity of persons; wherefore sight of a male is referred to intercourse with a male, sight of a female to intercourse with a female.²

¹ Cf. St. Thomas II-II, q. 154, a. 4; Bucceroni I, n. 783.

² Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 969 ff.

54. Their moral malice from danger. To determine the moral malice of acts of immodesty which are done without the direct intention of procuring venereal delectation for oneself, attention must be paid to the danger which they induce, more or less proximate, of venereal stirring and pollution, or to the influence which they exercise in exciting libido. Therefore those acts are grave sins which proximately and notably influence toward exciting libido; those acts are light sins which remotely and lightly influence toward exciting libido.

a. To determine this influence, three things especially must be considered: a. the nature of the acts; for some acts of themselves and by their nature stir gravely, others only lightly; b. their various circumstances: for acts which are done with lingering delay and are repeated more often excite much more than acts which are done in passing and only once; likewise acts which are done vehemently and with great ardor stir more than acts which are done lightly and calmly; c. the disposition of the agent: for acts which excite some vehemently stir others little because of subjective disposition. Therefore concerning each act of immodesty one must judge which ordinarily influence gravely and proximately, which lightly and remotely, upon venereal stirring and upon pollution, and therefore which ordinarily are grave and which are light sins.

b. Although corruption of morals for the most part arises from obscene conversations: evil conversations corrupt good morals,¹ nevertheless things heard influence the phantasy, and therefore the stirring of the flesh, less than things seen; but most of all and most efficaciously the flesh is solicited from touch.

¹ 1 Cor. 15, 33.

55. On touches. 1. In one's own body. a. To touch oneself in the indecent parts for the sake of necessity or utility, for curing an illness, for driving away itching, or for wiping away filth, consent to delectation perhaps arising being excluded, is licit, although carnal movements, indeed even pollution, follow.

But it should be advised: a. that as far as can be done touches of this kind be performed in passing and mechanically, with thought turned to other things; b. that one cease from touches when the movements become more vehement.

b. To touch oneself in the indecent parts without a just cause, but short of a depraved affection, in those who know that they are not stirred by touches of this kind, is not a sin, at least in the genus of lust. But for children touches of this kind, especially while they are lying in bed, must be severely forbidden on account of the destructive consequences of this matter. But those who for a longer time without cause touch themselves basely ordinarily excite carnal movements and venereal delectation; indeed for the most part they do this from the depraved end of delectation or pollution.

2. In another's body. a. To touch a person of the same sex in the indecent parts without a just cause is grave, even if it is done mediately only over clothes, because it stirs much. The same must be said a fortiori of a touch of this kind on a person of diverse sex. Nevertheless, the libidinous intention being excluded, if it is done only in passing and without delay, from levity or play, it is not a grave sin.

a. Touches of this kind had among the impubescent from levity or play and without delay are not grave sins, because at this age they are not accustomed to excite stirrings.

b. Authors who excuse from mortal sin indecent sights or touches on a person of diverse sex done from curiosity suppose that both danger of consent to delectation and danger of pollution are absent; but in truth the circumstances in which each of these dangers is absent will be rare.

b. To touch a person of the same sex in the less honest parts, a depraved intention being excluded, will scarcely be a sin, at least a grave one; but to touch a person of diverse sex in the less honest parts can scarcely be excused from grave sin, unless it is done very much in passing, from levity or play, on the arm or shoulders. For although touches at the beginning are done on account of sensual delectation, for the most part it is impossible that carnal movements, indeed pollution itself, should not follow from them.

c. To touch a woman on the breasts, even if it is done by a person of the same sex, is not excused from grave sin, because it stirs very much and therefore induces danger of pollution and consent.

d. To touch a person, even of diverse sex, in the honest parts, if it is done from a reasonable cause, is not a sin; if it is done without a reasonable cause, even with some delay and affection, a depraved intention being excluded, of itself it is a light sin, but it easily induces grave danger.

e. To touch a beast in the indecent parts ordinarily is not a grave sin unless it is done from a libidinous affection; nevertheless if the touches are continued deliberately, especially if it is done even to the pollution of the animal, ordinarily it is a grave sin, both on account of the danger of consent to base delectation, which easily arises in the one touching, and on account of grave danger of one's own pollution.

56. On kisses. 1. Lingering kisses, often repeated, impressed with great affection between persons of diverse sex, ordinarily are grave sins, because they stir very much; besides, they often proceed from libidinous affection: for among the unmarried they rarely have another cause.

Nevertheless it can happen that they are not grave sins. Thus if someone, for example, about to depart elsewhere, kisses a person of diverse sex, related by blood or well known, more often or lingeringly from sensual affection, but does not care about the carnal movements which perhaps he experiences and does not consent to them, he does not sin gravely: for a legitimate cause is present and both libidinous affection and consent to pleasure are excluded. Since nevertheless due moderation is lacking in the use of a licit action, a venial sin is committed; but kisses and embraces of this kind, repeated and lingering, between parents and children, which are done as a sign of special love, are free from all fault.

2. Decent kisses, which are done according to the custom of the country, for the sake of courtesy, friendship, kinship, or for signifying and increasing honorable love, even between persons of diverse sex, are licit, although carnal movements are excited, provided consent to venereal delectation is avoided. The same must be said concerning embraces and handling of hands.

3. Decent kisses, embraces, hand-pressures, which are done from play, levity, or even from sensual affection, with no cause of necessity or utility making them honorable, are light sins, if venereal delectation either does not arise or arises without foresight, and if, on account of the danger of consent and pollution, there is cessation from those actions when delectation of this kind is perceived.

Likewise it is a venial sin if decent kisses, touches, embraces are done from sensual affection, n. 7, by which someone, for example, follows after an impubescent boy or girl on account of beauty. This is not mortal, because depraved intention and proximate danger of exciting delectation or pollution are lacking; nevertheless it is not without fault, because a reasonable end is lacking. But because the passage from sensual delectation to venereal delectation is easy, these acts committed from sensual affection are grave sins if they are done lingeringly and without a just cause among pubescent persons of diverse sex and there is no cessation when the increasing delectation is already perceived, because they induce grave danger of pollution, indeed of consent.¹

4. Kisses on the less honest parts, and especially on the indecent parts, are a grave sin, because they stir very much. Besides, these can scarcely proceed except from libidinous affection, since a reasonable cause for kissing those parts can with difficulty be imagined.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri II, n. 976 ff.

57. On sights. 1. To look at oneself in the indecent parts from necessity or utility, depraved affection being excluded, is nothing. To do this from curiosity or levity, consent being excluded, is venial, because one's own parts move less; nevertheless it can be mortal if it is done lingeringly without necessity. To look at the less honest parts of one's own body even without cause is not a sin, at least in the genus of lust, because this does not stir.

2. To look at a naked person of the same sex, for example one swimming together, in passing from curiosity, is venial, because ordinarily it does not move much; but to look seriously, deliberately, and lingeringly at a naked person of the same sex even from curiosity alone is mortal, because by its nature and proximately it excites libido.

a. Nevertheless it must be required from those swimming together that they do this with the indecent parts covered, unless somewhere, as in England, in the East, common usage bears that they swim even with the indecent parts uncovered: for those accustomed to sights of this kind are stirred with more difficulty. In like manner the custom of certain regions brings it about that images and statues representing naked persons, angels, are looked at without danger, unless it is done studiously and lingeringly.

b. Boys and girls who from levity or curiosity uncover the genitals to one another must be gravely reproved: for although this at that age is not mortal, nevertheless it diminishes chaste modesty and disposes and leads to further things.

3. To look at the less honest parts of a person of diverse sex of itself is not mortal, because it does not notably excite; but a long-lasting sight of this kind cannot be excused from mortal sin. Likewise to look at a person of diverse sex in the indecent parts, even only from curiosity, is mortal, because this ordinarily much excites corrupted nature. There must be excepted a sight which occurs very much in passing and almost unexpectedly, or which is done briefly and from a distance; likewise the sight of a naked infant of diverse sex.

4. To look at statues or images of either sex plainly naked, without reason of necessity or great utility, with fixed, serious sight and with some delay, is a grave sin, because they much excite the rebellion of the flesh, unless perhaps they are very ancient statues which, as experience testifies, do not stir so much. But if indecent statues and images are looked at without cause in passing and cursorily, it is venial, because sights which are not intense and with delay do not excite much.

5. To look at the base parts or the intercourse of animals from curiosity without libidinous affection is venial, especially if the animals are smaller, as birds or dogs, and if they are looked at only in passing, because this is not accustomed to excite pleasure much. To look at human intercourse is a grave sin, unless it is done briefly and from a distance.

Necessity excuses those joining domestic animals, as bulls and horses, even if stirring of the flesh or even pollution should arise, consent being excluded; but this office, as far as can be done, must be entrusted to married persons or older persons, who are not so inclined to venereal things as young persons.

Note on works of art. From these things must also be taken the principle to be observed by artists, whether painters or sculptors, in the representation of the human body. For art is not exempt from the observation of the natural and divine law, but on the contrary is plainly held to the moral laws in producing its works. It is easily conceded that the human body in itself is honest and beautiful, but nevertheless apt to excite venereal sense in others. Therefore since it is prohibited by the moral law that anyone by his actions solicit others to sin, it must be said to be prohibited that those parts of the body be exhibited naked and uncovered which commonly excite those looking at them toward libido. Nor can it in any way be conceded that bodies, if you abstract from the not yet developed bodies of infants and from the withering bodies of old men, can be exhibited by artifice, stylization, idealization, in such a way that, although naked, they do not stir carnally.

58. On speeches. 1. To speak base things can be sinful in three ways:

a. by reason of the end, if someone speaks base things from a libidinous affection for taking venereal delectation, or for seducing another to sin;

b. by reason of the danger of exciting base movements or even pollution and of consenting in it;

c. by reason of the scandal which is furnished to those hearing, especially if they are of younger age.

Therefore he commits a grave sin who speaks or sings base things from the depraved end of delectation, or with proximate danger of consenting to delectation, or with grave scandal of others.

2. To speak base things, if the words are lightly obscene, or indeed gravely so, but are uttered for the sake of play for vain recreation, as is done by workmen while working, is light; indeed even if from levity very obscene conversations are mixed in, e.g. concerning the conjugal act, concerning means of impeding generation, concerning the genital members especially of the other sex, concerning the mode of polluting oneself, concerning the mode of generating, etc., they are not always mortal, because as experience testifies they frequently excite nature little.

3. From boasting to narrate grave sins perpetrated by oneself, and to adorn this with very obscene words, is grave, and ordinarily indeed in three ways: by reason of joy concerning an evil thing, by reason of scandal, and by reason of the danger of impure delectation, especially if the conversations are drawn out longer.

4. To hear base speeches is a grave sin if the hearer by his manner of acting provokes gravely base speeches, or if from a depraved affection he is delighted by them. But one who from human respect smiles or even mixes in some word, likewise one who from curiosity hears such things when he could easily leave, does not sin gravely.¹

5. To sing songs even very obscene is not always a grave sin, namely if it is done from levity or on account of vain solace; for since the things which are sung from this end ordinarily do not stir gravely, proximate danger of grave sin can be excluded.

As regards obscene words, penitents must be asked before whom they uttered them: before adolescents or more grown persons, before unmarried or married persons, on account of scandal; for the unmarried are more easily scandalized than the married, boys and girls more than adults. But it is not fitting for the confessor to ask penitents who accuse themselves of depraved conversations what they said. Wherefore, for making judgment concerning the gravity of this sin, after the question has been made whether the conversations were very indecent, he should rather presume the gravity of the sin from the condition of the penitent. Thus it must be noted that base speeches which married persons have among themselves are rarely grave sins; but base speeches which young persons have among themselves, or married persons with the unmarried, or a married person with an external person of diverse sex, can easily be grave sins, whether on account of depraved affection or on account of danger of consent to base movements, especially if the speeches are drawn out longer.

¹ Cf. Berardi, Praxis confess.^3, I, n. 921.

59. On readings. 1. To read books only lightly base, from curiosity or for the sake of recreation, without depraved affection, is venial: for the danger of depraved delectation is remote if the books are only lightly base.

The reading of novels which treat of loves in such a way that they are neither altogether chaste nor altogether obscene must be greatly dissuaded for young persons of either sex, since their reading weakens character, fills the phantasy with inept images, and universally disposes toward softness. By those who know by experience that from reading of this kind they suffer grave temptations or frequent pollutions, these books must be avoided under grave sin; otherwise they are not prohibited under grave sin, even if here and there stirring or even pollution follows, to which nevertheless consent is not given. Their reading is licit if it is undertaken from a reasonable cause, for erudition, for style, and temptations perhaps arising are rejected.

2. To read books, even if not very base, is ordinarily a grave sin, because reading of this kind, as prolonged for a longer time, ordinarily stirs gravely and exposes to proximate danger of base delectation and pollution.

If nevertheless someone read only a little from curiosity, or if he knew by experience that he was not stirred by such reading or that he did not consent to the stirring that arose, he would not sin gravely. Likewise young persons who from curiosity seek obscene words in dictionaries do not of themselves sin gravely.

3. To read books even only lightly base from a libidinous intention or with proximate danger of consenting to base delectation is a grave sin.

4. To read base books from a just and proportionately grave cause, proximate danger of consent to base delectation being excluded, is not a sin.

a. Therefore they do not sin who read obscene books for acquiring due knowledge for themselves, for correcting morals, etc.; likewise those who read obscene classical books on account of elegance of speech for perfecting style, though these books must not be handed over to young persons, provided they do not consent to base delectation.¹

b. It must be carefully examined whether the cause on account of which an obscene book is read is sufficiently grave: for the greater the danger of base delectation is, the graver the cause ought to be. Curiosity, likewise recreation, which can equally be taken from other innocent things, is not a just cause. Nevertheless stirring or pollution which is foreseen to arise from the study of medicine, anatomy, fine art, etc., consent being excluded, is not imputed as grave sin, even if the study is done without necessity from mere curiosity.²

¹ Cf. const. Officiorum ac munerum, n. 10.

² Lessius, l. 4, c. 3, n. 99.

60. Whether it is licit for painters and sculptors to look for a long time at naked persons of the same or diverse sex, who present themselves to them as a model (Modell stehen).

This certainly is not licit for painting or sculpting obscene things: for an evil end cannot make honorable a dangerous sight; but for painting or sculpting honorable things, insofar as it is necessary for the end of art, under certain conditions and with due cautions it is licit.

a. It is clear that both the persons who offer themselves to be looked at and the artists looking at them expose themselves to grave danger of sinning; wherefore these things are licit only insofar as they are necessary for the end of art. But artists contend that "studies" in the nude body are altogether necessary for the perfection of art, even honorable and religious art; and so this necessity excuses those sights.

b. The required conditions are: a. that the model be truly necessary; b. that the denudation not be extended beyond necessity, for the end of art can be obtained even if the wholly obscene parts are covered; c. that by employing cautions, especially prayer and the honorable intention of seriously devoting oneself to the study of art, danger of consent to delectation perhaps arising be excluded.

c. The use of models where these conditions are not observed is of itself a grave sin. Nevertheless, if for young painters who are compelled to attend academies for the sake of learning art, naked persons are proposed in academies as models without necessity, the young persons looking at such things indeed do not sin, provided they employ due cautions for avoiding consent, because they cannot abstain from them without being compelled to withdraw from the academies. Nevertheless, by reason of scandal and induction, both those who propose such things and the persons who offer themselves to be looked at sin gravely.¹

Whether it is licit to admit touches or kisses which are known to proceed from libidinous affection.

If the touches are of themselves indecent and are done without necessity, this is not licit, both because it is cooperation with the sin of another without a just cause, and because the one who is touched exposes himself to the danger of sinning: for not only to touch indecently, but also to be touched indecently excites pleasure. But if the touch or kiss is of itself honorable, and it is done publicly before others who do not notice the depraved affection of the other, it can be admitted if it cannot be declined without the other being defamed. But if it is done secretly, or if it can be prevented without one's own inconvenience or another's, it is not licit, since there is no cause excusing the cooperation.

¹ Cf. Genicot I, n. 407.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Notion. Non-consummated lust is the disordered use of venereal things which does not reach a completed act. Of this sort are: in a man, a motion of the genital organs prior to effusion; likewise distillation which is joined with venereal commotion; in a woman, non-extreme venereal commotion (n. 10). To this also belong acts, for example touches and looks, insofar as they are placed with venereal commotion, whether sought or voluntarily admitted.

II. Morality. 1. Non-consummated lust is intrinsically evil, because it involves the use of venereal things which is not ordered to the natural end of venereal things, that is, to the good of the species (n. 27).

2. Non-consummated lust is in itself gravely evil. It is proved first by authority. The Holy Office, to the question whether smallness of matter is given in the crime of solicitation, responded on February 11, 1661: "Negative, because in venereal matters there is not given smallness of matter, and if it were given, it is not given in the present matter." Then Clement VIII and Paul V commanded that those be denounced to the Inquisitors of the faith who assert that kisses, embraces, and touches had for pleasure are not mortal sins. Add proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII: "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had for carnal and sensual pleasure which arises from the kiss, with the danger of further consent and of pollution excluded, is only venial." Now, considered according to the obvious sense of this proposition, at least some venereal commotion must be held as grave by reason of itself. But if you admit this concerning some commotion, it is scarcely seen why it should not be affirmed concerning others. For all venereal commotions seem to differ only as more and less, so that, if some one of them is gravely evil by reason of itself, this ought to be said of all.

Objection. The proposition could have been condemned because every venereal pleasure voluntarily sought or admitted carries with it the proximate danger of further consent and of pollution. "Observe," says Billuart, "that that proposition sins, not because it says that such a kiss is venial if the danger is excluded, but because, says Steyaert, in order to cover its own shamefulness, it supposes that which is impossible, or certainly of metaphysical rarity, namely, that in such a case the danger of further consent can be excluded."¹

¹ De temperantia, diss. 5, art. 2.

Response. I deny the assertion, both because that explanation is in no way congruent with the obvious sense, and because it is scarcely admitted that to every voluntary venereal commotion there is annexed a proximate danger of further consent and of pollution. Who would say this, for example, of married persons?

Next, the proposition is proved from the fact that a non-consummated act is not - what it ought to be - a proximate and natural preparation and way to a legitimate consummated act, but rather a proximate and natural preparation and way to an illegitimate consummated act; these things are grave (St. Alphonsus III, 415; n. 28).

Finally, a non-consummated act is commonly gravely sinful also by reason of the danger of pollution. Wherefore especially as regards the unmarried these words of Billuart hold: "For since nature from its corruption is most fragile in this matter, and wholly inclined to these pleasures, and moreover this untaught passion, once voluntarily admitted, blinds the mind and seizes the will with such force that to set bounds to it is most difficult, not to say impossible, it can scarcely, or not even scarcely, happen that someone directly consents to carnal pleasure in itself without there being proximate danger of consenting to something further and more shameful. But that which of itself would be venial becomes mortal by reason of the proximate danger of falling into mortal sin."¹

Concerning the opinion of St. Thomas, one can compare I-II, q. 74, a. 8; II-II, q. 154, a. 4; Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, XV, a. 4; Quaestiones disputatae de Malo, XV, a. 2, ad 18.

Corollary I. Even for betrothed persons an incomplete venereal act, or venereal commotion, is unlawful not only by reason of the danger of pollution, but also gravely unlawful in itself. A few teach that this is of itself only lightly unlawful for them, among whom are Cajetan² and Sanchez.³ But this opinion must be altogether rejected, since the reason on which it rests is destitute of all value. They say: "Betrothals are the beginning of marriage; therefore they confer a right to an incomplete venereal act." To these things the response is: 1. Betrothals are the beginning of marriage in this sense, that they confer the right of entering marriage with the betrothed person, or of receiving a right in the use of the body of the betrothed. But the right of receiving at some time a right in the use of the body in no way carries with it a right here and now - even initially, as they say - of using the body (St. Alphonsus VI, 854). 2. If the argument had force, it would prove too much, namely that betrothals cause a non-consummated act to become lawful, just as marriage causes a consummated act to become lawful.

The things said do not prevent touches, looks, and kisses which are not immodest from being lawful for betrothed persons, even if perhaps some commotion follows from them, provided that they neither intend it, nor consent to it, nor that there is grave danger of consenting to it. Namely, the fostering of betrothal love is a sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect in question; this reason indeed is not similarly present for others.

Corollary II. One who, when venereal commotion has arisen beyond the intention, does not positively, directly or indirectly,⁴ dissent, but behaves merely passively, sins gravely, at least if the commotion is graver. The reason is that, considering the vehemence of the pleasure, he exposes himself to grave danger of consenting. Nevertheless indirect resistance is not rarely to be preferred to direct resistance, especially if the motions are lighter, more prolonged, or more frequent (cf. St. Alphonsus V, 7, 8).

Corollary III. This corollary concerns sensible carnal pleasure (n. 11), concerning which, because of the connection of the matter, I judge it practical to add certain things. Now one who seeks or consents to sensible carnal pleasure places an act which in itself is indifferent. But if pleasure of this sort is directly and fully deliberately sought or admitted, especially by persons apt for intercourse, and especially if those acts are had with some affection and with delay, according to St. Alphonsus a grave sin is regularly, that is, for the most part, committed, because of the proximate danger of falling into and consenting to venereal commotion (III, 416).⁵

¹ De temperantia, dissert. 5, a. 2.

² On II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

³ De Matrimonio, l. IX, disp. 46, nn. 48 and 55.

⁴ Directly, for example by fighting the motion through an act of displeasure; indirectly, for example by praying, by thinking about other things, by continuing the work begun.

⁵ Several authors report the opinion of St. Alphonsus less accurately.

I. Notion. Under the name of immodesty come external acts which by their nature influence venereal motion and are placed inordinately. Such acts can be looks, touches, embraces, and kisses (St. Thomas, loc. cit. and II-II, q. 154, a. 4, ad 2).

II. Morality. 1. The acts enumerated above are in themselves indifferent; if they were evil in themselves, they would never be lawful (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 4).

2. The acts enumerated, indifferent in themselves, can become unlawful by reason either of scandal and cooperation, or of intention, or of the danger of provoking a venereal effect, or of the danger of consenting to a venereal effect (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 4; St. Alphonsus III, 426). It is said:

a. By reason of scandal and cooperation; in which case the morality must be judged according to the doctrine of theologians concerning scandal and cooperation in general.

b. By reason of intention; namely, they are always gravely evil if they are done with the intention of exciting pollution or some venereal commotion.

c. By reason of the danger of provoking a venereal effect; in this case the morality must be defined according to what has been said concerning indirectly voluntary lust (nn. 65-68).

d. By reason of the danger of consenting to a venereal effect; that is, if that danger is grave and remains, an immodest act must be avoided under grave obligation.

3. The acts enumerated, and unlawful on account of one of the assigned causes, differ in species as follows:

a. Considered in themselves they do not differ in species, so that, for example, a sinful look at a girl and a sinful touch of a girl contain the same species of lust.

b. The acts enumerated and unlawful of themselves take on the species of the completed act in the same species, that is, of fornication, sodomy, or bestiality, insofar as they regard a person of diverse sex, a person of the same sex, or a beast; but you should not apply this to looks, because they are not judged to be the natural beginning of a completed act. I said of themselves, because otherwise one must speak differently if they are referred by the agent to an act completed in another species (n. 50).

c. The acts enumerated and unlawful also contract a species: 1. from the circumstances of the subject, or of the one sinning, insofar as he, if he is married, contracts the species of adultery; if he is a sacred person, the species of carnal sacrilege, etc.; 2. from the circumstances of the object, insofar as, if they regard a married person, they again put on the character of adultery; if a sacred person, the character of carnal sacrilege; if a blood-relative or relative by marriage, the character of incest. These things, however, again do not hold concerning the act of looking, unless the affection of libido is determined toward the person, for example a married person, as such. The reason for the distinction is that touches, kisses, and embraces, since they reach such a person concretely and materially, cannot abstract from the circumstance inhering in the person. Looks, which are less material, commonly abstract from the person as such. There is added the fact that, as we said, they are not judged to be the natural beginning of a completed act.

Note. For how honorable kisses, embraces, touches, and looks are to be judged if they are done from sensible carnal pleasure, see n. 64.

Before we apply the principles set forth to particular cases, these things should be noted:

1. In what follows, immodest parts are understood to be the genitals and the parts near them; less honorable parts, the chest and legs; and those middle between both, the breasts.

2. Touches of themselves influence more than looks and thoughts; touches of a human being more than of a beast; of another's body more than of one's own; of a person of diverse sex more than of the same sex; looks and touches done lingeringly, ardently, repeatedly, more than those admitted in passing, calmly, or once.

Moreover, the resolutions which we shall deduce from the established principles: 1. regard the things which commonly occur, so that exceptions are not excluded; 2. abstract from excusing causes, which can bring it about that things which are unlawful of themselves become lawful by accident.

I. Commonly it will be grave:

1. To look deliberately at the immodest parts of a person of diverse sex or at human intercourse (St. Alphonsus III, 421). Make exception if it is done from afar and in passing; or if an infant is looked at, because this moves less. Therefore maids, who, while caring for boys entrusted to them, look at their shameful parts, are immune from grave fault; indeed in practice, on account of a cause, they are commonly altogether excused.²

2. To look lingeringly at the breasts of a beautiful woman, wholly uncovered or covered only with a very thin veil. But in itself it is not grave to look at nursing women, or at the bare chest of another woman, or of a girl not yet formed (St. Alphonsus III, 423).

3. To look at representations, for example in motion pictures, or at dances truly obscene by reason of nudity or movements.

4. To look lingeringly at sculptures or images which exhibit obscene acts or the naked shameful parts of a person of the other sex and of more mature age (St. Alphonsus III, 424). Exception is made if they are looked at from a distance, or if the picture moves less by reason of age.

II. Commonly it is only venial:

1. To look at the immodest parts of a person of the same sex (St. Alphonsus III, 420). Make exception if the look is very lingering. Hence, in themselves, persons of the same sex swimming together with the shameful parts uncovered are excused from grave fault; nevertheless it is very much to be advised that they not swim together without a loincloth. Moreover, concerning swimming, it should be noted that it often happens that boys swimming together do immodest things among themselves. Besides, swimming near a public road easily takes on the character of scandal on account of persons of diverse sex passing by.

2. "To look at ... the less honorable parts ... of a woman" (St. Alphonsus III, 423); yet if the look is prolonged, it will be mortal for many. A look at the honorable parts of a person of diverse sex is in itself without fault. Nevertheless a prolonged look will commonly be venial, indeed mortal, if someone is affected by inordinate love toward the person looked at (St. Alphonsus III, 422).

3. To look at one's own genitals, likewise at the genitals or intercourse of brute animals; nevertheless a prolonged or often repeated look will again not rarely be mortal for many (St. Alphonsus III, 419).

Note. As regards "those who use baths, as they say, of air or of sun, for strengthening health and increasing the vigor of the nerves, they act lawfully in themselves, if cautions are employed. The cautions are the following: with a reasonable end standing, curiosity with respect to oneself or another should be excluded; at least the shameful parts should be covered. It would be better if a very thin and ample garment were used, clothed in which the patient would attain the intended end equally easily. The modern theory concerning the advisability of accustoming the eyes to the sight of nudity is altogether to be rejected. It smells of the sense and lust of pagans."³

III. The practice of painters and sculptors of taking naked persons as models seems to be judged thus, provided, namely, as those skilled in the art assert, that this is necessary or useful for acquiring the art:

1. Directors of an academy who promote such a practice are excused; the students themselves are commonly in a necessary occasion, and are to be treated according to the rules for treating such an occasion.

2. Parents who thus expose their daughters to danger can theoretically be excused on account of urgent necessity, but in practice scarcely can be excused.

3. Persons presenting themselves as models by command of their parents are commonly in a necessary occasion, and must be treated thus; those who are their own masters are excused only by urgent necessity.⁴

¹ For the sake of practice, we apply the principles set forth also to speeches, songs, and readings, although, strictly speaking, they are occasions of internal lust rather than immodest acts.

² Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, I, n. 636.

³ Marc-Gestermann, Institutiones Morales Alphonsianae, I, n. 814, note.

⁴ Cf. Marc-Gestermann, op. cit., I, n. 815.

I. Commonly it is mortal:

1. To kiss the breasts of a woman; likewise the less honorable parts of a person of diverse sex. To kiss parts that are indeed honorable but less customarily kissed of a person of the other sex will more often be grave (cf. St. Alphonsus III, 417).

2. To kiss a person of diverse sex on the cheek for a long time or very often; or on the mouth with notable delay or often; or with the tongue put into the mouth of another, that is, columbine kisses, with delay or several times. This last, done once or another time and without delay, will rather often be mortal (cf. St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

3. To kiss while the lower parts of the body are pressed against the body of another.

General note. Honorable kisses, embraces, and touches between persons of diverse sex:

1. If done as a sign of friendship, are without fault (St. Alphonsus III, 417). "Decorum, however, must be observed here; for in many regions it is not becoming for ecclesiastical men, especially religious, to testify friendship toward women with a kiss, even if they were joined by blood."¹

2. If done from levity, are venially evil (St. Alphonsus III, 418).

3. If done from sensible carnal pleasure, are venial (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.); when they become mortal, see n. 64.

¹ Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, I, n. 636.

I. Commonly it will be mortal:

1. To speak about very shameful matters, as about the genitals, about intercourse, about the ways of performing it, etc. (St. Alphonsus III, 426); if it is done among married persons, grave fault will more easily be absent.

2. To speak shameful things with a person of the other sex, especially a younger person; likewise prolonged and vain conversation with a girl loved inordinately (St. Alphonsus III, 422);¹ to speak shameful things with persons of the same sex, if the shameful conversations are prolonged.

3. To narrate one's own shameful acts boastfully (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

4. Finally, those are commonly to be judged to sin gravely by speaking shameful things who speak shameful things on any occasion whatever, or continue conversations for a long time, likewise those who are very corrupt.

II. Commonly it will be venial:

1. To speak shameful things in passing, for the sake of a joke (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

2. To institute tender conversations with a person of the other sex.

Note. Penitents who accuse themselves of shameful speech are to be asked: 1. only generally, whether they instituted very shameful conversations; 2. by reason of scandal, whether they held conversations in the presence of married or unmarried persons, adults or boys or girls. "For girls and boys are more easily scandalized than adults, especially those who are habituated in this vice" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 40).

III. Those who hear shameful things sin thus:

1. They sin gravely: 1. who linger with pleasure over a shameful thing heard, or expose themselves to grave danger of lingering pleasure; but not those who are pleased only by the elegant manner of speaking; 2. who, by manifesting their pleasure, cooperate in the grave sin of the speaker, or do not prevent shameful speech, although by office they are bound to prevent it. Others, who do not prevent such things out of embarrassment, commonly do not sin gravely. Indeed, if hope of fruit is lacking, all sin can be absent.

Note 1. The things said about speeches must also be applied to songs.

Note 2. The reading of shameful books is commonly gravely sinful; the reading of somewhat shameful books is venially evil; nevertheless even the reading of these latter is more often grave sin for younger persons.

Note 3. To smell menstrual blood, semen, and other things of this sort is judged a grave, light, or no disorder, according as the danger of falling into an external venereal act, or into internal sin, is grave, light, or none.

¹ St. Thomas (Opusculum 64, section 8, De Fluxu libidinis), speaking of distillation, says that vain conversations with those loved inordinately are to be fled under pain of mortal sin, if distillation proceeds from them.

Morality of Kissing and Similar Acts.—(a) Per se, or from their nature, these acts are indifferent, since they can be employed, not only for evil (Job, xxxi. 27; Luke, xxii. 48), but also for good, as we see from the examples of the kiss of peace (I Thess., v. 26), the kiss of fraternal greeting (Gen., xxvii. 26, 27), and the kiss of respectful homage (Luke, vii. 38, 45).

(b) Per accidens, or from their circumstances, these acts are often venially or mortally sinful against purity or against some other virtue, or against both. Thus, justice is offended by injuries or violence (e.g., stolen kisses, unhygienic kisses that transmit venereal or other disease); charity is offended by scandal given the object of affection or the onlookers (e.g., kisses given by way of greeting to a member of the opposite sex by an ecclesiastic or religious, kisses forced upon children by grown-ups and which are harmful to the youthful sense of modest reserve); purity itself is offended by familiarities which, though not impure in themselves, constitute a peril for the virtue of one or both parties, as is true especially in demonstrations of sensual affection or pleasure. But even though there be some carnal commotion, it is not unlawful to give with a pure intention the decent salutation customary in one’s country (e.g., to shake hands with a lady, to kiss one’s stepmother or sister-in-law).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. "Nakedness itself of the private parts according to itself is shameful and corruptive of modest souls... hence such a habit, that is, so thin or diaphanous that the whole woman would be seen, would introduce mortal sin. For there would be there a vicious provocation to lasciviousness from the very species of the action, by which a dressed woman offers herself as if naked to common eyes. Whence it is read of Blessed Barnabas that he cursed naked men and women." Cajetan, Commentary on St. Thomas, l. c.

10. "To put on garments of the other sex with intention or grave danger of lust, or with notable scandal, is a mortal sin, as is clear: from necessity, for example, for hiding oneself, or from lack of other garments, with scandal and danger excluded, it is no sin; if this is done from jest or from mere levity, and scandal and danger are absent, it is only a venial sin... By the same reason one must judge that those who use masks do not always sin mortally, namely if they act thus from jest or from levity, with scandal and danger excluded, especially when they do not change garments of their own sex, but only condition, as if a servant should appear in the garments of a master, or a girl in the adornment of a mistress." Bouvier, l. c., 6 and 7. - Diana, tract. 5, de scandalo, Resol. 11, 13, 63; Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 11, c. 12.

11. Note as regards various persons who can cooperate with this adornment of women: 1. "He does not sin who sells ornaments to a girl who through them is going to solicit others to sin, which ornaments would be sold by another; thus Sanchez, Navarrus, Azor, Lessius, Bonacina, Diana, against Castro and others. The reason is partly because that sale is something indifferent and remotely related to sin; partly also because if the seller sinned, it would be because he does not impede the sin of his neighbor. But although he did not sell, he would not therefore impede it; for there would be another who would sell. Therefore by selling he would not sin." La-Croix, l. 2, n. 263.

2. Among the questions to be asked of tailors, St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confess., n. 60, also lists these: "Whether there would be for him a proximate occasion of sinning from receiving rules for well forming the garments of women through the measurement of their bodies, as it is commonly said, in pigliar la misura, or whether it would be from fitting garments to women, which cannot be done except with the handling of the women themselves; and whether this would be for the tailor a proximate occasion of falling into depraved delectations or desires, as not rarely happens to men of wicked conscience."

3. As regards barbers, the same Holy Doctor has these things, l. c., n. 62: "Let him be asked whether he arranges the hair of women, according to the wicked usage invented by Satan in this time. Ordinarily speaking, I think that this is for men a proximate occasion of sinning mortally by base delectations, or at least desires; whence I say that this is by no means to be permitted to anyone who has not had a contrary experience in himself. But if someone at any time, through a notable time, had experienced in an action of this kind that he remained immune from sin, he truly cannot be condemned of mortal sin; but, this notwithstanding, let the confessor not omit to remove him as much as he can from an office of this kind, which certainly contains danger in itself. Hence I do not wish to discuss another doubt, whether women can, or cannot, with a safe conscience call in men, that these arrange their hair. I hear that in several places they do this; and they confess and communicate; let them and their confessors see to it. At least let the confessor impose on them that they not use some younger man from whose actions they have perceived that he conducts himself maliciously. For the rest, I judge that women of purer conscience indeed will not use men, but will be content with women by whom the hair may be arranged in the better manner possible." But these things, as is clear, hold also for women who shave the beard of men and arrange their hair.

12. Note besides as regards the scandal which, by reason of such adornment, a woman can furnish to others: 1. that a woman who, from adornment even suitable to her state, probably foresees that someone in particular is going to fall mortally, is bound for a brief time to dismiss him, or to flee the sight of such a one. I said for a brief time, because for a long time it would be too grave for her. Whence if to omit that adornment even for a brief time would bring grave inconvenience to her, she is bound in no way, even for a brief time, to omit it.

2. But if the same thing were feared in particular from superfluous, vain, and unsuitable adornment (which to assume for the sake of vanity and pleasing others, so that she may appear beautiful and find a spouse more easily, other things being excluded, is only venial), per se speaking she would be bound to dismiss it altogether, even under mortal sin, because she has no right to that adornment, and on the other hand she is bound to avoid another's sin when she conveniently can. Whence, if grave inconvenience would follow from this, she would not be gravely obligated to omit that adornment either. Per se speaking; for since superfluous adornments, practically speaking, soon are turned into the custom of the country of women who are honorable, neither can it be said absolutely that such a woman has no right of following the custom of her country, nor is grave inconvenience lacking.

3. If a woman thinks that, not so in particular, but only in general, some will be scandalized in her, provided she does not intend their lasciviousness and is not pleased by it, although she is pleased that she be praised as beautiful, she does not seem to be bound to abstain from that adornment, even superfluous, under mortal sin, for example by coloring the face, etc. "The reason is both because it is scandal received rather than given, and that adornment and beauty provokes only to venial sin; and because it would be too grave for that sex, especially if she is seeking a husband, perpetually to abstain thus, since that occasion is universal and perpetual, and the more beautiful would never licitly go outdoors, since natural beauty harms more than artificial." Liguori, l. 2, n. 54.

13. Proposition. Very obscene words, which by a continued conversation about these matters from their nature can proximately dispose hearers to venereal delectation, unless they are made from a just cause, per se speaking, are a mortal sin. But less obscene words, which from their nature dispose only remotely to venereal delectation, unless likewise they are made from a just cause, per se speaking, are only a venial sin. The reason is the same as in the preceding proposition, n. 7. But what is said here about conversations must also be said in the same proportion about immodest songs and readings. Although words per se move less to lust than sight, readings nevertheless move much more than words and colloquies, on account of the more prolonged and more intense delay of the imagination in those base matters. - L. 426, 427, 428.

14. Corollaries. 1. Those sin gravely who, before unmarried persons, especially of the other sex, mix among themselves conversations concerning insemination, carnal intercourse, and other things which, with attention paid to the circumstances of the persons, the thing said, and the manner of saying it, can proximately dispose those speaking or hearing to venereal delectation. Nor, per se speaking, are those excused from grave sin who, under pretext of joking, have conversations about these things in equivocal words, but ones sufficiently known; except unless something of this kind is said by mere jest and in passing. For that jest and equivocation, far from removing, rather increases the danger of venereal delectation because of curiosity excited. It is said, with the circumstances attended to, because "of itself it is not evil to utter or hear base words." L. 426. - Likewise to read altogether obscene books without a just cause is a mortal sin, even if this seems to be done from curiosity or for the sake of recreation, because per se this reading greatly provokes to lust. Except perhaps unless those reading, from mere curiosity, on account of advanced age and a cold complexion, or custom of treating venereal matters, do not incur grave danger of lust. L. 426. - But it is certain that those who compose, and also those who sell, notably base books can in no way be excused from grave sin, on account of the scandal of others, although not intended; nor can profit, however great, excuse. L. 428.

2. It is not per se mortal to utter things indeed base, but not gravely obscene, if it is done briefly, through jest or empty solace, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. Hence commonly base jests which are uttered by harvesters, grape-harvesters, muleteers, are not grave, because ordinarily they are said and heard for mere jest, and those uttering and hearing them are moved little or not at all. L. 426; G. 420, 4. The same consequently must be said about little songs. - Nor indeed must tender conversations, otherwise honorable, with persons of the other sex always be held as mortal sins, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are prolonged, often repeated, or made in solitary places. L. 422, 426. What, therefore, must be judged concerning loves, as they call them, especially among the younger? Not all indiscriminately are to be condemned of mortal fault; although often a proximate occasion of sinning lethally will with difficulty be absent, at least in the course of things, and with certain circumstances added, as if the lovers meet altogether alone, especially for a rather long time, or by night, etc. L. Prax. Confess., n. 65; G., l. c., 5. - Likewise, to read amorous and lightly dishonorable books per se is not a mortal sin, although in practice it is very dangerous, especially for the younger. L. 426; G. 419. But the theologians deservedly note that these amorous books, which are not gravely obscene, often harm pious faithful more than books that are utterly obscene, which excite horror by the very baseness that they show, and thus deter from reading. But those who compose or sell lightly obscene books indeed sin, even lethally, if they do this to excite lust; but if only for acquiring profit, or on account of another motive not gravely depraved, the sin will be only venial, since books of this kind can be read without grave danger. Yet clerics and religious do not seem, per se speaking, able to compose or spread books of this kind without grave scandal. Cf. St. Alphonsus, App. de libr. prohib., c. 1, n. 8-11.

3. "To mix honorable and familiar conversations and colloquies with a person of the other sex is free from all fault, although in these things you are naturally delighted. Salm., tr. 26, c. 3, n. 22." D'Annibale, p. 2, n. 68, ed. 3. "It does not matter that someone feels a greater inclination to deal with women than with men, because an inclination of this kind is not moral, nor free, but rather natural, or founded in nature itself. Therefore it is not formally evil. Yet it must be confessed that this is troublesome to a chaste mind, and even dangerous to the incautious." G., Cas., t. 1, n. 24; Elbel, de Act. hum., n. 15. - To read obscene books for a just cause, for example, for forming and perfecting style, for learning the truth of history, for informing superiors, for correcting morals, etc., is no sin, provided assent is not given to base things.

15. Note. 1. Those who hear obscene things, if they have authority over those uttering them, ought to restrain them as much as they morally can; if they do not have authority, they are bound likewise to admonish them as much as they morally can, or at least they ought to be silent, especially women, lest they seem to assent to base things; for from this the lust of men is accustomed to be inflamed. "Yet it must not lightly be pronounced that all those who, hearing base speech which on the part of the speaker is mortal, laugh a little, sin mortally; for it can happen that they laugh at the manner of speaking rather than at the things themselves; moreover in that case they do not sin mortally unless they furnish grave scandal. But religious, clerics, and persons eminent in Christian virtues would easily furnish scandal if they laughed at obscene words." Bouvier, Diss. in 6 dec. praec., de turpiloq., 4.

2. Those who, because of boasting, narrate their own base sins frequently sin on account of the scandal of those hearing, and complacency concerning the sin narrated. L. 426; Prax. Confess. 40.

16. From those things which were said in the two preceding articles, judgment can be borne concerning theaters, namely whether those who are present at theaters sin. For if they sin, they can sin only on account of base looks, or base things heard. Now then, theaters of themselves are not evil, but indifferent, since they can be had well and badly. Yet ordinarily speaking, it cannot be denied that they are full of dangers, especially for adolescents, whose blood is already sufficiently boiling of itself; for they foster luxury, feed the sight basely, enervate the soul, and sharpen passions. - Wherefore there is no sin either to be present at comedies, or to act them, if they are honorable. "The office of actors, which is ordained to exhibiting solace to men, is not according to itself illicit," says the Angelic Doctor, 2.2, q. 168, a. 3. - But if they are somewhat base, the hearer will sin only venially, unless perhaps he knows by experience that he is moved vehemently by entertainments of this kind toward lust, with proximate danger of consent, so that the spectacle is for him a proximate occasion of sinning. - If finally the comedy is notably base, either in itself or in manner, he sins mortally per se. Per se; for it would be venial to view it only on account of curiosity, or on account of empty solace, with all danger of base delectation excluded; nevertheless, practically speaking, this danger will easily be present in adolescents, or in others of little timorous conscience; and unless scandal is present, which plainly would be present if clerics and religious were present at base comedies, as Benedict XIV observes. - L. 427, 428; Hom. Apost., tract. 9, n. 10; G. 247.

17. Note. 1. Holzmann and La-Croix deservedly condemn as mortal, on account of the scandal of others, both those who cooperate by money or applause in notably base comedies, and also those who are bound to impede them and, when they conveniently can, do not impede them; a fortiori those who compose or represent them. - 2. Since it is not illicit from a just and proportionate cause for someone to expose himself to danger, especially if by salutary safeguards the danger of sinning is averted, the following can be present at spectacles without sin, provided they are not gravely base: 1. married women, lest they displease a commanding husband; 2. male and female servants, that they may serve their masters; 3. sons and daughters of the family, if parents command it; 4. soldiers and magistrates, that they may care for good order to be preserved; 5. kings and princes, that they may conciliate the affection of subjects to themselves; 6. courtiers, who are bound to accompany the prince, etc., provided all these do not have a depraved intention and do not consent to carnal delectation perhaps arising. - 3. Yet since the matter, as commonly happens, is full of dangers, a prudent confessor ought, as far as can be done, to avert his penitents from spectacles of this kind. - 4. But it is lawful for workers to build and adorn theaters, if the adornments are in themselves honorable, because it is lawful for Princes to permit spectacles.

18. Can comedians and actors never be absolved unless they renounce their profession?

R. Certainly comedians and actors are not to be absolved unless they first renounce base representations; but since spectacles are not of themselves altogether illicit, nor even the office of actors, says St. Thomas, l. c., is of itself illicit, neither are those exercising it in the state of sin, provided they use play moderately, that is, by not using some illicit words or deeds for play, and by not applying play to undue affairs and times. Therefore actors are not always to be dismissed without absolution. "All things being equal," says D. Gousset, theol. mor., t. 1, n. 648, "one will be more indulgent toward an actress who is under the authority of marital power than toward an actor who is master of his actions." - Diana, tr. 5, de scandalo, resol. 25-29; St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, part 1, ch. 23.

19. We find nothing special about this matter among the Theologians. Yet the matter is indubitable, as is clear from experience itself, that many are excited to venereal delectation by smells and tastes. Now indeed the same here the principle holds as also for looks and conversations. If the smells and tastes of the thing are very obscene, and they take place in such a way that they induce the proximate danger of venereal delectation, then, per se speaking, grave sin will be present. But if, with attention paid to the thing, which either is not very obscene or is in no way obscene, and with attention paid also to the manner in which those sensations take place, there is a sufficiently remote danger of venereal delectation, or none at all, then, per se speaking, either the sin will be only light, if those acts are placed from levity or some sensuality, or even none at all. It is said if from levity, etc.; for again there will be no sin if an act of this kind is placed for a sufficient and proportionate reason. - A. p. 115.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Are shameful touches and looks mortal between spouses on account of pleasure alone, without order to copulation? The common and truer opinion denies it.... The reason is that the conjugal state, just as it makes copulation honorable, so also makes touches and looks of this kind honorable. (Otherwise it would be exposed to very many dangers and scruples.) But just as pleasure sought in copulation does not exceed venial fault, so also in these touches and looks." L. 933. In truth, since incomplete acts of this kind are of themselves referable to the complete and perfect act, since this is licit for spouses, the former cannot per se be illicit for the same persons. L. 932, 933. A fortiori, acts of this kind are per se free from fault, whether they are less honorable or simply dishonorable, if they are immediately referred to copulation. For then they are a certain preparation for and beginning of copulation. Therefore, apart from the crime of voluntary pollution outside the vessel or of sodomy, nothing is done against the good of marriage. But the light fault which can be present in acts of this kind is easily excused by ends intrinsic to marriage itself or other extrinsic ends, e.g., because they are suitable for fostering affection or for calming concupiscence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. Do Medardus and Anatolia sin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

413. Things To Be Established. - I. Truly immodest kisses ¹ and touches, that is, those had without cause on the dishonorable parts of another, can scarcely ever be excused from mortal sin, even when venereal affection is removed, because of the grave indecency and the imminent danger of lust which they induce. Yet they are more easily excused from mortal sin if they are done on a person of the same sex than if on a person of a different sex. - St. Lig., n. 419, 420.

¹ In this place the Author denotes kisses which are imprinted on dishonorable parts. But there is this difference between kisses and touches of this sort: that sometimes a just cause can underlie the employment of those touches, for example for healing; but not likewise for kissing.

II. Kisses and touches on honorable or less honorable parts ² constitute mortal sins if they are done from venereal delight; they are venial if they are done from levity, jest, curiosity, etc.; but they lack all fault if they are done according to the custom of the country, for the sake of civility or honorable benevolence ³. The reason of these things is clear per se. - St. Lig., n. 417.

² Carefully note the distinction between the parts of the body which are less honorable and those which are dishonorable. The genital parts and those proximate to them are called dishonorable, or also base or obscene; but the breast, arms, legs, etc., are called less honorable and not base. Thus St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 422). But what the Author says about those things which have venial fault if they are done about less honorable parts from levity, jest, curiosity, etc., can be taken of some touch, but is not truly to be transferred to kisses, as the thing itself speaks per se, which the Author also notes below in the third Resolution.

Likewise, what the Author says lack all fault if they are done according to the custom of the country, or for the sake of civility, etc., must be taken of honorable parts, but must not be extended to less honorable parts.

³ ** [N. B. These things, and the Note which immediately follows, furnished matter for the VV. to write through seventy-six columns (pp. 296-334). All of them present themselves as of altogether the same weight as those which we have already seen them object many times in advance. Rather than subjoin something at the bottom of these Notes, if anything should seem worthy of some response, it has seemed opportune to insert it enclosed in brackets in the course of the Notes. Let the Reader patiently bear that, for this reason, the broken context of the discourse requires a little more labor for retaining the connection of things.]

To this pertains the common opinion of the Doctors that for the sake of civility and benevolence and for showing love, chaste touches are lawful for betrothed persons for the future, for example taking the hand, embraces, and kisses. [After the VV. (p. 297) said that in the Note the state of the question is rather darkened than clarified, they accuse it because it is said that chaste touches are lawful, not only for the sake of civility, but also for the sake of benevolence and for showing love; which (p. 299) they say was subtly added in the Note; and they continue (ibid.): "this opinion, namely that chaste touches are lawful for betrothed persons FOR SHOWING BENEVOLENCE AND LOVE APART FROM THE CUSTOM OF THE COUNTRY, is neither common, nor do the witnesses adduced testify to it." Thus they. - Resp. 1. Let the Reader see with his own eyes in the texts placed below whether the words "for the sake of benevolence" and "for showing love" are a subtle addition of P. B., or are the words of the alleged Authors. - Resp. 2. Let the Reader again see whether that phrase "APART FROM CUSTOM" is found in the words of P. B. And nevertheless against this fantastic shadow, namely that in the Note kisses, touches, etc., apart from the custom of the country, are asserted and defended as licit, the VV. seriously continue to fight also on pp. 300 and 301. - Moreover, by those words of the Doctors, "according to custom," "according to the custom of the country," a twofold sense, each right, can be understood: one, so that the custom of exhibiting those signs of benevolence after betrothals is indicated; the other, so that in the manner of exhibiting those signs the custom of the country is observed; and the words of St. Alphonsus have this sense also, that they are permitted in no other way than they are permitted to unmarried persons, where the usage flourishes.] I said, "common"; for thus Lucius Ferraris (V. Luxuria, n. 90): "All touches, kisses, embraces..., which are done between betrothed persons..., if they are done chastely, from a right end, according to the custom of the country, are licit. COMMON." - Thus also Giribaldi of the Clerics Regular of St. Paul (the Barnabites) (De Matrim., cap. 19, dub. 15, n. 114): "You will ask, 5. whether kisses, touches, and embraces are lawful for betrothed persons for the future? The COMMON opinion denies that dishonorable touches on immodest and hidden parts are lawful.... But it concedes that otherwise honorable touches, embraces, kisses..., are lawful; and these indeed will be venial sin if they are done only for delight to be captured; and without any fault if they are done as a sign of love and benevolence according to the accustomed manner." - Nor otherwise Reiffenstuel (Th. mor., tr. IX, dist. 4, q. 7, n. 77): "But whether touches and kisses are lawful between betrothed persons for the future is another difficulty. And indeed the Doctors everywhere confess that immodest touches between betrothed persons are not excused from mortal sin.... But if kisses and embraces are not of themselves immodest, and at the same time are done... with a view to honorable love and benevolence, they are free from fault." [Reiffenstuel, say the VV. (p. 299), alleges Navarrus; but he recommends that mothers not allow daughters to be alone and in secret with betrothed persons. - Resp. They themselves could have seen that this also is recommended below in this Note. - The VV. add (p. 300) that in the newest edition of Reiffenstuel's Theology Flavianus Ricci adds the opinion of Pontas, that the opinion condemning kisses, etc., in betrothed persons as grave sin is to be preferred, because this opinion is safe. - Resp. Let Pontas have for himself the theory of condemning something as grave fault because this is safe. St. Antoninus, to whom St. Alphonsus subscribes, says this is the same as building for Gehenna.] - And the Salamancans (De Matrim., cap. 15, n. 91): "The last difficulty is whether kisses, embraces, touches... are licit between betrothed persons for the future? It is answered that if such acts are done for capturing pleasure, they will be venial sins.... If as a sign of love, there will be no sin." [Here the VV. object (p. 299) that the Salamancans retracted these things (tract. 26, c. 3, n. 56-61). - Resp. Yet this difference intervenes between each place: that in the former, reported here, the Salamancans follow the common opinion and confirm it by authorities which have some worth; but in the latter they fortify a new opinion (l. c., n. 60) with a heap of false allegations, so that they do not hesitate to allege for it Busembaum and Cajetan, whom, forgetful of themselves, they had alleged (ibid., n. 56) also for the opposite, and whom the VV. themselves (p. 304) traduce as if excusing venereal delights! And indeed even in this place the Salamancans merely conclude that this newest opinion seems to them more probable in practice! If any seize suffrages of this sort, we willingly leave them to them.]

And that St. Alphonsus did not reject this doctrine is clear from this, that after these things were reported from Busembaum (lib. 6, n. 854): "Touches that are immodest are not lawful for betrothed persons, although embraces and kisses as a sign of love may be lawful," he finds nothing to reprehend. [Here the VV. subjoin (p. 301): "The illustrious Professor" (that is, P. Ballerini) "seems here to have labored either from a hallucination of the eyes or from distraction of mind." - Resp. Behold the words of St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 584), which the VV. themselves also transcribe (p. 297): "Croix and Viva, with other authors adduced by them, concede that kisses and embraces according to the custom of the country can sometimes be permitted to betrothed persons, but in no other way than they are permitted to unmarried persons. And THIS IS PROBABLE, provided such acts are not pressed and prolonged for some time, as Roncaglia well warns, who also admits them FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF BENEVOLENCE; but I would not admit them except where such a usage flourished, as Mazzotta also says." Does St. Alphonsus differ even a little from the opinion of the Authors who are reported above in the Note? Does he not concede that, where this usage flourishes, kisses and embraces are lawful even for a demonstration of benevolence, which nevertheless the VV. just before were traducing as a subtle addition of P. B.?]

This one thing can move some, that acts of this sort contribute to stirring up carnal and wicked motions. But here the general rule must be valid which we touched on above (note to n. 412), namely that then only are these motions culpable when either the cause is evil, or there is danger of consenting. Therefore it pertains to the Confessor in the case to inspect, not indeed whether the cause is guilty, for since it is just, by that very fact it is honorable, but whether there is danger of consent into evil, and according to his prudence to furnish remedies to the penitent. In this matter he must indeed take care that the desire of removing one from danger of sin does not drive him so far that he condemns those things as sin, especially grave sin, which according to the common opinion of the Doctors have either no guilt or only light guilt. For zeal of this sort, not indeed according to knowledge, must finally obtain this one effect: that perhaps it may deter very few from those acts, but in reality drive very many, through a false conscience thrown in, into the snares of sin; whence it will easily happen besides that, once the fear of God has been trampled because of the imprudence of the Confessor, and the horror of sin lost, they may then slip into true and graver basenesses.

The very same thing also must be observed concerning looks and conversations between betrothed persons, when from these also those motions, and sometimes even to pollution, follow. For there is a just cause why a betrothed man should visit his betrothed, and have conversations with her. Therefore the whole question will turn on that danger of consenting about which it was said above in the note to n. 412.

In this matter a difficulty not light will indeed seem to offer itself, when from the frequency of falls the danger of consenting appears to be of such a kind that it ought to be considered as a proximate occasion of sinning. Nevertheless here in reality there is no greater difficulty than if there is question of a necessary proximate occasion: necessary, I say; for, considering all the adjuncts, the Confessor would require something morally impossible if he wished to keep a betrothed man from approaching and speaking with his betrothed, or (as after Sanchez, De Matrim., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 48-50, and many others alleged by the same, Diana notes, tom. 1, tr. 4, res. 37; and tom. 2, tr. 6, res. 37) from exhibiting the customary signs of benevolence. Therefore he must use other means for removing the danger. If the penitent does not refuse these, what Giribaldi has according to the commonly received principles will be valid (De Poenit., cap. 10, dub. 3, n. 31). To the question, Whether a betrothed man can be absolved who frequently visits his betrothed, on which occasion he sins, he responds that he can be absolved when the visits are according to the custom of the country, from which he cannot abstain without mark and disgrace, because the betrothed woman would think herself despised because he did not visit her as other betrothed men do; and the same is valid concerning a betrothed woman who from speech and the sight of the betrothed man suffers distillation and pollution; for she is not bound to flee the sight of the betrothed man if otherwise she does not have a just cause and excuse, since the sight and words are honorable and according to the custom of the country, and cannot be avoided without mark and disgrace. But the Confessor will suggest means not only general but special to the matter; and according to his prudence it is necessary that he deter, as he can, from exhibiting those signs of benevolence by which the tinder of concupiscence can more easily be stirred up, or at least propose that manner and frequency which does not exceed necessity. But the manner and measure which can easily be understood by all is this: that no more be provided than what can be provided in this matter before others, for example parents, without offense to anyone. Then especially it must be required that one never remain alone with one alone, especially in a secret place. And this indeed pertains most especially also to those who have care of them. Therefore with parents, and especially with mothers, one must deal most severely, and the grave obligation of this watchful custody and caution must be urged; to which they ought to be impelled not only by conscience, but also by fear lest daughters, once corrupted, grow old dishonored in the paternal home.

But if the remedies proposed by the Confessor do not obtain the desired fruit, this one thing remains, that these persons be dealt with no otherwise than it is handed down in the Treatise on Penance that one must deal with relapsing persons.

414. • III. Touches and kisses even on honorable parts will sometimes not be free from grave fault, especially if they are exercised more often or lingeringly by young persons of a different sex without any necessity or other just cause, although on account of merely organic pleasure. The reason is that from acts of this sort, repeated or lingering, carnal commotion and venereal delight will rarely be absent. - St. Lig., n. 416 ⁴.

⁴ ** By "organic pleasure" here the Author calls that which above (note to n. 411) we called purely sensible; where we also suggested that in practice, if there is question of adults who aptly seek it, it scarcely has place precisely as such.

But that the Author seems to except from the rule which he hands down the case of necessity or of a just cause, this must not be extended to more lingering and more pressed kisses, from which even betrothed persons themselves are to be deterred, since scarcely any just cause can be thought up as regards those. (The VV. (p. 304), at these words of the Note: "this is not to be extended to more lingering and more pressed kisses," argue thus: P. B. says that betrothed persons are to be deterred from more lingering and more pressed kisses; therefore not altogether from simply lingering and pressed ones. - Resp. I deny the consequence. It is well known that among the Latins the comparative form, where a term of comparison is lacking, sometimes signifies less than the positive form; it is, namely, an elliptical locution, and there is understood "than is fitting," or "than the thing, or person, or time, or other circumstance bears or requires," etc.)

Yet the Doctors have moved another question concerning betrothed persons, namely whether some delight is lawful for them which they voluntarily take from kisses or embraces or chaste touches. I said, 1. "some delight"; for here venereal delight properly so called and proper to the genital parts is altogether excluded. I said, 2. "which they voluntarily take"; for concerning one arisen besides the intention and admitted by no consent, there is no controversy, even if it were venereal.

St. Alphonsus also treats the question thus proposed (lib. 6, n. 854), yet in such a way (for it will be useful to have touched this one thing concerning this matter in a merely historical way) that from the things disputed there it can scarcely be understood in what place the matter truly stands. And indeed for the opinion which holds that this delight is either licit for betrothed persons or not more than lightly evil (which nevertheless he does not seem to set forth accurately enough), he himself brings forward only five authors, namely Sanchez, the Salamancans, Aversa, Diana, and Azor. [The VV. complain (p. 305) that here it is said that with St. Alphonsus it can scarcely be understood in what place the matter stands. - Resp. 1. St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 854) poses the question thus: "It is asked whether between betrothed persons chaste kisses and touches are mortal sins, if they are done for capturing pleasure"; but it is passed over in silence of what pleasure there is question; 2. For those standing for the first opinion St. Alphonsus alleges only five, while very many others stand for it, indicated here, to whom also three others are added by Diana (l. c. below, res. 38). But when the question is proposed thus, it is certainly not easy to understand in what place the matter stands. Therefore. - The VV. subsume (l. c.) that, if the thirteen Authors whom the holy Doctor alleges for his opinion (l. c.) are counted, and to these are added seven others with Sanchez, fifteen others with Diana, and sixteen others with the Salamancans, now a number rises up which equals the sum of those cited in this Note. - Resp. 1. The seven with Sanchez were transcribed by the Salamancans; therefore lest they be counted twice, they must be taken away. 2. The fifteen with Diana are against the opinion of St. Alphonsus, not for it; nevertheless four are alleged also for it (l. c. below, n. 1); but since these are found repeated by the Salamancans, they cannot be counted. 3. We have already said that the allegations of the Salamancans are false, and we see some of these also with St. Alphonsus. Of what strength the allegations reported with St. Alphonsus are is shown in the following things. Therefore.] But Sanchez (De Matr., lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 48) had alleged for the same opinion seventeen others; but Diana (tom. 2, tract. 6, res. 36, n. 2, 3) had added nine others to these, so that now we have thirty-one, among whom you may see the names of Soto, Cajetan, Toletus, Navarrus, Valencia, Sayrus, Reginaldus, etc.; and to these could be joined Laymann (lib. 3, sect. 4, n. 11), Palaus (De Sponsalibus, disp. 3, punct. 4, §2, n. 7), Sporer (Theol. Sacram., p. 4, c. 2, sect. 4, n. 430), Escobar (lib. 26, sect. 2, dub. 26), Filliuccius (tr. 10, part 1, cap. IX, n. 357), Tamburini (In Decal., lib. 7, cap. 3, §5, n. 61), Joann. Henriquez (in Mendo, disp. 5, q. 12, n. 4), and Giribaldi, who (De Matrim., cap. 19, dub. 15, n. 114) asserts that it is the common doctrine.

But for the opinion which contends that this delight is gravely illicit for betrothed persons, you will see alleged with the same St. Alphonsus (l. c.) Lessius, Mazzotta, Roncaglia, Concina, Bonacina with Henriquez and Rebellus, Croix with Mendo, and Viva with Suarez, Perez, and Hurtado; which allegations indeed seem to have been gathered almost from Croix, Mazzotta, and Viva. But, 1. Lessius (De Iust. et Iur., lib. 4, cap. 3, n. 59) indeed condemns these acts as grave fault in persons altogether unmarried; but (ibid., n. 58) he had handed down the opposite concerning betrothed persons thus: "To betrothed persons for the future that pleasure is conceded which is perceived precisely from a kiss and from contact of the hand or face, so that they do not sin in it even venially." [The VV. object (p. 313) that these words of Lessius are an argument which adversaries use, and whose opinion Lessius reprobates. - Resp. I concede the antecedent, and deny the consequence. Namely, those are the adversaries who treat not of betrothed persons, but of unmarried persons. Now Lessius reprobates their opinion, but does not deny the antecedent of the argument. And in reality the VV. themselves (l. c.) write: "Lessius concedes that kisses are lawful for betrothed persons by reason of the marriage begun, even on account of the delight which arises precisely from them." - The VV. subsume (ibid.) that Lessius concedes this speaking speculatively, but practically does not judge this opinion probable; and they subjoin these words of Lessius: "Therefore I would not call that opinion probable." - Resp. Those words of Lessius regard the opinion of the adversaries concerning unmarried persons, nor is it easy to understand how the VV. traduce Lessius, a classic author, as contradicting himself in the same place. Those things pertain to betrothed persons by which, at the end of the same n. 59, Lessius responds to the argument which the adversaries took from kisses licit as regards betrothed persons: "It is conceded to betrothed persons because it is a sign of future copula, to which by reason of the marriage begun they can consent." Hence it is clear that Lessius plainly concedes that antecedent of the adversaries.]

2. Say the same thing of Perez, who, while (De Matrim., disp. 8, sect. 6, n. 7) he condemns as grave libidinous delight, which is a certain beginning of copula, nevertheless concedes as licit for betrothed persons the delight perceived from kisses (ibid., n. 4). [The VV. contend (p. 314) that Perez teaches that nothing is lawful for betrothed persons except that which would be lawful for others not married. - Resp. I deny altogether. Behold the words of Perez (l. c.) which the VV. also report: "I say first, it is certain among all Doctors that the aforesaid kisses, embraces, and touches not immodest are lawfully done between betrothed persons for the future, when they are done as a sign of benevolence according to the custom of the country, for reconciling and fostering mutual love in order to contracting marriage.... Hence with the aforesaid Doctors I gather that the delight following from them is licit and honorable." Indeed (which the VV. omit) Perez (ibid., n. 5) adds: "Add that the aforesaid kisses, embraces, and touches are also licit on account of the aforesaid end, even if danger of pollution is present, provided danger of consent into sensual and venereal delight is not present." But the objection premised by the VV. distorts Perez into a sense not his own. Perez (n. 8) responds to those objecting that betrothals give no right to those things which are opposed to chastity. But he responds by conceding this freely. And when (n. 7) he had premised that sin is committed through kisses and touches even not immodest, if they are done for the sake of libidinous delight, he infers (n. 8) that betrothals do not excuse in betrothed persons for the future from mortal or venial fault kisses, embraces, and touches even not immodest, which in them, if they were unmarried, would truly be mortal or venial, that is, which would be done for the sake of sensual and libidinous delight.]

3. Bonacina (De Matr., q. 4, punct. 9, n. 6) and Mazzotta (tr. VII, disp. II, q. 2, cap. 2, q. 1) say each opinion is probable. [The VV. object (p. 315) that Bonacina said the opposite opinion was safer and more probable. - Resp. That he concedes the other to be probable is sufficient for a judgment about the liceity of the act. But that he says the opposite is more probable is not sufficient for injecting into the faithful a conscience of grave sin. These things follow from common principles approved and inculcated by St. Alphonsus. As regards Mazzotta, the VV. object that he said the opposite was far more probable. - Resp. Mazzotta said that of carnal and (as he then explains) venereal delight, I concede, and he spoke very benignly thus concerning that; that he said it of the delight about which there is now question, I deny. Behold the words of Mazzotta (l. c.), which the VV. too much truncate here and there: "I respond with Perez and others that then they are lawful, when they are done as a sign of benevolence according to the custom of the country, for reconciling and fostering mutual love in order to contracting marriage; because thus not only does baseness not appear, but indeed an honorable end is present. Which is true, says Perez, even if in the case, besides the intention, commotion of the spirits or even pollution follows, provided danger of consent into that is not present. But if they are done on account of carnal delight... which sounds like venereal delight..., far more probably they contradict," etc.]

4. Suarez (De Pecc., disp. 5, sect. 7, n. 12) and Henr. Henriquez (lib. XI, cap. 19, n. 4) have altogether nothing which makes to the matter. [The VV. confess (pp. 315-316) that Suarez has nothing about betrothed persons. But it could better have been noted that that allegation of Suarez regards another Suarez, of whom mention is made in Diana (tom. 2, tr. 6, reg. 38, n. 1), and about him nothing is to be cared for. But as regards Henriquez, he merely says (l. c.) that honorable embraces and kisses for benevolence were conceded by learned men; but they ought not to be permitted, since now betrothals do not pass over into marriage by copula with marital affection. I ask: why does he not say "ought," but "would ought"? The reason is rendered there in the note thus: "for danger of copula is present, while without arbiters they touch one another immodestly." Therefore he says this merely for forestalling dangers; which is consonant with that paragraph, where he treats of the office of the mother in the custody of daughters. But those whom he alleges in the Note, Cajetan, Navarrus, Angelus, and Silvester, are known not to forbid these signs of benevolence to betrothed persons, although Silvester (V. Matrim., 5, §8) distinguishes a twofold genus of kisses: one, which would irreprehensibly be done only with wives and betrothed persons for the present, and which would suffice so that betrothals pass over into marriage; the other, which are customarily exhibited even to betrothed persons for the future in some places, etc. From these allegations it is permissible to judge the opinion of the VV., where they say (p. 305) that up to the sixteenth century no one is found who conceded this to betrothed persons.]

5. Rebellus (De oblig. Iust., part 2, lib. 3, q. XIX, sect. 2) and Gaspar Hurtado (De Matr., disp. 10, diffic. 10, n. 48) discuss, the one indeed libidinous delight, or kisses through which venereal pleasure is begun; the other, libidinous touches and the delight perceived therefrom; which likewise are not to the matter. [The VV. concede (p. 316) that Rebellus and Hurtado treat of libidinous or venereal delight; but they deny that they are alleged beside the matter, because some Authors in reality do not condemn at least as mortal some such delight. - Resp. Whether some author has excused at least from mortal sin venereal delight is of no interest now. It is of interest in this way: that St. Alphonsus alleges the authors of the second opinion as contradicting the authors of the first. But none of the five whom he brings forward for the first opinion speaks of venereal delight; therefore Rebellus and Hurtado, who attack merely venereal delight, are alleged against them beside the matter.]

6. Croix (lib. 6, p. 3, n. 151) merely opposes to the common opinion the false allegations of Lessius, Suarez, Henriquez, and Hurtado, to which he adds Comitolus; but also this one wrongly, because Paulus Comitolus, although a man of anomalous talent and of zeal inclined to stricter things, nevertheless did not depart from the common opinion in this matter, as is clear from these things (Resp. mor., lib. 4, q. 20, n. 4): "Wherefore girls and virgins who, either from kisses and embraces of chaste young men whom they love, take honorable pleasure, whether when they think of those touches or also admit them bodily; either do not sin, or sin lightly, as Sylvester says, V. Delectatio, n. 7. Rosella, V. Cogitatio morosa, n. 4, affirms that they do not sin mortally. It must be said otherwise if they drew in obscene pleasure in mind or base pleasure in body." [The VV. note (p. 317) that, even if the force of the allegations which Croix puts forth wavers, nevertheless the suffrage of Croix himself is present. - Resp. A suffrage of this sort has as much force as the consequence which is drawn from false premises, that is, none. But the reason brought by Croix (lib. 3, p. 1, n. 894), namely that this sensible delight, especially if it is sought, could be followed by venereal delight; and if perhaps venereal delight should approach, danger could be present of consenting to it - this reason, I say, proves too much, nor does Logic consent that from a probable particular case an argument be taken for asserting grave sin for any cases whatsoever. - Concerning Comitolus the VV. (pp. 318-319) dispute through three columns, and ask whether he could rightly allege Paludanus and the Summas of Silvester and Rosella. - Resp. Those things make nothing to the matter. This is the question: whether Croix rightly and justly alleged Comitolus against those twenty authors who (as he himself says, lib. 3, p. 1, n. 894) say that delight only sensible, which arises in kisses or touches, is not mortal. Let anyone who shall have read with his own eyes the premised words of Comitolus judge.]

7. Finally Viva (De Matr., q. 1, art. 7, n. 6), although he seems to fight against the common opinion of Sanchez, nevertheless speaks ambiguously of delight, now sensible, now carnal; and he entangles the matter more when in this place he says that he follows the more common doctrine against Sanchez, while elsewhere (on proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, n. 23) he attributes the opinion of Sanchez to very many; which two things would plainly be contradictory. [The VV. contend through three columns (pp. 319-320) that Viva is altogether to be exempted from every note both of confusion and contradiction. Resp. Viva (l. c.) attacks not only Sanchez, Cajetan, and Navarrus, as the VV. feign, but also Toletus, Fagundez, Bonacina, Salas, Valencia, and others with Diana; namely he attacks those fifteen whom the VV., as we have seen, wished to cite for the opinion of St. Alphonsus! But Viva attacks these because they excuse betrothed persons from mortal sin even if they intend sensitive and carnal delight. Now let us ask: of what sort is the delight which Viva reproves? For if it is merely sensitive or sensible, such as Sanchez asserts (lib. 9, disp. 46, n. 49), calling it "sensitive delight which arises from kisses," how does he subjoin that it is more commonly condemned as mortal sin? How does he object against those authors Rebellus and Hurtado, who fight only, as we have seen, against venereal delight? Indeed, how with these does he oppose Perez also, who, as we saw above, admits this sensible delight as licit? But if Viva wishes to fight against venereal delight, how does he attribute this opinion to those fifteen Writers with Diana, who follows them? How does he attribute it to those very many whose cause (on prop. 40 of Alex. VII, n. 23) he makes common with Sanchez? I ask: is this the most suitable way of treating questions clearly, distinctly, and coherently?]

Therefore, from those alleged, there will remain Mendo, Concina, and Roncaglia, of whom the last (tract. XII, cap. 1, q. 6) says that he marvels that some admit kisses as licit between betrothed persons, and that he never sufficiently perceived how it can be said that betrothals bestow on betrothed persons a right to mutual kisses. To these things others perhaps would reply that the reason which did not shine before Roncaglia's eyes nevertheless did shine commonly before the understanding of the other Doctors whom we have suggested; for no other sufficient cause of so common an opinion can be assigned except some reason sufficiently considerable, which compels very diverse talents into one opinion. The same must be replied to Mendo, who (Statera Opin., diss. V, q. 12, n. 118) feared to follow the doctrine of so many and so grave Authors, as he says, because he did not see through the foundation of the same.

[The VV. note (p. 323) that the testimony of Concina is left untouched in the Note. - Resp. Do they not themselves (p. 324) expressly confess that Concina is called most rigid by the holy Doctor Alphonsus? Now the suffrage of a rigid author indeed is worth more than moderately when he absolves; not likewise when he condemns. Therefore in the case let them have him for themselves. - The VV. reply (p. 324): St. Alphonsus reproves very many opinions of Concina because they are more rigid than is just, or most rigid; but in this question... he does not think him rigid. - Resp. If it is so, then the force of the suffrage is not taken from Concina's authority, but from St. Alphonsus's. Now a suffrage which has no force except from the authority of the same person alleging the suffrage can be omitted without damage to the cause, since it contributes no help to the cause by itself. - The VV. add (pp. 321-323) that Roncaglia and Mendo do not stop in mere admiration, but overthrow the adverse opinion with very grave (!) arguments. - Resp. The reasons brought by Mendo are so valid that they condemn even that which St. Alphonsus approves as licit (see preceding note) in that general thesis of Sanchez (l. c., n. 47): "Kisses and embraces and other touches not immodest are excused from mortal fault between betrothed persons for the future." Nor truly is this strange; for Mendo is from those whose name scarcely appears elsewhere among allegations, except where some anomalous opinion is produced. - But as regards Roncaglia, it must be noted first that the question is restricted by him not only to kisses pressed and prolonged for some time, but moreover to those done for capturing sensible delight. Now Logic does not permit that from this a conclusion be drawn concerning all kisses, with St. Alphonsus's distinction set aside between one acting on account of delight and one acting with delight. But the argument already produced by Rebellus, and then repeated by the rest also wholly beside the matter, namely that betrothals do not give a right over the body of the other, with examples then added for illustrating the matter both of one buying a vineyard, who does not yet have a right in the thing, and of a man destined for the office of judge, which nevertheless he has not yet received - this argument, I say, is nothing but a pure sophism. And indeed do we assign a right over the body of another when we say that friendship gives a right of embracing or kissing a friend, or that the same right is present in parents toward children, etc.? It is indicated, namely, that the condition of friend to friend, of parents to children, etc., and also of betrothed persons mutually, is such that demonstrations of affection and benevolence of this kind cannot be condemned as incongruous to their state. Indeed, since that love is legitimate and honorable to such a degree that St. Thomas (see above, note to q. 7, n. 32) holds that a woman fittingly adorns herself to please the man whom she ought to receive as an act of virtue and meritorious of eternal life, it is likewise honorable to foster that love by signs of this sort.]

But another sophism must not be omitted here, against which some do not take enough caution in treating this question. Namely, they so distinguish merely sensible delight, which for example is drawn from touching silken cloth, from venereal delight, that if indeed the delight perceived from an embrace is not that merely sensible delight, it must already be held as venereal and gravely damnable, just as if there were question of brute animals. But in a rational man another element must not be neglected, whence there is delight which can neither be called back to that merely sensible delight, nor again be condemned as venereal. And in truth, does the delight which a mother experiences in the embrace of a son returned from war have anything in common with the touch of a flower? This delight indeed so inheres in an embrace of this sort that she kisses the son a hundred times, nor for a long time allows him to be torn away from her arms. Therefore, if that delight is not sensible, will it be venereal? Namely, a pleasure and delight of its own and of an altogether diverse character is present when an ardent affection of the heart pours itself out through signs or demonstrations of this sort, and seems to satisfy itself and as it were rest in them. But as often as this affection is legitimate and honorable, and in pouring itself out keeps the limits of honesty and decency, what is there in which it may be condemned, or to what purpose is that theory concerning merely sensible delight and delight proper to the touch of silken cloth summoned hither? But from this it is understood why Authors, for rendering honorable embraces and kisses of this sort, bring forward the demonstration of love and benevolence, and the fostering of the same, as an end in some way intrinsic to the work; but add the question concerning delight, which either accompanies the act or perhaps even is intended, as it were concerning a thing which accrues to the act per accidens. And indeed perhaps someone would have thought not altogether absurdly that the graver Authors, when they here name sensible or sensitive delight, by no means wished to indicate merely the sense arising from the touch of a smooth thing. For there is another affection of the sensitive appetite, and that now pleasant, now unpleasant, which almost accompanies the affection of the rational appetite from which it arises, and has joined to it also some bodily change, and especially a change of the motions of the heart, now pleasant, now unpleasant; whence commonly the heart is said to be dilated or pressed. Yet this affection and bodily change of itself has nothing common with venereal delight, to such a degree that indeed it accompanies even the most pious affections toward God; and on that account we are warned not to cling too much to this sensible delight among spiritual exercises. Now by what more apt name than that of sensitive delight would Authors designate this sensitive affection, which arises spontaneously and accompanies those acts by which, in the case, it is brought forth and is shown by some effect? And from here indeed the sense of certain locutions can be drawn out, which the VV. try wholly to drag over to signifying venereal delight; whence they accuse both Navarrus and Cajetan and also Sanchez, as if they had asserted that venereal delight is licit for betrothed persons, or at least not gravely culpable in the case. But even in these matters they have against them the rigid Mendo, whose words they themselves report (p. 322). The VV. take the occasion of accusing Navarrus from those words of Navarrus (Man., c. 16, n. 12): "For betrothals, which are the beginning of marriage, make a faculty of enjoying pleasure preambulatory to matrimonial pleasure, which is the singular determination of the same Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 154, art. 4." But these words rather persuade the opposite. For if according to Navarrus the pleasure conceded to betrothed persons is related to matrimonial pleasure as betrothals are related to marriage, it must be concluded that that preambulatory pleasure is nothing other than a certain disposition prior to another. Wherefore, just as betrothals are a disposition to marriage in such a way that nevertheless they participate nothing of the nature of marriage, so also that preambulatory pleasure must be understood as wholly without the nature of that pleasure which is exclusively marital. And from here it is given to know better what those locutions of Cajetan alleged by Navarrus mean, where (l. c.) he writes: "But it seems that just as betrothal is a certain beginning of marriage, so also an act of this sort" (namely a kiss) "is a certain beginning of carnal copula"; or (as he has in the Summa, V. Sponsalitia): "Just as a betrothed woman belongs to the betrothed man inchoatively, so the venereal delight of carnal joining between them is permitted inchoatively between the same; but it is clear that kisses... import only the beginning of venereal delight." Now the same argument as above returns. For the delight of kissing is the beginning of venereal delight just as betrothal is the beginning of marriage. But betrothal is a mere prior disposition to marriage. Filliuccius (tr. 10, c. 9, n. 357), aptly rendering the sense of these Authors, has it thus: "If they are not immodest, that is, if they are on honorable parts, as kisses, embraces, touches of hands, and the like, they are lawful, even if they" (the betrothed) "intend to capture from them sensitive delight, but not venereal. The reason is that, as marriage in the present renders copula honorable, so betrothals, which are a certain remote beginning of marriage, render honorable those touches which are a remote beginning toward copula. Cajet., Navarr., Lopez, and others with Sanchez." From these things it appears that they are indeed called a beginning, yet in such a way that venereal delight itself is excluded.]

This also must not be omitted here, that St. Alphonsus in this question in no way objected proposition XL from those proscribed by Alexander VII, which sounds thus: "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss had on account of carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, with danger of further consent and pollution removed, is only venial." But it seems this must be repeated from a twofold cause. For first indeed that proposition speaks of carnal or venereal delight, of which there is no question (see Duarte on this proposition, n. 489, and Viva on the same prop., n. 3); hence St. Alphonsus (lib. 3, n. 415) uses that proposition to prove that smallness of matter is not given in a venereal thing. But then (even abstracting from the species of delight), this proposition admits exceptions, as is clear from married persons. But exceptions are not to be sought from the proposition itself, since it presents none, but from the sense of the Catholic schools. But the Catholic schools did not even suspect that the question concerning betrothed persons about which we are treating was contained in that proposition.

And these things indeed, as was premised, have been said merely historically. To these it will be useful to have added only this, that in questions of this sort the distinction which St. Alphonsus also elsewhere (lib. 3, n. 416) uses is very useful, namely that it is one thing to act on account of delight, another to act with delight. For, as we warned above (note to n. 411), the former manner of acting will most easily lead on to further things.

Here the VV. ask (p. 331): What do those words mean: "And these things indeed have been said merely historically"? Resp. They signify that the things which have been said hold the place of premises, from which others can elicit a suitable conclusion. The VV. themselves sometimes close their discourse with those words: "Let the Reader judge."

Indeed it is useful here also, merely historically, to subjoin in what way the VV. themselves gathered other Authors for the thesis of St. Alphonsus (pp. 324-330).

1. They allege Potestas thus (p. 327): "Kisses and embraces on account of natural and sensible delight... are mortal sins for betrothed persons for the future" (tom. 1, n. 2237); but they omit this explanation of the same Potestas (ibid., n. 2203): "Natural sensible delight is formally and intrinsically venereal."

2. They bring forward these things from Antoine (De Pecc., c. 7, q. 13): "Since betrothals are only a promise of future marriage, not a handing over of bodies, they bestow no present right over the body of the other in order to copula to be exercised here and now, nor therefore to acts which are ordered to it." But they omit what acts those are concerning which Antoine treats; but he expresses them thus in the thesis itself: "Every venereal delight, look, and base touch or touch of the pudenda, and any act of lust, are mortal."

3. They report these words from Candidus (disp. 11, art. 1, dub. 5): "Yet it seems to me truer and more probable that kisses and touches of this sort between betrothed persons for the future, if the end is only SENSUAL delight, are not licit, but mortal." But they omit to note that these things are not opposed to the preceding thesis of the same Candidus, where he treats not of sensual but of only sensitive delight, between which words nevertheless even Potestas (l. c.) notes that there is much difference. I said, the thesis of Candidus; for thus he begins: "I say seventh," etc.; therefore the VV. do not well feign that there the opinion of others is reported. But the thesis has itself thus: "If the end of these kisses," etc., "between betrothed persons for the future is delight only sensitive, they will be venial fault, because as such" (namely on account of defect of a right end) "even between spouses they are of similar fault."

4. The VV. bring forward these words of Cardenas (tr. 5, disp. 45, n. 205): "And thus I deny that opinion to be probable intrinsically, and after the condemnation of Alex. VII I think it is not even probable extrinsically." But the VV. wish these things to contain a response to those objecting: "Between betrothed persons for the future kisses and the delight arising precisely from them are not illicit mortally." But they omit those things which make clear that that response regards only venereal delight. For Cardenas premises these things in the same n. 205: "I respond secondly and chiefly, according to my opinion, ... that chaste embraces and kisses are licit for betrothed persons for the future, but not libidinous embraces and kisses; that embraces and kisses are licit, provided they resist the venereal delight and commotion arising from them. For... it is not lawful for them to provide consent to venereal delight, which is ordered to copula, not yet licit for them."

5. The VV. allege Mastrius; who nevertheless merely reports diverse opinions; but the suffrage for the cause of the VV. is worth as much as it is worth with Mastrius to have opposed the three false allegations of Lessius, Rebellus, and Henriquez to more, as Mastrius himself confesses, Doctors.

6. They allege Joannes Conradus, Ant. Fernandez de Moure, and Babenstuber. But in the texts which the VV. themselves allege, you discern that those authors are disputing there about venereal, carnal, libidinous delight. And from these indeed let the Reader judge also concerning some other allegations of the same weight.

IV. Kisses, touches, and embraces exercised on account of venereal delight contract malice diverse in species according to the various circumstances of the persons; for they are judged to be of the same nature as the consummated act toward which by their nature they tend. Hence in confession it must be explained whether they were had with the same or a different sex, with a married person, etc. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 417. - Lessius, etc.

415. Resolves. - 1. Kisses which mothers or nurses are accustomed to imprint on infants are free from fault. Say the same, at least ordinarily, of others who kiss infants of tender age, even of a different sex, with every wicked affection removed.

2. Young persons of either sex who in some games decently and without wicked intention embrace one another are not immediately to be accused of sin, and much less of grave sin, although they are to be turned away from games of this sort because of the danger joined to them.

3. But kisses impressed on less customary parts of the body, especially between persons of a different sex, for example on the breast, etc., or also if they are done lingeringly, especially with the tongue introduced into the mouth, likewise if they are long-lasting, repeated, etc., almost must be held as mortal. - St. Lig., n. 417.

416. • 4. They do not sin per se who touch themselves for wiping away bodily filth, or for calming itching, or for curing infirmities; yet if the itching is tolerable, it must be suggested that, insofar as they can without grave trouble, they abstain from touches. It is necessary, however, that the Confessor use great discretion in these things. For doubts of this sort are accustomed to vex especially persons of timorous conscience. But persuasions, if they are a little more vehement and are not seasoned with an open declaration about the otherwise absence of any guilt, will often and easily entangle consciences in most troublesome scruples. - St. Lig., Hom. apost., n. 3. - But if touches of one's own body are done without cause, they do not exceed venial sin when, venereal affection being removed, they are had only in passing, and from mere levity or curiosity, because they are not very much incentives of lust. - St. Lig., n. 419.

5. Touches on the private parts of the same sex or on neighboring parts, even over clothes, ordinarily are not excused from grave sin, unless perhaps they are done from petulance, jest, levity, and in passing. - St. Lig., n. 420.

6. A fortiori, with the case of necessity excluded, touches on the private parts of a different sex, even had for a brief time, cannot be excused from mortal sin; since they can scarcely proceed from any cause other than lust, and, besides that they are most indecent, they create per se a proximate danger of pollution or venereal delight. - St. Lig., n. 420. Yet probably maids are not to be accused of grave sin who perhaps touch the pudenda of infants while they clothe them, unless they do this with delay or carnal delight. - Lacroix, n. 902. - St. Lig., ibid.

7. It does not exceed venial sin, speaking per se, lightly and without delay to touch the fingers, hands, face of a person of a different sex, a wicked end being removed, and every affection and danger of lust, if these things are done, for example, from mere levity, and do not have a special danger joined by reason of one's own fragility or that of another.

Moreover, since in so slippery a matter it is not always easily clear what is venial or mortal, and on the other hand since not rarely there is present a proximate danger of gravely offending even in those things which per se do not exceed light sin, for example if they are done often and with delay between persons inclined to lusts, the Confessor must take the greatest pains to remove penitents, especially younger ones, from any touches with a different sex.

436. • Immodest touches with beasts, although they are not sins of bestiality properly so called, are nevertheless to be declared when some venereal delight is sought from them. But the circumstance does not seem necessarily to be declared if someone, by means of the tongue of a beast of burden or of another beast, excites venereal pleasure or pollution in himself. Nor is it necessary to explain in confession of what species the beast was, nor whether it was male or female. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., n. 474.

But here note that the Confessor ought to be very cautious, prudent, and sparing in questioning penitents about sins of lust, especially about those which seem more horrendous and unusual. See the rules to be handed down below in the Treatise on Penance, where there is question of the duties of the Confessor.

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

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

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

² 2 Pet. 2:14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Eph. 5:3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

351. - The notion and division.

1. Lust can be imperfect either because it is completed by no exterior act but is retained in some manner in the mind or will, or because an exterior act is not brought to its natural terminus.

We call lust imperfect in the latter sense any non-full satisfaction of the venereal appetite sought or admitted outside matrimony; or any venereal movement, not satiating of itself, effected or accepted by the will.

Above, no. 28, we described a venereal movement as a pleasurable exterior change of the sexual parts, and we warned that it must not be urged too strongly that the pleasure be felt in the sexual organs themselves; wherefore, one who suffers an erection from an obscene phantasm experiences a venereal movement, although the erection in itself seems to him to contain no pleasure.

2. Moreover, venereal satisfaction can be sought or voluntary, which the will has chosen or intended;

admitted or accepted, which, having arisen from elsewhere, the will embraces by its assent;

merely permitted, which arises neither chosen nor intended and to which the will does not positively adhere, although it does not impede or avoid it.

For permission can be passive or active: passive, indeed, when we allow it to flow from other extraneous causes; active, when we foresee that it will follow from our own action, apart, however, from our choice and intention, as an effect either certain or likely, and we do not therefore abstain from the action.

Connected with permission is the question of indirect lust, which must be treated in its proper place.

3. The division of an act according to and against nature, at least if there is question of an exterior act, recurs here. For the affection can comply with nature or oppose it; but an imperfect exterior act says neither of itself; rather, this will have to be estimated from the end of the agent, from the perfect act to which it is referred. Cf. Van Roey, Quaestio specialis, p. 17, at the end.

352. - The intrinsic malice of venereal pleasure directly sought or admitted outside matrimony is not disputed among Catholics: every venereal affection, every venereal movement directly sought or admitted, is lustful, that is, vicious or outside the mean of chastity.

But the celebrated question concerning its perpetual gravity has been raised; concerning it three opinions chiefly have arisen.

The first opinion, whose defenders belong rather to an earlier age, thinks that some venereal movements are grave, others light, according to the lesser or greater distance by which they are separated from perfect satisfaction. Thus Sanctius ¹, Cardenas ², and several others. In order to explain this opinion more closely, a certain author judged that a pleasure which did not attain an eighth part of the perfect pleasure was slight. St. Antoninus himself has certain words ³ because of which Thomas Sanchez judges that he was not alien to this opinion. Moreover, Sanchez admits that at one time the same opinion did not displease him. But, as he himself says: "The matter having been well considered and the reasons weighed, we judge it to be held as most certain that no slightness of matter is found in venereal pleasure ⁴."

¹ Selectae disputationes, disputation 21, no. 19, at the end.

² Crisis theologica, tract 5, De castitate, disputation 45, chapter 7.

³ Third Part, title 16, chapter 1, section 10, Notable 1.

⁴ De matrimonio, book 9, disputation 46, nos. 6 and 9. The retraction, however, first appeared in the Lyon edition in the year 1654. But since Sanchez died in 1610, this retraction was made by another hand. What is read in In Decalogum, book 5, chapter 6, no. 12, is not proved to have been spontaneous.

The second opinion, therefore, teaches that venereal pleasures are grave from their entire genus. Thus Sanchez ⁵, the Most Illustrious Dr. Waffelaert ⁶, and most moderns.

⁵ In Decalogum, book 5, chapter 6, no. 12.

⁶ De virtutibus cardinalibus, no. 191.

De Moya ⁷, section 9, renders and defends the third opinion in these words: "In venereal matters slightness of matter is not granted morally and practically, but, speaking physically and speculatively, it cannot be denied."

⁷ Tract 6, Miscellanea, disputation 2, De peccatis, question 2, section 3.

According to the testimony of the Most Illustrious Dr. Waffelaert, the first opinion has not yet been condemned by the Holy See or rejected as improbable.

Proposition 40 does indeed exist, proscribed by Alexander VII on March 18, 1666 "at least as scandalous": "The opinion is probable which says that a kiss given on account of the carnal and sensible pleasure which arises from the kiss is only venial, the danger of further consent and of pollution being excluded." But it could already have been proscribed because it made no distinction either between a momentary and a prolonged kiss, a single and a repeated kiss, or between a slight and a notable pleasure. Wherefore the force of this proposition, which, moreover, is rejected merely as scandalous, is easily escaped. Furthermore, in it there is speech only of sought pleasure. Merely admitted pleasure is not touched upon.

In the year 1612, Father Aquaviva, Superior General of the Society of Jesus, prohibited the religious of the Society of Jesus from admitting as tolerable, much less as true or probable, the opinion which asserts that, outside matrimony, light matter can be present in venereal pleasure deliberately sought. By decree 24 of the Ninth General Congregation, this precept was extended to deliberately admitted pleasure.

Nevertheless, afterward, on January 15, 1659, the Roman Revisers of the Society of Jesus answered the Gallo-Belgian province: "A learned man who accuses himself of venereal matters as sins which in his opinion, which he does not wish to abandon, are only venial because of slightness of matter, notwithstanding the cited decree, can and ought to be absolved by a confessor of the Society."

They answered thus because they could not then deny the extrinsic probability of the more benign opinion.

But from that time the opinion which admits no slightness of matter, at least in direct lust, has prevailed to such a degree that "that extrinsic probability which the opinion defending slightness of matter in venereal matters formerly had can plainly no longer exercise its force ⁸."

⁸ Lehmkuhl, I, 1028.

But the third opinion incurs no censure.

Come, then, the opinions having been heard, certain things must be noted concerning their arguments.

The more benign opinion, as is evident of itself, uses this easy rationale: there are small beginnings even of a gravely evil action which, willed in themselves, are customarily held to be venial. Thus anger is reproved by the Lord Himself as the beginning of homicide. Yet no one will contend that all anger must be avoided under grave sin.

For proving the more severe opinion, they are accustomed chiefly to use a twofold way.

Some adduce this argument, which they judge to be fortified by the authority of St. Thomas ⁹: Acts of imperfect lust are mortal because they contain consent to the pleasure of intercourse or of perfect lust.

⁹ II-II, question 154, article 4.

But if, with Lessius ¹⁰, you object that these acts, for example kisses, can be done from the intention of a lesser pleasure, they respond, with Cajetan ¹¹, that the force and efficacy of that intention are destroyed by the nature of the work, which of itself is the beginning of the perfect act. But one beginning can be remote, another proximate, another notable, another slight or small. By what right do you transfer the grave guilt of the consummated act to every beginning of it, even one remote and light?

¹⁰ Book 4, chapter 3, no. 57.

¹¹ On II-II, question 154, article 4.

The argument of Cajetan can also be proposed in this form. It is intrinsically and gravely evil to will, for example, kisses insofar as they are a part of unlawful intercourse. But one who outside wedlock seeks or admits venereal pleasure in kisses wills them insofar as they are a part of intercourse. For the venereal pleasure which they bring prepares for and surrounds intercourse. Everything there coheres; but a perspicuous proof of the major proposition is wanting.

Others, therefore, entering upon another way, think that speculative and abstract consideration must be abandoned, so that from concrete and practical observation they may elicit the gravity of all direct lust.

That argument can be proposed thus: "In direct lust, we cannot define the degree of future excitation, nor, after it has arisen, contain it within certain limits. Therefore, all direct lust entails the permission of a grave movement, and this without any just cause. But this is grave. Then, because of our greatest frailty and the vehemence of concupiscence, the will which deliberately embraces a lustful pleasure of a lesser degree goes as though down a slope toward seeking complete pleasure through an imperfect but grave act.

"If the Author of nature permitted this to be done without grave guilt, that weak moral sanction would of itself allure the will toward consummated sin, far from restraining it. But the immense danger of delusion prevents that law from being circumscribed by particular exceptions."

Lehmkuhl ¹², with not a few others, uses this genus of argument when he writes: "Every venereal pleasure is a certain beginning of the commotion and effusion of human semen, or at least bears with it the proximate danger of effusion; because, once excitation has occurred, it is not so within the power of man to stop and repel further progress; wherefore it participates in its malice."

¹² In the cited place, I, 1028, where, consistent with himself, he formally names the effusion and commotion of semen.

We admit that this rationale also is difficult. Do not the same writers, when they are not occupied by concern for the present question, for example when they treat of the mutual intimacy of spouses, spontaneously distinguish acts which introduce a grave or proximate danger of pollution from acts which introduce only a light and remote danger?

And, even if that connection is granted for sought lust, with what appearance of truth can the same be asserted of merely admitted lust, by which someone consents to a slight pleasure which has already arisen, without any effort to increase it? In their demonstration they are accustomed to pass over merely admitted imperfect pleasure in silence.

We do not, however, allege the difficulties which we experience in grasping these reasonings in order to weaken the force of the conclusion. On the contrary. These attempts were made to establish it upon invincible arguments; the ease with which arguments limping more or less have been accepted by the best minds, and this concordant opinion of Catholics - which is so great that already in his own age Sporer ¹³ suspected that no disagreement of consequence existed, and that Catholic doctors differed only in words or in the manner of speaking - bear luminous witness to that common perception of conscience by which all feel that nothing can be taken away from severity in venereal matters without so great a common harm arising that the error of the concession is detected in its very effect.

¹³ Theologia sacramentalis, p. 43, section 5, c.

This assuredly ought to be sufficient for persuasion.

Nevertheless, that we may weigh the matter intrinsically, let this be our conclusion:

353. - Every venereal pleasure deliberately sought or admitted outside matrimony is intrinsically and gravely evil.

We demonstrate it thus. As all admit, every venereal movement, as such, has an essential order to conjugal intercourse or to the legitimate perfect act, and indeed one defined by the venereal faculty itself: it is its natural beginning and preparation.

But by every venereal pleasure deliberately sought or admitted outside matrimony, this order of the faculty is taken away; and the use of venereal things is sought or accepted for an individual good alone, contrary to the relation to the species.

I. On the Malice of Imperfect Lust

To Be Observed Beforehand. 1. Imperfect acts of lust which are materially conjoined with a perfect act constitute one sin both in species and in number. For the whole reason of specific distinction rested upon separation from the complete act. Therefore we are treating here of those acts in which one stops either in reality or in intention.

2. Nor in exterior acts does the distinction according to nature and against nature recur. The affection indeed can follow nature or be opposed to it; but an imperfect exterior act says nothing of this kind.

All interior lust is imperfect, which is retained in the mind or will; but exterior imperfect lust means any venereal movement, not of itself satiating, effected or accepted by an unmarried person.

Here there must be recalled what we said in volume I concerning the numerical distinction of sins and concerning internal sins, nn. 432-440 and 458-465.

— The intrinsic malice of all venereal pleasure directly sought or admitted outside matrimony is not controverted: every movement of this kind is outside the mean of chastity.

Concerning the gravity of the sin of lust, the first opinion holds some movements grave, others light, according to their distance from perfect satisfaction. That opinion rather belongs to an earlier age. - A second opinion teaches that venereal pleasures are grave from the whole genus. - A third, middle opinion, is defended thus by De Moya (Cf. 6, Miscellanea, d. 2, De peccatis, q. 2, § 2): "In venereal matters there is not given, morally and practically, smallness of matter; but physically and speculatively speaking, it cannot be denied."

Although no opinion has been condemned, nevertheless the first today must be held as improbable. For the second opinion, they argue chiefly from this: a) that, on account of insolent concupiscence, whose degree we cannot define, all direct lust carries with itself the permission of a grave movement, and this without any just cause; b) that, on account of our fragility, the will which deliberately embraces a lustful pleasure of lesser degree is in proximate danger of desiring complete pleasure, by means of an imperfect but grave act. By this kind of arguing one comes rather to defending the third opinion.

For us, in favor of the second opinion, this easy argument is at hand: in any venereal pleasure whatever, deliberately sought or admitted, there is found a substantial violation of the essential order which effects mortal sin. For in any delight of this kind, use is made, for an individual good and against relation to the species, of a faculty which is wholly immediately on account of the species.

For estimating sins as grave or light, consideration of quantity is useful then, when, on account of a modest quantity or intensity, the very quality of the action is so changed that it is no longer a substantial violation of the essential order. Thus modest violations of office allow the order of piety and friendship to remain substantially intact. But in any use whatever of venereal things outside matrimony, the same inversion of the essential order is detected. This manner of reasoning seems confirmed by the authority of St. Thomas, who, II-II, q. 154, art. 4, says that all lustful kisses, as such, are mortal, because they contain consent to the pleasure of perfect lust, that is, if we are not mistaken, to pleasure specifically the same, and therefore vitiated by a similar perversion of order. (Cf. what was said concerning the theological distinction of sins, I, n. 404 and 417.)

II. On Exterior Acts

Principles. 1. There is one formal reason common to all lustful acts: they mean a use, indeed incomplete, of venereal things. Therefore, according to themselves, looks, touches, words, do not vary in species: they are reprehended as lustful. But the distinction between sins by efficiency and by assent remains, as we said in n. 96 concerning pollution. Wherefore, he who has sinned alone, whether by a look, or by touch upon himself, or by lustful reading, sufficiently accuses his sins by saying: so many times I had voluntary carnal movements; so many times I accepted movements arising.

Yet he will not be able to be silent about a vow by which he was bound, or a special affection by which he was led.

2. As often as culpable complicity has intervened, another's sin will have to be accused; and besides, exterior acts which, according to themselves, begin or prepare a complete act with another person participate in the specific malices of that complete act.

Corollaries. 1. The so-called distillation, or production, from other glands, before the expulsion of seed, of a thinner liquid, since it is nothing but a certain notion of imperfect lust, induces no new species, and therefore ought not to obtain special mention in moral theology.

2. Lustful touches, embraces, kisses are so terminated to other persons that their sex and special marks (of married persons, sacred persons) must be indicated. Done to an unwilling person, they are at the same time opposed to justice. Not likewise looks, unless desires or pleasures concerning sin with the person seen have acceded. Yet on account of complicity, the circumstance of vow by which the accomplice person was bound will have to be indicated.

Sins of Speech. 1. Conversations can be shameful in two ways: either because by a shameful mode of narration they excite lust in the present, and these are more strictly called obscene; or because they approve shameful deeds or prepare future ones, as if you have had a discussion concerning a dishonorable action to be perpetrated afterwards.

Conversations from lust concerning shameful matters do not begin a complete sin with those conversing. Wherefore, excluding complicity with a sacred person whom you have thus induced to violate a vow, and excluding also a violated office of piety toward a person committed to your cares, these conversations are sufficiently accused by saying: I spoke shamefully with one or several (adding, where there will have been need, consent to depraved pleasure). - Yet he who seriously approves a lustful work perpetrated by himself or by another, or expresses desire for it, will have to accuse that depraved affection. - He who only fictitiously approves these things offends chastity insofar as he derogates from the honor owed to virtue; but, excluding grave scandal, this is not judged grave. And the same must be said of him who takes glory from fictitious sins, especially when glory is sought, more than from the malice of the sin, from another circumstance of cleverness, boldness, etc. (Cf. t. I, n. 464 and 469.)

N. B. Observe that here we are treating of touches and words which in a conscious mode proceed from lust. Concerning others, treatment will be given below.

III. On Interior Acts

I. Depraved Thoughts. Morose Pleasure. Some interior acts excite the commotion of the flesh and, as such, are sought or admitted, for example obscene phantasms. This is the more frequent species of the sin which they accuse who accuse depraved thoughts or morose pleasure. And since these are not accustomed to please except as a cause of present pleasure, this rule has customarily been handed down: Those who, excluding desire, have shameful thoughts to accuse, ought to declare neither the object nor the shameful movement, unless there has been pollution. Not the object, since the affection is not toward the object but toward subjective pleasure, and therefore the variety of objects does not change the species; not the shameful movement: once the thought has been indicated, it is already sufficiently manifested, unless there has been pollution.

Rather than interior acts, they should be called acts of perfect or imperfect lust excited by an interior act.

II. More intellectual acts can be:

1. Simple complacencies in an object thought of, without desire or intention of execution. And then only the evil marks which please will compose and specify the sin. Here note that there is not necessarily a shameful complacency concerning the thought of a shameful thing, which thought can be good: such a thought is had by him who meditates a sermon against impurity; and also that complacency concerning the marvelous, rare mode by which an evil thing was performed is in itself indifferent (although easily dangerous).

2. They can be inefficacious or conditioned desires: these must be indicated according to the very nature of the conditions, which can remove every malice, or only some malice, or none. And note that when there is question of a thing intrinsically evil, it is unlawful that someone, as though grieving over the prohibition, should foster affection toward an evil thing, for example toward fornication.

3. They can be absolute or efficacious desires, which necessarily embrace all known marks of the concrete object. (Cf. what was said t. I, n. 46.)

— Concerning joy, which, as distinct from desire, contains approval of a past act, what has been said concerning desire returns. It is lawful to rejoice not over an evil thing, but over the good effect of an evil thing. But nocturnal pollution is not an evil thing, not even materially, provided it has been natural, and therefore has been excited by no masturbation (even involuntary). Yet it is certainly not lawful to foster by joy the carnal pleasure of pollution.

— Penitents, except for efficacious desire, are not accustomed to notice many species. Wherefore practically, if those who accuse thoughts are found culpable, let them be questioned concerning desires. Then, besides the number, and perhaps a general question whether they have anything to add or not, there does not appear of itself a reason why anything else should be asked.

SUMMARY

I. All imperfect lust, morally separated from the complete act, is intrinsically and gravely evil, because in any venereal pleasure whatever deliberately sought or admitted, use is made, for the individual good and against relation to the species, of a faculty which is wholly immediately for the good of the species, so that the essential order is substantially violated.

2. In all lustful acts there is one formal reason of malice: they all mean the incomplete use of venereal things. Yet the distinction between sins by efficiency and by assent remains. But the circumstance of complicity, and of the quality of the sinning person, and of scandal, can add species. Yet observe that conversations are not among the acts which are judged to begin a complete sin with another person.

3. By the name of depraved thought they most often accuse venereal pleasure sought or admitted through phantasms. More intellectual acts can be: simple complacencies, conditioned or absolute desires, joys concerning past acts.

I. Principle. Thus far we have spoken of lust formally intended or admitted. Now we speak of lust badly permitted, or imputable in a voluntary cause. But the imputation of an effect which follows outside the intention supposes a positive duty of impeding that effect. Yet no duty, at least no grave duty, is demonstrated of impeding, by ceasing from an act of another order, a venereal movement to which one does not assent. For that effect of itself harms no one. Wherefore he who sincerely and truly does something else is not therefore compelled, at least under grave obligation, to cease from that action on account of a foreseen or arisen venereal movement and pollution itself.

But if he indulges venery, whether he is married so that he sins in no way or at least not gravely, or because, not married, he is already guilty of imperfect lust, then, since those acts of themselves imply order to the complete act, the virtue of chastity, which prohibits pollution, also prohibits, unless there is grave excuse in a spouse, an act with which pollution appears sufficiently proximately connected, so that foreseen pollution, although it follows outside the intention, is imputed to him who indulges that lust.

Much less, however, is a different action prohibited on account of a movement below pollution. But a lustful action of the same order, in unmarried persons, will effect one sin in species and number with the graver but imperfect movement, or badly tolerated movement. Hence we arrive at this conclusion: Only pollution is gravely imputed in the cause; nor is it imputed except in a cause of the same order, that is, a lustful one.

II. Corollaries. 1. On account of foreseen involuntary pollution, one must abstain neither from an honest action, such as riding, scientific study, etc., nor, under grave guilt, from an illicit action but of another kind, for example drunkenness, gluttony.

Yet he who notices imminent pollution and can easily avoid it and does not avoid it seems to commit a venial sin on account of the rebellion of the flesh not repressed or tolerated without cause, and some danger of consent. And one must act sincerely. In bed, the choice of position is free. But he who, when pollution is nearly imminent, assumes a position by which, on account of contact, pollution will be brought on, will he not, if he cannot allege another reasonable cause, be said morally to have sought pollution?

A movement below pollution is better neglected than that one should therefore cease from an honest action.

Here also pollution is to be distinguished from masturbation, which is at least a material sin. If it was foreseen and sufficiently connected, masturbation, but not pollution, will be imputed to a drunken man.

2. Nor does there seem to be a sufficient connection between nocturnal pollution and prolonged phantasms for nocturnal pollution not intended to have to be imputed to him who for days has spent time in lustful thoughts.

3. It will be lawful to drive away a non-venereal itching even with foreseen pollution. Yet practically they are to be exhorted rather to bear a tolerable itching, especially since it is accustomed to be increased by friction, and to seek from a prudent physician a more efficacious and safe remedy. Itching not rarely has as its cause a neglected cleanliness of the genital parts.

But a venereal itching, or one which tends toward pollution, cannot be soothed: for it would be a voluntary excitation of pollution.

But there is no small difficulty in discerning these things. Certainly if the discomfort suddenly ceases once pollution has been obtained, and there is no longer an invitation to touch oneself, venereal itching is demonstrated. On the contrary, if the action immediately soothes the itching, if soothing is sometimes obtained without pollution, a sign rather of non-venereal itching is had. And because it is more ordinary, itching can be presumed not to be venereal.

— There are some who suffer in the genital parts an intolerable irritation of the nerves which is soothed by pollution. Let the confessor be content with this general indication: that they abstain from touches which directly procure pollution and not consent to the pleasure that has arisen; and let him otherwise leave them in good faith, as to the nervous agitation to which they yield.

There are some who pass great parts of the night, indeed whole nights, sleepless until pollution has been produced. Yet for them the direct effecting of pollution does not thereby become lawful. Nor does the studied choice of a position which through contact brings on pollution seem to be honest, unless another cause or reason explains and excuses the position.

SUMMARY

— The principle is: in the cause, only pollution is gravely imputable, which is badly permitted in direct incomplete lust or in imperfect acts of spouses.

For no duty, at least no grave duty, is demonstrated of impeding, by ceasing from an act of a different order, pollution or a venereal movement to which one does not assent.

I. Impudicity (schaamteloosheid, oneerbaarheid), or imperfect lust, is that which externally begins perfect lust, without the exterior act being brought to its natural term or highest degree of pleasure. In other words, these are those external acts which are apt to surround the act of consummated lust and constitute its beginning and, as it were, a part or circumstance of it. Hence it is not to be confused:

1. with internal lust, which is perfected in the mind and will alone and is a depraved affection, whether it be pleasure or desire;

2. with an external occasion, which is not a preparation or beginning of the consummated act, but a mere occasion or danger, with scandal more or less proximate, of internal or external lust, for example dances and spectacles.

The imperfect acts are usually numbered as several: looks, touches, kisses, embraces, speeches, songs, readings. But the last three are mere occasions, and indeed of internal lust, to which they are reduced; they are the same sins as the thoughts and desires which are fostered within while the words are uttered. Kisses and embraces, however, are easily reduced to touches. Hence we must inquire only concerning looks and touches, and these still per se are one and the same sin.

II. External acts which are of themselves apt to excite imperfect carnal pleasure and thus provide matter for impudicity:

1. According to themselves they are not lustful and evil, because in them venereal pleasure is not found per se; rather, they are indifferent. Otherwise they would never be licit, although they can be exercised from a good or evil end, for example a touch for healing, a look for investigating, and can produce a twofold effect, good or evil. Hence of themselves, that is, with intention and the force of exciting lust set aside, they are not evil nor impudicious; indeed, exercised from an honorable end and for a proportionate reason, they are licit.

2. They can be evil and impudicious, especially if they are done outside marriage, which is the only hypothesis we are considering in the present matter:

a. from the intention of the agent, by reason of the intended end, which can be mortally evil if someone seeks venereal pleasure itself; on the contrary, the end is venially evil if they are done exclusively from curiosity, levity, joking, or on account of merely sensible pleasure; the end is good if someone acts from some necessity or utility;

b. from the nature of the act, by reason of influence upon venereal commotion and pleasure. For by nature they are apt to provoke base motions and excite pleasure; and therefore, unless a just proportionate cause is present for permitting the pleasure, it is illicit, gravely or lightly, to exercise them from this alone, that they gravely or lightly influence venereal pleasure, even without evil intention or danger of consent. Hence if in someone very dishonorable and repeated acts were done without danger of venereal motion, for that person they would not be a sin against chastity;

c. from the condition of the person, by reason of danger. For sometimes, even if of themselves they lightly influence venereal motion, because of man's frailty they can be a danger of consent for him, or of grave scandal for others.¹

¹ Compare Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

And so according to their external species they are not evil nor impudicious, but indifferent; and yet, as impudicious, they are intrinsically evil because of venereal pleasure voluntarily sought or caused. Therefore there is no opposition between the present assertion, that these acts according to species are indifferent, and the fundamental doctrine in the matter of lust, that all lust directly and in itself voluntary is gravely evil. For, as Cajetan declares in this place, kisses, embraces, and touches are not mortal sins from their genus, but only from the intention of the one acting; and nevertheless, as he himself adds, kisses, embraces, and touches had on account of the pleasure to be perceived from them are from their genus mortal sins on account of the end of the work, because according to themselves they are ordered to the pleasure of concubitus.

IV. In order that the doctrine handed down may be applied more easily in practice to concrete cases, theologians are accustomed:

a. to distinguish, in the body, honorable parts, which according to the custom of the country are shown to all without offense to modesty, as among us the face, hands, feet; less honorable parts, which by received usage and just custom have been accustomed to be covered, as among us the chest, back, arms in part, legs; dishonorable or base parts, which everywhere among cultivated nations are covered with garments from natural modesty: these are the genitals and the parts near them which possess a nervous affinity (innervation connexe) with them. They are called dishonorable not according to themselves - nothing created by God is dishonorable - but because, as the object of look or touch, they are generally apt to terminate dishonorable acts.

b. likewise, to hand down general rules founded on experience, which ordinarily are valid for the cultivated regions of Europe, and there for the more frequent cases. These rules, however, for the most part are only presumptions, and therefore they admit several exceptions, whether because of a cold or warm individual temperament, or because of special education or habituation, or because of manners and public usages, and so forth. And therefore sometimes presumption yields to truth, and those more particular rules yield to the wholly universal rules handed down under number II, which are applied everywhere and always and in all cases.

The rules customarily handed down are the following:

VI. Observations. To estimate immodest acts more rightly, it is useful to note:

1. The influence of causes partially depends on the intention of the will: namely, intention, or consent to carnal motion or pleasure, is accustomed to increase the influence toward a further motion and a complete act; on the contrary, a just cause or a reason rendering the act honorable is accustomed to lessen it.

2. Where in carnal motions no effect or other end is perceived besides pleasure, he who admits them is convicted of acting at least virtually and implicitly on account of that pleasure.

3. Because of the very great proclivity of corrupt nature, there is an imminent great danger lest graver things be gradually admitted. Hence the danger of self-deception easily occurs; for those who admit actions lightly influencing themselves easily persuade themselves that in admitting them they are led only by curiosity or urbanity or friendship, but in reality they are impelled to them by the heat of libido: masked lust. And so in these things one must altogether beware of lingeringness or excessive adherence or frequent repetition, even when some cause is present; all these things are accustomed to indicate excessive affection or even a libidinous mind.

St. Alphonsus, III, 419; ed. G., I, 668; Lehmkuhl, I, n. 1032; Aertnys, l. 3, n. 227; Berardi, Theol. mor., II, n. 778; Gopfert, II, § 104; and other authors already adduced.

807. Things to be noted beforehand. Sins of non-consummated lust, namely those in which effusion of semen does not intervene, are of two kinds: some that contain lust itself and are called lustful acts, carnal movements (n. 763); others that embrace not lust itself but only the cause producing lust, and are called immodest acts. But these are either internal, namely morose delectation, joy, and desire (concerning which we have treated in the treatise on Sins); or external, namely words and readings, looks and touches. But since there has already been discussion concerning the morality of carnal movements, it remains only to treat of external acts provoking to lust.

General conspectus. 1. External acts, concerning which we shall speak, are not intrinsically evil; for they can be directed to good and to evil.

2. But in themselves they are dangerous, insofar as remotely or proximately they prepare the way for venereal things. Therefore, in order that they become licit, a proportionate reason is required. He who exercises these acts without cause acts more or less implicitly from the end of lust. Except (but these cases are very rare), if it is truly established that for such or such a person danger to chastity is absent. Yet hallucination is always to be feared, or habituation to certain things that afterward can become dangerous. Cf. the things said n. 769.

3. To constitute grave sin in these external acts (prescinding from a wicked end), three things can concur: a) danger of consent to pleasure; b) scandal; c) influence of the action in order to venereal pleasure. Here there will chiefly be discussion concerning the last. For judging the reason of the influence, attention should be given to circumstances. For there are certain actions ordinarily dangerous for all; there are others that move only some. As regards these, the gravity of the influence depends on the circumstance of the mode in which the action is posited, if namely it happens studiously, with delay, repeated times, etc.

4. He who by external immodest acts procured pollution for himself does not satisfy the precept of confession if he accuses only the impure acts (cf. 792); but, once pollution has been accused, he is not obligated (with the things to be posited from n. 793 being posited) to accusation of the means applied. The same must be said if someone intended to procure carnal movements for himself, or only foresaw that such things would arise. For in carnal movements lust is already contained, although not yet consummated.

Corruption of morals, for the most part, arises from obscene conversations and obscene readings, according to that saying of the Apostle (1 Cor., 15, 33): Evil conversations corrupt good morals. Wherefore, in hearing the confessions of adolescents and of others unknown to him, the confessor, when he has come to the sixth precept, will be able very fittingly to begin the questions from shameful speech.

Acts that regard human conversation are generally a cause of lust by reason of scandal. By reason of the knowledge that they bring to the ignorant, they influence lust less. Therefore the gravity of sin here will be discerned from the circumstance of the intended end, or of the persons who speak or before whom speech is held, or finally of the mode in which shameful speech happens.

808. Principles. I. To speak, sing, write, hear, or read shameful things from carnal pleasure, or with proximate danger of consent to it, or even with grave scandal, is a mortal sin. Thus all from the principles concerning lust or pollution indirectly admitted (III, 426).

Hence, generally, the following sin gravely: 1. Those who mix into conversations, even from levity, about the conjugal act, about licit and illicit things between spouses, about modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution, especially if this happens among young persons of different sex.

2. Those who for boasting recount their shameful sins; and indeed ordinarily in three ways: a) because they glory concerning an evil thing; b) because they provide great scandal; c) because they easily take complacency in sins perpetrated (H. Ap., IX, 9).

3. "Those who say shameful things on account of pleasure taken from thought of the shameful things themselves, or with danger of such pleasure, or with danger of grave scandal, which is frequently present when such things are uttered before young men or girls" (III, l.c.).

4. Those who read, without just cause, plainly obscene books (as Zola, Alfred Musset, George Sand, Guy de Maupassant, etc.), although they may seem to do this from curiosity alone or for the sake of recreation; for such reading generally greatly incites to lust.

It is to be noted that the danger from immodest speech is so much greater as particulars are more described, as the speech is more prolonged, and finally as greater sympathy intervenes between those speaking. Wherefore authors advert, with St. Thomas, that prolonged conversation with a girl inordinately loved is not without grave danger (H. Ap., l.c.).

II. To speak shameful things for the sake of recreation or jest is not of itself mortal, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer scandal, or unless the words are too lascivious. Thus St. Alphonsus with St. Antoninus and others (III, 426, 427).

Hence: 1. Commonly, amorous words and shameful jests uttered in passing (for example by harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers) are not grave; because they are said and heard playfully. Except, as already said, words too lascivious, especially when uttered before adolescents and younger honorable women. - 2. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read witty books, for example comedies lightly shameful; because they do not gravely excite to lust, nor expose to great danger (Gury, I, n. 420).

809. III. To speak, write, read, or hear shameful things with legitimate cause, without wicked intention and danger of consent, and without scandal, is no sin.

Hence: 1. They do not sin who read obscene books in order to acquire necessary knowledge, to correct morals, to learn the truth of history, to inform Superiors, etc., provided they do not assent to shameful pleasure. The same must be said of those who read poems of the ancients in order to exercise and perfect style; these, however, are not to be handed to youths (cf. Const. Officiorum, n. 10).

2. "As regards the reading of romantic books that treat of loves, in practice a distinction must be made between assiduous or frequent reading, and fortuitous or rare reading. The first, especially as regards youths, must for the most part be forbidden under grave sin; not so the second, at least ordinarily" (Berardi, Praxis, n. 810).

810. On Those Hearing Shameful Things. 1. If they have authority over those speaking, they are held from office to restrain them. 2. But if they are inferiors or equals, let them either admonish, or be silent, if silence is held as a sufficient admonition.

If the shameful speeches are mortal on the part of the one speaking, the hearers, if they laugh a little, either commit no sin (because it is a first-first movement), or are not immediately and indiscriminately to be accused of mortal sin; for it can happen that they laugh rather about the mode of speaking than about the things themselves, or even so that they may not give occasion for worse things to be said. - Yet religious and clerics, who are held to chastity in a special mode, would easily provide grave scandal (H. Ap., VII, 37, 3).

811. Practical Rules. Concerning obscene words let penitents be asked: 1. What words they said, i.e. in genus, not in species; whether they had very shameful conversations; so that thus it may be known whether they sinned gravely or lightly. 2. Before whom and how often they uttered them, by reason of scandal: - whether before men or women, married or unmarried, boys or adults? For girls and boys are more easily scandalized than adults, especially if there is question of adults who are habituated in this vice. - 3. Whether they uttered the words from anger, or jest; for from anger complacency and scandal will be present with more difficulty. 4. Whether they boasted about some sin; for then often three sins concur, as was said (n. 352, 2).

They should also be asked whether they took pleasure in hearing others speaking dishonorably; and whether then they adverted to the precept of correction, thinking it would profit. Then St. Alphonsus gravely adds these things: "Let the confessor beware of absolving those relapsing in shameful conversations, although they say that they uttered them from jest, unless first they are amended, or bring an extraordinary sign of sorrow. Alas, how much harm from dishonorable words! One dishonorable word can effect that all who hear it be damned" (Praxis, n. 40; Inst. Cat., P. I, c. 6, n. 21).

812. Things seen influence the imagination more than things heard, and thence the carnal appetite. Wherefore, one who does not know how to restrain the eyes cannot live chastely, and his soul, like an open citadel, lies open to unclean spirits.

Influence on venereal things here is discerned from circumstances: a) the end: it is one thing to look on account of pleasure, another thing to look with pleasure, from curiosity, or necessity; - b) the person: certain things move youths, not old men; virgins, not married persons; strangers, not domestic or habituated persons; c) the mode: it is one thing to see, another to contemplate; one thing by chance, in passing, rarely; another studiously, with delay, frequently to inspect; - d) the object: for some things are more incentives than others.

Theologians are accustomed to divide the members of the body into three classes, according to the greater or lesser aptitude they have for exciting a depraved sense. Therefore there are distinguished: honorable parts, such as the face, hands, feet; less honorable parts, such as the chest, back, arms, legs; dishonorable parts, such as the genitals and parts nearer to them.

813. Principles. I. Immodest looks, had from a lustful intention, are mortal sins. The reason is that the end to which they are directed is gravely evil; and it is established from the words of the Lord (Matt., 5, 28): Everyone who has looked at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

II. Immodest looks, had without just cause, are either gravely or lightly illicit, according to the gravity or lightness of the danger of exciting venereal pleasure. Cf. n. 769 and 807, where we discussed at length the gravity of the danger and its causes.

814. From these things you will resolve: 1. To look at human concubitus, unless it happens from afar and in passing, without doubt is lethal (III, 419). Likewise, to look at the private parts of a person of diverse sex is with difficulty excused from mortal sin, unless perhaps the look happens from a very distant place, and so in passing that no danger of pleasure is present. And St. Alphonsus thinks this must be held, even if danger of movement is absent by reason of childish or senile age, or cold temperament; because it brings at least danger of lusting. Except if the eyes are fixed on an infant, because such a look moves concupiscence little; unless it happens with delay or repeated times with wicked affection (III, 421).

2. To look at one's own private parts is mortal if it happens studiously and with delay, without necessity; otherwise, if briefly. But it is no sin if it happens from necessity or from just cause, nor is danger of consent present (III, 419, 482).

3. To look at the private parts of the same sex, from curiosity or levity, as happens among those swimming, or sometimes among the impubescent, is not mortal. Otherwise, if lustful affection is present, or special danger of lust, for example if the one looking were greatly prone to sodomy, or if a beautiful adolescent were looked at naked with delay and pleasure (III, 420). - Hence, they are to be gravely reproved

those who swim together with the private parts uncovered; also boys and girls uncovering their private parts to one another, even in passing and from levity; for that, if it is not mortal, without doubt gradually conduces to mortal sin.

4. To look at the less honorable parts of a person of diverse sex, but not the shameful parts, namely arms, legs, or breast, is not always mortal of itself; but if the look is deliberate and prolonged, or if the one looking is prone to venery, with the greatest difficulty will it be excused from mortal sin. "And I think the same," says St. Alphonsus, "concerning him who looks lingeringly at the face of a beautiful woman, at least if he loves her with inordinate affection" (III, 422; H. Ap., IX, 8).

5. "To look at obscene pictures or statues from mere curiosity, authors say is not mortal, if the danger of shameful delectation is absent; but a man looking lingeringly at the private parts of a naked painted woman, or one covered only with a light veil, I do not know," continues the holy Doctor, "how he can be excused from mortal sin" (III, 424).

6. To look at the coupling of animals (scandal and the danger of venereal consent being excluded) is venial. Those who couple animals for the begetting of offspring are excused, provided a lustful mind is absent (III, 419, 484).

815. III. Sinful looks, which happen without desire, do not assume the species of the object. The reason is that a look is an act of the apprehensive faculty, and not of the appetitive faculty, and therefore is terminated not toward the object or person existing outside us, or taken concretely, but as it is expressed in us by an image.

It is said: of the object, i.e. of the person who is looked at; because on the part of the acting or cooperating subject (who offers himself for a shameful look), certain species of sin can arise, as was said above (n. 793) concerning pollution. - As regards scandal, see n. 512.

From what has been said it follows that the exercise of certain arts excuses from the guilt of sin as regards looks at a less honorable thing. But which art excuses is not the one opinion of all. - Certainly the art of the surgeon or physician excuses; for exercising it, looks of this kind, for the sake of study or duty, exist as necessary, as is clear.

But whether the art of the painter or sculptor, for producing honorable works, excuses of itself, so that painters or sculptors can use as a model a nude woman, the private parts alone being covered (or the less honorable parts), is sharply disputed. It seems to us that those authors think more rightly who declare means of this kind, employed for excellent art, to be licit of themselves, provided that, more strictly than in another matter, safeguards are employed. The reasons are: 1. The arts of which there is discussion are necessary for the better being of society. - 2. The means mentioned above are very useful for the end; indeed, as experts testify, necessary for a perfect work; because if these are lacking, uniformity in the work will easily be present, and that exact proportion and harmony of all things, which are essential in the beautiful, will not be attained so quickly and so accurately. - 3. There is added, on the part of beginners (disciples), necessity in academies, where such models are employed, of completing their studies; from which there afterward follows a great difficulty of employing another method in their labor.

The safeguards to be employed more strictly than in another matter are the following: 1. Let the painter or sculptor not use such models except insofar as they need them. - 2. Let the nudity not be extended beyond necessity. - 3. Let the will make use of spiritual remedies, as is clear of itself.

From these things conclude: a) Painters are excused who cannot abstain from attending such academies without grave inconvenience.

b) Directors of academies are excused who, for necessity, expose such models. - This, however, we would not have said concerning directors of a private school, in which, besides other sciences, certain things concerning the art of painters are also handed on (Ami du Cl., 1910, p. 852).

c) Authors are excessively severe who accuse indiscriminately of grave sin women serving as models from tender age. Sins, if any are committed by those looking, are not to be attributed solely to these women themselves, but sometimes rather to the malice of those looking. - Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 44; Berardi, Prax. conf., n. 930; Genicot, I, n. 407; Noldin, n. 56; Tanquerey, n. 31; Gopfert, II, n. 235; Piscetta and others.

1. If, however, in some region the custom of swimming without any clothing has been introduced, habituation can effect that pleasure is less easily excited. - As regards those who use baths, as they say, of air or sun, for strengthening health and increasing the vigor of the nerves, of themselves, with safeguards employed, they act licitly. The safeguards are the following: while a reasonable end stands, let curiosity with respect to oneself or another be excluded; let at least the private parts be covered. It would be better if a very thin and ample garment were employed, clothed in which the patient would attain the intended end equally easily. - The modern theory concerning the opportunity of accustoming the eyes to the sight of the nude is altogether to be rejected. It smacks of the sense and luxury of pagans. Cf. Ami du Cl., Morale des artistes, 1912 and 1913; Linz. Quart. Schr., Nacktkultur, vol. 61, p. 530; Walter, Der Leib in seiner Bedeutung (passim).

816. Lust grows from contact; indeed, such is the nature of venereal delectation that ordinarily it is not completed except with some contact of bodies, either real, or at least imaginary.

1. It is certain among all that touch is not something intrinsically evil, but indifferent. - 2. As regards sensual delectation proceeding from touch, those things must be recalled which we have already said in n. 769, 2: some things are speculatively, but not practically, probable. The gravity of the danger or sin here is taken from the circumstances of the person, mode, or end. - 3. The greatest danger, in general, can arise from the object that is touched, if namely it has a direct relation with lust. The places of generative pleasure in a man are: the glans of the penis and the anal opening; in a woman: the clitoris, vagina, neck of the womb, and breasts (Antonelli, II, n. 166).

Note. What we say concerning touches is valid also for kisses and embraces.

817. Principles. I. Outside marriage, all touches exercised on account of carnal delectation are mortal sins. The reason is that they are exercised on account of a gravely evil end (H. Ap., IX, 3).

II. A venereal end being excluded, touches exercised without a legitimate and proportionate cause are mortal or venial, according as they bring grave or light danger of venereal delectation. The reason is clear from the things said in n. 769.

Hence: 1. They are mortal sins if, either from their own nature or on account of circumstances (for example on account of delay, on account of proneness to venery, etc.), they induce proximate danger either of venereal delectation or of pollution. - 2. If they induce only remote danger, they do not exceed venial sin. - 3. If they happen from a just and proportionate cause and with caution, they are free from fault, even though pollution follows accidentally, provided there is not consent to delectation (III, 417 seqq.).

818. III. Sinful touches upon another's body are of the same species as the consummated act. The reason is that they touch the object in its individual being. Hence, in confession it must be explained whether they were had with a married or sacred person, etc. (III, 416, 2).1

1. But the species of the consummated act is found in these touches only insofar as they betray affection toward concubitus, toward sex. Cf. the doctrine expounded above (n. 793, conclusion 2).

But that it may be known better when proximate danger of venereal delectation is present from such acts, and when remote, and what reasons excuse from sin: the following rules can be laid down.

819. I. Concerning one's own body. 1. To touch one's own private parts from necessity, or for another just end, for example on account of cleanliness, on account of soothing a non-venereal itching (provided the danger of pollution or of consent to it is absent, if perhaps unexpectedly and beyond intention it should occur), is no sin (III, 419).

2. To touch one's own private parts without just cause is never free from fault. If it happens in passing from levity or curiosity, it is venial. If lingeringly with venereal commotion, it is mortal. - And the same is valid concerning a girl touching her own breasts (III, 419, 484).

It is asked: Whether it is licit to drive away itching by touch with danger of pollution?

Resp. Very many indeed affirm; but Roncaglia rightly prohibits this, if namely the itching is not very troublesome, although he permits one to drive it away with only some commotion. In women, natural itching is discerned from venereal ardor by the fact that the former is only alleviated by friction, but the latter is immediately quieted by subsequent pollution. "In doubt, liberty possesses the right of freeing oneself from a molestation of this kind" (III, 483). "Nevertheless one should not easily believe certain girls who are accustomed to pollute themselves by touches under pretext of ardor of this kind; for if they are diligently examined, it will be known that that itching very often has rather been excited either by wicked thoughts previously had, or by a wicked habit contracted of touching themselves" (H. Ap., IX, 34).

820. II. Concerning another's body. 1. Touches (even over clothing) on the private parts of another's body, especially if it is a person of diverse sex, had without just cause, although without venereal affection, are hardly ever, outside marriage, excused from mortal sin. - The reason is that such touches, even though exercised in passing, strongly excite to lust and are greatly opposed to natural honesty (H. Ap., IX, 3). Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, n. 1036, 3.

We said: a) Without just cause; for on account of this, for example, physicians are excused, even though, while touching thus, they accidentally suffer involuntary pollution, provided they do not consent to delectation. "Would that," our holy Doctor exclaims, "in practice physicians did not continually sin in these matters" (III, 420, note 1).

b) Are hardly ever excused: because if touches of this kind should happen among the impubescent, from levity and jest without delay, they can be excused from mortal sin; because they are not accustomed to cause commotion.

Likewise, "Croix probably excuses from mortal sin female servants touching the private parts of boys while they dress them, unless they do this with delay or carnal delectation" (ibid.). But if they do that frequently and studiously, even to quiet them, certainly they sin gravely, unless they are excused by ignorance. For in this way they beget the incurable pest of masturbation.

821. 2. Touches on the less honorable parts (cf. n. 812) do not exceed venial sins, if they happen from levity of soul, jest, curiosity, or wantonness and without delay; because ordinarily they do not cause proximate danger of delectation. - But otherwise, even when venereal affection is excluded, if they happen lingeringly and with ardor.

Therefore they are to be gravely reproved who, from sensible delectation, touch a person of diverse sex on the less honorable parts. The reason is that sensual delectation very easily passes into carnal delectation. Likewise, with those (whether men or women) who touch the breasts of a woman, one must always act more severely, because this greatly moves. Cf. the things said in n. 816.

Hence, and a fortiori: a) A young man who draws a girl upon his knees and keeps her sitting there, or presses her against himself, sins mortally; as also does the girl voluntarily suffering these things. - b) Kisses impressed on less usual parts of the body, for example on the breast, must ordinarily be held mortal, especially if they happen between persons of diverse sex.

822. 3. Touches on honorable parts (i.e. kisses on the face, embraces, pressings of hands, and similar things) are free from every fault if they happen decently according to the custom of the country, for the sake of civility or honorable benevolence. They are venial sins if they happen in passing from levity, jest, wantonness; but mortal (at least ordinarily) if they are exercised with delay or ardor. "Say the same concerning kisses on the mouth, or if someone receives with his mouth the tongue of another" (III, 417). Cf. n. 769, 2.

Hence: a) "A woman or adolescent does not sin if she permits herself to be touched modestly according to custom; unless there is certainty concerning the wicked affection of the one touching, and she can then resist without infamy to herself or scandal of others. But she sins if she does not oppose lingering kisses, or even furtive ones; because evil affection is presumed" (III, 430; H. Ap., IX, 5).

b) He sins only venially, speaking of itself, who lightly touches and without delay the fingers, hands, or face of a person of diverse sex, a wicked end or affection of lust being excluded, if these things, for example, happen from mere levity, and do not have annexed to themselves a special danger by reason of his own or the other's frailty.

c) "To kiss children (understood of very young children), even with sensible delectation, ordinarily is only venial, because that delectation is ordinarily only natural" (III, 417).

d) Delay and repetition in honorable embraces are of themselves free from every fault among persons joined by close consanguinity, and not suspected of mutual concupiscence, for example between a father and daughters, a mother and sons, if they happen as a sign of special love, even with some organic delectation, provided this is not sought nor willingly felt.

Note. Since in lingering embraces there are very often the thought and desire of copulation, carnal movements, and thereafter pollution, penitents who declare embraces without those circumstances, as ordinarily happens, must prudently be questioned concerning these things.

823. 4. To touch the genitals of brute animals is ordinarily only venial. It is more probably to be said otherwise if the touch were carried as far as the animal's pollution. - The reason is that, although such things happen only for the sake of levity, it is nevertheless an action of itself strongly exciting to venery. Those who, from necessity, join horses, bulls, etc., are excused from sin, provided they do not consent to lust (III, 419, 420). - Immodest touches with a beast are not properly sins of bestiality (III, 474).

Sins of imperfect or not consummated luxury are those in which the final term of venereal things, which is the emission of semen, does not intervene. They are chiefly committed 1) by touch, 2) by sight, 3) by speech. They become grave from the object, the end, the danger.

486. Principles. - I. To touch one's own shameful parts from levity or curiosity is not mortal, provided this is done in passing, without movement of the spirits, without scandal, and without danger of delectation. - Otherwise it will be mortal.¹

II. To touch the same parts from a just cause, for example to wipe away filth, to soothe itching, to cure infirmities, etc., with base delectation absent or not voluntarily admitted, is no sin. Hence:

1° Young men, adolescents, indeed even infants, are to be strongly deterred from handling their own body; because these touches are wont to lead to greater things, and they take away shame, the guardian of modesty and morals.

2° A girl can sin gravely by touching her own bosom; for this often conduces to venereal movement.

Quaer. Is it licit to drive away a great itching by touch with danger of pollution?

Resp. Very many, as St. Alphonsus testifies, teach that this is licit: "But Roncaglia rightly prohibits this if the itching is not very troublesome, although he permits driving it away with only some movement. - Nevertheless one should not easily believe certain girls who are wont to pollute themselves by touches under pretext of heat of this sort; for, if they are examined diligently, it will be known that that itching is often" not from acrimony of the blood, but "rather ... either from evil thoughts previously had, or from an evil habit contracted of touching themselves."²

487. Principles. - I. Touches on the shameful parts of another body, especially if they are bare, and a fortiori if of a different sex, even when had with venereal affection excluded, are scarcely ever excused from mortal sin outside matrimony. The reason is that there is grave indecency in them, and grave danger of lust. - They are excused only because of the necessity of the physician and surgeon, provided they do not consent to the delectation; "and would that," ... says St. Doctor, "physicians in these things were not sinning continually."¹ Hence:

1° He sins gravely who touches the shameful parts of the different sex, even over clothing, and as through a lattice: this is very dangerous for each person. - He sins a fortiori gravely who imprints or admits kisses on parts of this sort, in which even married persons do not seem able to be excused, at least from venial sin.

2° Nor ordinarily is he excused from mortal sin who touches the shameful parts of another of the same sex, unless perhaps it is done from petulance, jest, levity, and in passing.

3° Nurses and guardians of infants sin gravely who are wont to handle and morosely touch the genital parts of infants in order to quiet them, and thus beget in them the plague of masturbation, and one all the more incurable as it is more premature. Yet they can be excused, at least from grave sin, on account of ignorance of the danger; or if they do these things in passing and without carnal delectation, for example while they dress or wash infants.²

4° Impubescent infants of the same sex touching one another immodestly from jest or levity can be excused from mortal sin; because they are not wont to be moved carnally. Yet the contrary is often clear, especially in girls, who already in the sixth year of age can experience a certain pollution, although they should never be questioned about this.³

II. Touches on less honorable parts (such as the breast, arms, legs) constitute mortal sins when they are exercised for the intention of venereal delectation, or practically (see n. 485) even organic delectation, between persons apt for copula. - They are venial if they are done from levity of soul, jest, curiosity, or petulance, without delay and danger. - The reason is clear from what was said about luxury in general (n. 484). Hence:

1° A young man who draws a girl upon his knees and holds her sitting there, or presses her against himself, ordinarily sins at least mortally; as also does the woman willingly suffering this.⁴

2° Touches of the breasts of a woman, especially already pubescent, are mortal when they are pressing and morose; but venial if they are done in passing and lightly, without libidinous affection.

3° Kisses impressed on less customary parts of the body, for example on the chest, must ordinarily be held mortal, especially if they are done between persons of different sex.

488. • III. Touches on honorable parts (that is, kisses on the face, embraces, contact of hands, and similar things) are free from all fault if they are done decently according to the custom of country, civility, or honest benevolence. - They are venial sins if they are done in passing from levity, jest, petulance; - but mortal, at least ordinarily, if they are exercised often or morosely by young persons, especially of different sex, without any necessity or other just cause, although on account of organic pleasure alone. See what was said in n. 485. Hence:

1° "A woman or adolescent does not sin if she permits herself to be touched modestly according to custom; unless (except) it is clear to her concerning the depraved affection of the one touching, and she can then resist without her own infamy or scandal of others. - But she sins if she does not resist ... morose or furtive kisses."¹

2° Young men and girls are not immediately to be accused of sin, at least grave sin, who in certain games embrace one another decently and without evil intention: "yet very many sin gravely in these things, and all are to be altogether turned away from games of this sort on account of the danger annexed to them, and seriously admonished."

3° He sins only venially, of itself speaking, who lightly and without delay touches the fingers, hands, or face of a person of different sex, evil end and every affection and danger of lust being excluded, if these things, for example, are done from mere levity, and do not have special danger annexed by reason of one's own or another's frailty. - Likewise, to kiss boys greatly, even with sensible delectation, does not of itself exceed venial sin; because then the danger of venereal delectation is ordinarily absent. - For the same reason:

4° Of itself, both delay and repetition in honorable embraces are free from all fault among persons very closely joined by blood, and not suspected of mutual concupiscence, for example between father and daughters, mother and sons, if they are done as a sign of special love, although with some organic delectation, provided this is neither sought nor gladly felt.²

5° Kisses, even if they are done from the custom of country, if they are had with delay or ardor, are ordinarily mortal. Likewise kisses on the mouth, or the tongue of another received by the mouth.¹

Note. - To touch the genitalia of brute animals is not lethal of itself; but St. Alphonsus deservedly condemns, against some, a touch of this sort all the way to the effusion of semen as mortal, not indeed on account of the waste of the brute's semen, but because such an act very much incites to lust. Those joining horses, oxen, etc., are excused because of necessity, provided they do not consent to lust.

Practical rules. 1° Touches toward another's body, embraces, and kisses, whether they are libidinous from their own nature, or from the intention of the agent, are of the same species as consummated acts; hence in Confession it must be explained whether they have been had with a married person, a blood-relation, an affine, one bound by a vow of chastity.²

2° In morose embraces there are very often the thought or desire of copula, indeed also pollution or carnal motions, concerning which those who declare embraces without those circumstances are prudently to be questioned, as ordinarily happens.

3° Young people often do not know by what spirit they are moved; hence on account of these and similar things full of danger, even if they do not yet suffer venereal things, absolution is prudently deferred for the accustomed and relapsed; because the occasion of fall, at least for one or the other, will soon become proximate.

489. Principles. - I. Base looks, which are had without a sufficient cause, are gravely or lightly sinful according to the intention of the one looking, the degree of baseness, and the danger of venereal consent. - Concerning this it must be noted: 1° More easily is he excused from grave guilt who looks at himself than he who looks at others; because one's own things move less. - 2° By an equal reason, a look at a person of the same sex is more easily excused than one of different sex.

II. Any looks whatever, although honorable in themselves, but had from an evil intention, are also mortal sins. This is clear of itself. Yet the quality of the person basely looked at, suppose if she is consecrated to God, married, etc., is not to be explained in Confession unless there was at the same time an evil desire; because of itself a quality of this sort is not the object of the sinful vision. Thus St. Doctor against the Salmanticenses.¹

490. You will resolve.² - 1° "To look at human copula without doubt is lethal; but of brutes" (larger ones) "very dangerous; hence it is to be permitted to no one, except only to those upon whom it is incumbent to join animals for generation, and provided the danger of consenting to base things is absent in them."³

2° "To look at the shameful parts of a person of different sex is with difficulty ever excused" (and never, I believe, in a painter, because no necessity of painting is present here) "from mortal sin, unless perhaps the look is done from a place very far away, and so in passing that no danger of delectation is present." And St. Alphonsus thinks this is to be held against the Salmanticenses, even if danger of movement were absent by reason of puerile or senile age or frigid complexion; because at least the danger of concupiscence would be present. Except if the eyes are fixed on a tiny infant, because it moves little; unless this is done morosely or repeatedly with evil affection.⁴

3° To look at the pudenda of the same sex from curiosity or levity, as happens among those swimming, or sometimes among the impubescent, is not mortal. - Otherwise if there is present libidinous affection, or special danger of lust, as if the one looking is very prone to sodomy, or a beautiful adolescent is looked at naked morosely and with delectation.⁵ Hence those are to be gravely reprehended who, with shameful parts uncovered, swim together; likewise boys and girls uncovering their shameful parts to one another, even if in passing and from levity; for this, if it is not mortal, without doubt conduces to mortal sin.

4° To look at one's own shameful parts is mortal "if it is done studiously and morosely, without necessity; otherwise, if briefly."⁶

5° "To look at the less honorable parts of a person of different sex, but not base ones, namely arms, legs, or chest, is not always of itself mortal; but if the look is deliberate and lasting, or if the one looking is prone to venery, he will be excused from mortal sin with greatest difficulty. - And I think the same," says St. Doctor, "of him who morosely looks at the face of a beautiful woman, at least if he loves her with an inordinate affection."¹

6° To look at obscene pictures (or lascivious statues) from mere curiosity, authors say, is not mortal, if danger of base delectation is absent; but "a man morosely looking at the naked female pudenda depicted, or covered with a light veil, I do not know," St. Doctor continues, "how he can be excused from mortal sin."²

491. Principles. - I. To speak, sing, write, hear, or read base things, either for the sake of carnal delectation, or with danger of consent to it, or also with grave scandal, is a mortal sin. Thus all.³ Hence:

1° Generally speaking, those sin gravely who mingle conversations, although from levity only, concerning the conjugal act, concerning licit and illicit things between spouses, concerning modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution, especially if this is done among young persons of different sex.

2° Those sin gravely who narrate their own base sins; and indeed ordinarily threefoldly, namely on account of complacency, scandal, and boasting about a sin committed.

3° Those also sin gravely who utter only base words (although not conversations) on account of delectation taken from the very thought of base things, or with danger of such delectation. Nor are they excused from grave sin who, under pretext of joking, express the same things by equivocal words, but sufficiently known, on account of base delectation.

4° The same must be said concerning those who read, without just cause, wholly obscene books, even if they seem to do this from curiosity or for the sake of recreation; because of itself reading of this sort greatly provokes to lust, at least ordinarily speaking.

5° Moreover, it must be carefully noted here, with the Salmanticenses from St. Thomas, that a prolonged conversation with a girl loved inordinately is not lacking in grave danger.⁴

492. • II. It is not mortal to utter base words from anger, jest, for vain solace, as harvesters, grape-gatherers, muleteers, and those of this sort are wont to do. Except things too lascivious, or if they are a scandal to others, as they are generally to boys and girls. - "Those hearing ... only on account of curiosity, or for vain solace, can sometimes be excused from mortal sin; unless there is present base delectation, or the danger of it, which will easily always be present in adolescents, or others of little timorous conscience, or unless scandal is present." - "To read base books" (but not those of which n. 491. 4°) "from curiosity, without base delectation or its proximate danger," of itself is only venial. Yet this must be carefully prohibited to young people as much as possible.¹

III. To speak, write, read, or hear base things with a legitimate cause, without an evil intention, danger of consent, and scandal, is no sin.² Hence:

1° They do not sin who, for forming and perfecting style, read the poems of the ancients; yet these are not to be conceded to young people.

2° They do not sin who read obscene books for acquiring knowledge, for correcting morals, for learning the truth of history, for informing Superiors, etc.; provided they do not consent to base things and truly intend an honorable end.

As regards those hearing, these things are specially to be noted:

a) If those who hear obscene things have authority over those uttering them, they are bound from office to restrain them; but if they are inferiors or equals, let them admonish them, or at least be silent before them.

b) Those who hear base speech mortal on the part of the speaker, and laugh a little, are not immediately and indiscriminately to be charged with mortal sin: for it can happen that they laugh at the mode of speaking rather than at the things themselves. - Yet Religious and Clerics would easily furnish grave scandal.³

Practical rule.⁴ Concerning obscene words penitents are to be questioned: 1° Before whom and how often they have spoken them, by reason of scandal: - whether before men or women, married or unmarried? before boys or adults? For girls and boys are more easily scandalized than adults, especially if there is question of adults habituated in this vice. Yet beware lest you conclude from this that lascivious conversations among married persons are altogether immune from grave sin. For they can be a scandal to themselves. Nor should they deceive themselves because they have them before little children under the pretext that they are not understood; for sometimes they are truly understood, or at least little children retain in memory certain things whose explanation they afterward seek, and easily obtain. - 2° What words they have said; whether, for example, they have named the pudenda of the different sex (Note that the Saint is speaking of questioning the rude; therefore do not question all in that way), so that it may be known whether it is mortal. - 3° Whether they have uttered the words from anger or jest; for from anger complacency and scandal will more difficultly be present. - 4° Whether they have boasted of some sin; for then three sins often concur, as was said. - They are also to be questioned whether they were delighted in hearing others speaking dishonorably, and whether then they adverted to the precept of correction, thinking it would be profitable. St. Doctor adds:¹ "Let the confessor beware of absolving those relapsing in base conversations, although they say that they uttered them from jest, unless they first amend, or bring an extraordinary sign of sorrow." "Alas! what damage," he says, "from dishonorable words! One dishonorable word can effect that all who hear it be damned."²

Those sins of lust are called non-consummated in which pollution is not had, as was already said above. They are of two kinds: carnal movements and acts of immodesty.

689. Carnal or venereal movements are the commotions of the genital parts and of the humors existing in those organs;¹³³² they arise either from physiological causes, for example, excitation of the nerves or a flow of blood, or from moral causes, for example, thought, impure conversation, etc. These movements directly willed are always a mortal sin, as is clear from the first principle stated above; for they are venereal pleasure. But if they are involuntary, they are no sin at all, for there is no sin without consent of the will. Finally, if they are voluntary in their cause, judgment concerning their morality must be made according to the rules concerning the indirect voluntary already indicated several times. A cause which accidentally produces movements of this kind is not morally evil, provided that it is honest in itself; but the more it influences those movements, the greater is the excusing reason required, as will presently be said concerning acts of immodesty. Carnal movements of this kind are customarily suppressed easily and efficaciously: a) if their cause is removed, insofar as this is possible; b) if the mind is distracted to other things.

¹³³² They are wont to be joined with erection of the male member or of the female clitoris; likewise with some slight outward distillation. The morality of this distillation is to be judged in altogether the same manner as the morality of carnal movements.

690. Necessary resistance. Theologians dispute whether it is a mortal sin if someone, after full advertence of reason, does not repress the lustful movements of concupiscence, but conducts himself negatively, neither consenting nor dissenting.¹³³³ Whatever may be true concerning the speculative solution of this controversy, in practice an act of displeasure of the will must be posited; if this is seriously posited, it is not necessary in addition to resist positively these movements, which of themselves are natural and are wont to cease more quickly if a) a man does not concern himself much with them, b) he turns his mind to other things, or c) he changes his occupation or the position of his body. Moreover, if movements of this kind arise from a voluntary and less licit cause, for example, from reading a lustful book, from looking, or from illicit kisses, then such causes must be removed; but if they arise from a licit and necessary cause, internal complacency must indeed be seriously restrained, but externally it is lawful to conduct oneself passively. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed, and external resistance would harm rather than benefit. Hence, for example, if a confessor suffers such carnal movements, even vehement ones, from hearing a confession, he must indeed seriously withhold internal consent from them, but externally he can conduct himself passively. There are pious persons, but weakened in their nerves, who suffer carnal movements from actions not only indifferent but even holy, for example, by looking at a crucifix. Let the confessor console such persons and prudently induce them to despise carnal movements of this kind.

¹³³³ Billuart treats this question excellently (De luxuria diss. 6, a. 15, § 2); he is also rightly and deservedly reckoned among the best authors in all other questions touching upon the matter of lust, and far surpasses very many casuists.

691. Acts of immodesty are called those which are wont to have a proper relation to or influence upon venereal pleasure, such as shameful looks, touches, kisses, etc. Noldin deservedly writes concerning them:¹³³⁴ "The true doctrine must be held, that shameful looks and touches are opposed to the sixth precept, not of themselves and by their nature, but solely because they introduce the danger of venereal pleasure (pollution) and the danger of consent to it. Therefore, if there were persons (which assuredly will rarely occur) who from these actions suffered no danger either of a shameful movement or of consent to shameful pleasures, those actions would contain for them only the sin of an idle act of sensuality, but by no means a sin against chastity." - Therefore, the whole malice of these acts consists in the danger of venereal pleasure undertaken without a sufficient reason.

Two things are certain in this matter, namely: 1. not only immodest acts, but also any acts whatsoever honest in themselves, posited for the sake of venereal pleasure, are mortal sins, because an evil end vitiates every act; 2. these acts, since they are not sinful in themselves, can be had licitly for a reasonable cause, for example, for curing an infirmity. The sole difficulty, therefore, is how great and what kind of sin these acts are when exercised, not indeed from a lustful end, but without a reasonable and sufficient cause. The danger of consent to venereal pleasure arising from acts of this kind must be weighed a) from the nature of the act itself, and b) from the condition of the person.

In order to judge concerning the nature of the act, authors are accustomed to distinguish the honorable, less honorable, and dishonorable parts of the body. Honorable parts are those which are exposed to the sight of all, such as the hands, face, etc.; the breast and legs are held to be less honorable parts; the genitals and the parts altogether proximate to them are considered dishonorable parts. These things, however, hold only in our regions and with respect to adult persons; for with respect to infants scarcely any part can be called truly dishonorable. But in other regions, for example, in Turkey and in Chinese regions, judgment is made differently concerning the honorableness of members.

¹³³⁴ De sexto praecepto n. 51.

692. Specific malice. According to the common opinion of modern authors, shameful looks differ in species from shameful touches; indeed, a shameful look at a woman differs in species from a shameful look at a man. Billuart teaches otherwise:¹³³⁵ "I think ... that touches, kisses, and looks are not distinguished in species among themselves in the genus of lust; for since they are not evil of themselves, as has been said, but only by reason of the carnal commotion or pollution or intercourse which they excite and toward which they tend, they have among themselves the same species of malice, namely, of carnal commotion, or pollution, or intercourse, etc. Hence, in my judgment, a penitent would satisfy who said: So many times I excited in myself or in another a carnal commotion or pollution, while remaining silent as to whether it was through touches, looks, or kisses, provided that he explain his own condition and that of his accomplice; a fortiori he would satisfy by saying: So many times I took carnal pleasure concerning such or such a person, without explaining whether it concerned touches, kisses, or looks; but he should indeed explain if the pleasure concerned intercourse or pollution, because, since these differ in species from immodesty and must be accused distinctly, so also must pleasures concerning them."

This opinion indeed seems theoretically true, because it is not necessary to declare in particular the means indifferent in themselves employed for a sinful act; for just as it is not necessary to confess whether an unjust beating of one's neighbor was done with a stick or with clubs, provided that it is declared whether it was grave or light, so theoretically speaking it is not necessary to confess whether someone procured carnal pleasure for himself by a touch or a look, or whether he frivolously placed himself in grave danger of consent to carnal pleasure by a touch or a look, provided, however, that desire for intercourse was absent. In practice, however, one must prudently and discreetly insist that simple faithful confess touches, looks, and kisses in species, both because desire is often present and because they themselves cannot judge the gravity of the danger arising from acts of this kind.

¹³³⁵ De luxuria diss. 6, a. 15, § 3. A. Vermeersch teaches the same, Theol. mor. IV, n. 104.

693. Decent kisses, which are customarily given (even in the presence of others) according to the custom of the country for manifesting honorable affection, are licit,¹³³⁶ although carnal movements sometimes arise from them, provided, however, that complacency in venereal pleasure is restrained. Hence the kisses which, for example, are customarily given between betrothed persons, blood relatives, relatives by affinity, etc., are licit. In practice, kisses are recognized as more or less illicit if they would not be given while another honorable person was watching; but if they are given from levity or in jest, they are venial sins,¹³³⁷ provided that proximate danger of consent to venereal pleasure is absent.

But indecent kisses, which, namely, are given upon less honorable or dishonorable parts, or with insertion of the tongue into the mouth of another (the dove's kiss), are ordinarily gravely illicit because of the danger of illicit venereal pleasure.¹³³⁸ Between spouses, however, no kiss as such is a mortal sin unless proximate danger of pollution arises from it.

¹³³⁶ Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 154, a. 4.

¹³³⁷ Cf. Billuart, l.c. a. 16, dico 5.

¹³³⁸ Cf. ib.

694. A touch lingeringly made upon the dishonorable parts of another adult person without necessity is wont to introduce grave danger of venereal pleasure and consequently is gravely illicit. If there is question of infants or those before puberty, the danger is indeed less, but nevertheless even these useless touches must be altogether avoided.

A touch made in passing either a) upon the dishonorable parts of one's own body or b) upon the less honorable parts of another person (indeed without an evil intention, but also without a cause of necessity or utility) seems to be a light sin, because the danger of illicit venereal pleasure ordinarily is not so grave. But if these touches are lingering, they are also lustful and consequently gravely sinful, for example, if someone lingeringly touches a woman upon the breasts.¹³³⁹ - Concerning a dishonorable touch of beasts, judgment must be made according to the intention and condition of the person touching. Since today the vice of bestiality rages sufficiently widely, touches of this kind made without necessity must be seriously prohibited, as being gravely dangerous and inducing to lust.¹³⁴⁰

¹³³⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 419.

¹³⁴⁰ Cf. ib. n. 420.

695. Looks are wont to introduce less danger of venereal pleasure, and consequently authors judge more mildly concerning them than concerning touches. Nevertheless, a lingering look at the dishonorable parts of another adult person of the opposite sex, made without necessity or true utility, seems to be a mortal sin, because it is wont to cause grave danger of venereal pleasure.¹³⁴¹ But he who without any evil desire looks at the dishonorable parts of some person is not bound to confess what sort of person this was, for example, whether she was a blood relative or a stranger.

a) To look at naked infants is not of itself so much an incentive to lust.

b) To look at truly artistic statues or pictures representing naked persons ordinarily is not a grave danger for an adult and serious person. The reason is that representations of this kind are, alas, so frequent in our times that they no longer move serious adult persons. I have said ordinarily; for these representations often are not so artistic, and then they incite more to lust.

c) To look in passing, from curiosity or levity, at the less honorable parts of one's own body or even of a person of the opposite sex is not yet of itself a grave danger of pleasure; nevertheless, this depends greatly upon the condition of the persons and places.¹³⁴²

d) A look at one's entire body is not of itself gravely dangerous or sinful; it is otherwise if such looks are joined with evil thoughts or desires. Likewise, authors commonly teach that it is not a mortal sin if persons of the same sex swimming look at one another in passing. Nevertheless, this custom of swimming is to be eliminated.

In modern times the custom has prevailed throughout the world that painters and sculptors employ naked persons of both sexes who stand as models.¹³⁴³ These artists contend that this is altogether necessary for the perfection of art. If this is truly so, then this manner of acting is licit, since the action is not illicit in itself and there is a sufficient reason and an honorable end. In practice, however, abuse is wont not rarely to creep in, so that sins are truly committed between the artists and these living models. The confessor must then act as with those who remain in a proximate occasion of sinning.

e) To look from curiosity, without a lustful affection, at the intercourse of animals is a venial sin; but such a look can easily produce grave carnal movements unless it is done for a sufficient cause or very briefly.

¹³⁴¹ Cf. ib.

¹³⁴² Cf. ib. n. 423.

¹³⁴³ Modell stehen [to stand as a model]. We wrote more fully concerning this matter in the Linzer Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift 1916, 342-347.

696. Conversations concerning obscene things made from a lustful affection or with grave scandal are grave sins. Sometimes, however, it will be difficult to judge whether a shameful conversation was a mortal sin, because the danger arising from speech of this kind depends greatly upon the various circumstances of the persons both hearing and speaking. Hence, for example, if married men or men of mature age alone among themselves mingle shameful speech for the sake of jest, they rarely commit a mortal sin; likewise, if married women or women of mature age alone among themselves speak shameful things. But if men with women, or young men and boys among themselves, or girls among themselves, or - what is worse - young men with girls, converse about truly obscene things, they almost always sin mortally, because they cause proximate danger both of grave scandal and of venereal pleasure. They would, however, be venial sins if the conversations were indeed freer but not obscene. - To hear shameful speech, or even to smile at the things heard, is a grave sin only when the hearer takes delight in them from an evil affection, or provoked them, or does not impede them although he ought to do so from his office.

697. The reading of evil books and attendance at the theater and dances often cause grave dangers of venereal pleasure; hence a proportionately grave cause is always required for doing these things.¹³⁴⁴ A confessor judging concerning these matters must attend both to their more or less grave objective shamefulness and to the subjective conditions of the penitent. Hence let the confessor greatly dissuade young persons of both sexes from reading novels which treat of love; indeed, let him strictly prohibit the reading if venereal pleasure is wont to arise in them from it. If the penitent is wont to sin in these matters, he must be treated as one who remains in an occasion of sin.¹³⁴⁵ - Several modern dances, such as the "Tango," "Jazz," "Shimmy," etc., are wont greatly to incite to lust and therefore are illicit.

¹³⁴⁴ Cf. above concerning scandal, I, n. 614 ff.

¹³⁴⁵ Cf. below, III, the tract on penance.

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 4.

1024. Immodesty (impudicite; schaamteloosheid, oneerbaarheid) or imperfect luxury is that which externally begins perfect luxury, without the exterior act being brought to its natural terminus, or to the highest degree of venereal pleasure. Hence it consists in those external acts which are apt to surround the act of consummated luxury and constitute its beginning and as it were a part or circumstance, such as touches, kisses, embraces, looks, and, if it is mixed with them, shameful speech.

Hence immodesty is not to be confused:

a) with internal luxury, which is completed in the mind and will alone, and is a depraved affection, whether it is delectation or desire, concerning which it was said in the preceding question;

b) with an external occasion, which is not a preparation or beginning of the consummated act, but a mere occasion or danger, with scandal, more or less proximate, of internal or external luxury, for example, dances and spectacles.

1025. Principles. - I. External acts which are apt to excite incomplete carnal pleasure and thus to furnish matter of immodesty, per se and according to their species, are not luxurious and evil. The reason is that in them venereal pleasure is not found per se; hence they are indifferent, otherwise they would never be licit, while nevertheless they can be exercised from a good or evil end and produce a twofold effect, good or evil. Hence of themselves, that is, intention and the power of exciting luxury being excluded, they are not evil or immodest.

II. But they can be evil and immodest:

1. From the intention of the agent, by reason of the end, which can be mortally evil if someone outside marriage seeks in them venereal pleasure itself; on the contrary, the end is venially evil if they are done exclusively from curiosity, levity, jest, or for merely sensible pleasure; the end is good if someone acts from a certain necessity or utility.

2. From the nature of the act, by reason of influence upon venereal commotion and pleasure; for by nature they are apt to provoke shameful motions and excite pleasure, and therefore, unless a just cause proportioned to causing pleasure is present, it is illicit, gravely or lightly, to exercise them outside marriage from this alone, that they gravely or lightly influence venereal pleasure, even without evil intention or danger of consent. Hence, if by someone very immodest and repeated acts were done without danger of venereal motion, for him they would not be a sin against chastity.

3. From the condition of the sinner, by reason of danger: for sometimes, even if of themselves they lightly influence venereal motion, because of man's frailty they can be a danger of consent for him, or of grave scandal for others.

1026. Immodesty differs in species from consummated luxury in the same way as an imperfect species differs from a perfect one. This is to be understood if it is sought separately, without the consummated act; for if it happens from the intention of the perfect act and is joined with it, they are one sin in complete species and in number.

But immodesty is of itself a sin of one and the same species; for every venereal motion of itself, and unless special circumstances are added, is of the same species, because the pleasure which arises in imperfect acts is of the same account. Accidentally, however, a malice diverse in species can be added, because of special circumstances.

Thus:

1. From the circumstance of the acting person, as if he has a vow of chastity;

2. From the circumstance of affection or of internal intention, if the acts are done from a fornicarious, sodomitic, bestial, deflorative, adulterous, incestuous, sacrilegious affection, as was said concerning pollution;

3. From the circumstance of the special mode in which they are performed, namely if they are done with another person: for then scandal and culpable complicity intervene. And if the exterior immodest acts according to themselves are a preparation and beginning of the complete act with that person, as is the case with touches, embraces, kisses, they participate in the specific malice of this complete act, even if the other person was unwilling; on the contrary, if of themselves they are not the beginning of the consummated act, which holds concerning looks. Hence in confession, for touches the quality of the person employed must also be declared; for looks it suffices to declare that a certain person was employed, and the person's quality need not be declared, unless they are done with desire of the complete act, or unless the other person is bound by vow and consented.

1028. Shameful speech. - Shameful conversations can be gravely evil:

a) by reason of the end, if they are uttered from lustful affection because of delectation concerning luxurious or immodest things themselves, or for inducing others into sin, or for maliciously teaching venereal matters;

b) by reason of the danger of luxurious delectation or work, which is easily present in treating of very obscene things, such as the private parts of men, especially of the other sex, modes of copulating, natural or unnatural, or of polluting oneself, the manner of procuring venereal pleasure, very immodest acts, especially if those things are described accurately and in particulars;

c) by reason of scandal, which is frequently present when they are uttered before adolescents or girls, or among lovers.

Hence the following rules are usually established:

1. To speak, sing, write, signify by gesture, hear, or read shameful things from carnal delectation, or with proximate danger of consent to it, or with grave scandal, is a mortal sin.

Hence they easily sin gravely:

a) who mix into conversations things concerning the conjugal act, concerning licit and illicit things between spouses, concerning unnatural modes of lying together or of procuring pollution, or concerning young men and girls, especially if this is done at length or among younger persons of different sex;

b) who from boasting narrate shameful sins committed by themselves, and adorn the narration with words not a little obscene, both because they glory in a gravely evil thing, and because they often provide great scandal, and because they easily take complacency in the evil thing perpetrated by themselves;

c) who say shameful things because of delectation taken from those things thought, or with danger of such delectation, or with danger of grave scandal;

d) these things also hold concerning equivocal words about shameful matters, and obscene songs; likewise concerning writings and readings that are very obscene.

2. To speak shameful things for the sake of jest, recreation, or vain consolation, especially among men accustomed to these things, as among workers or the rude, or among married women, although it is inordinate and reprehensible, of itself is not mortal, because the affection is not borne toward luxury; unless the hearers are so weak that they suffer scandal, or unless the words are very lascivious.

Hence:

a) amorous words, shameful jests, uttered in passing, regularly are not to be judged mortal, because they are said or heard playfully;

b) this holds a fortiori, proportionally, concerning hearers and those laughing, unless perhaps by listening or laughing they give spirit or authority to those speaking in this way. Namely, to hear shameful conversations, or even to smile at them, can be grave sin only when the hearer takes pleasure in them from depraved affection, or has provoked them, or promotes or approves them, or does not impede them, although he ought to do this by office;

c) likewise it holds concerning readings a little dishonorable, done from mere curiosity.

3. To speak, write, read, or hear shameful things with a legitimate cause, without depraved intention and danger of consent and without scandal, is not a sin.

Thus if it is done for the sake of doctrine, for acquiring knowledge, for learning the truth of history, for correcting morals or informing superiors, provided consent is not given to shameful pleasure.

I say 1st. Base gazes had without sufficient cause are gravely or lightly sinful according to the danger of venereal pleasure; because this is the whole reason why they are prohibited by the law of nature. But to know the proximity of the danger, one must attend to the diverse circumstances, namely to the parts which are looked at; to the sex, age, and other natural qualities of the person looked at; to the dispositions, whether natural or acquired, of the person looking; to the distance and the manner in which the gaze occurs, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 421 and following.

I say 2nd. Gravely sinful gazes, with the case of desire excluded, do not induce the malice of the circumstances of the person who is looked at. The reason is that circumstances of this kind do not influence the act, since sight does not touch the object immediately as touch does, and no one says that we violate a sacred person by sight. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Certainly it is mortal to look at the act of copulation among human beings, not likewise among brute animals, at least of itself and ordinarily speaking, although great danger can be present, and the greater as the animals themselves are larger. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 419.

2nd. It is also mortal to look at the private parts of a person of diverse sex, or parts near them, unless perhaps the sight occurs from a distance and for a very brief time. Nor are you excused from grave fault if you look at base parts covered with a very thin and transparent veil, because such a gaze generally increases lust, far from diminishing it. Yet except 1st. if the one looking is a child, or very old, or very cold; 2nd. if the eyes are fixed on a little infant. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 421.

3rd. But it is venial of itself to look at the genitals of the same sex; but not if the one looking were very prone to sodomy, or were affected with great ardor toward the person whom he looks at in particular. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 420.

4th. It is also venial of itself to look at the less modest parts of a woman, namely arms, legs, and breast, with the case excluded in which the gaze is repeated and lingering. Indeed perhaps he who looks at the naked breasts of a beautiful woman with notable lingering and without cause will never be excused from mortal sin. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 423.

5th. Gazes upon obscene pictures from mere curiosity are not held as mortal. Yet in practice a man looking at the genitals of a painted woman could scarcely be excused from mortal sin, because he will with difficulty be able to guard against base pleasure, unless perhaps it is done for a very brief time or at a great distance, or unless the age of the picture has diminished the force of the art. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 424.

I say. To speak, hear, or read base things for the sake of venereal pleasure or with proximate danger of consent to it is a grave sin, as is evident of itself. But if the danger is not proximate, or indeed is proximate but at the same time there is a just cause of speaking, hearing, or reading those base things, the sin will be either none or only venial. But what is said here about the base is not to be applied to speech simply obscene.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. Generally they sin gravely who mingle conversations, even from levity, concerning the conjugal act, concerning licit and illicit things between spouses, concerning modes of impeding generation, of procuring pollution ... especially if this happens among young persons of diverse sex. Likewise those who from boasting narrate their own base sins.

2nd. It is not of itself mortal to utter things that are indeed base but not gravely such, if this is done briefly, through jest or vain solace, unless the hearers are so weak in spirit that they suffer grave scandal. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 426.

3rd. Tender conversations with persons of diverse sex are not always to be held as mortal, although they are full of dangers, especially if they are long-lasting, often repeated, or happen in solitary places. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 422 and following.

4th. They do not sin gravely who from mere curiosity read entertaining books, because they do not excite gravely to lust, nor expose to great danger, as many comedies or poems are. But if they do this for a legitimate cause, e.g., to learn style, they do not sin at all.