Sodomy

42. Nature. Sodomy is intercourse with a person of the same sex, or with a person of diverse sex but in an undue vessel.

a. Intercourse is not had when someone touches the genitals of another with the hand, foot, mouth, or arm, and in turn is touched by the other; but it belongs to the nature of intercourse that the conjunction of the bodies themselves intervene, so that at least on one side the application of the genital member to the body of another takes place, whether this occurs in the preposterous vessel, or between the thighs or arms, or in another part of the body.

It does not belong to the nature of intercourse that there be penetration of some vessel; nevertheless intercourse differs specifically from impure touch; the essential difference is in this, that in touch the base affection is borne toward pollution, but in intercourse toward the person or beast with whom intercourse occurs.

b. From the definition a twofold sodomy is distinguished: perfect and properly so called, which is intercourse with a person of the same sex, therefore of a male with a male, of a female with a female; and imperfect or improperly so called, which is intercourse with a person of diverse sex, but in an unnatural or preposterous vessel.

c. Perfect sodomy, which is intercourse with the same sex, can be committed in two ways: either by a consummated act, i.e. with effusion of semen, or by a non-consummated act, i.e. without effusion of semen. Likewise sodomy improperly so called is committed either by a consummated act or by a non-consummated act in an unnatural vessel.

Consummated sodomy can also have place among females, namely if in the intercourse which is had between them, a flow of humor with complete delectation intervenes. Nevertheless, since this circumstance does not change the species of the sin, one must not ask about it in confession.

d. The essence of this crime consists in affection either toward the sex or toward the undue vessel: each is against nature, because nature requires for the generation of offspring both the sex and also the due vessel.

43. Principles. 1. Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution, both in itself, because it tends toward an undue sex or vessel, and by reason of cooperation, because each concurs in the sin of the other. Its specific malice consists in access to an undue sex or vessel, which is repugnant to the order of nature in a special way.¹

2. Perfect and imperfect sodomy differ from each other in species, because affection toward an undue sex contains a special malice, diverse from affection toward an undue vessel.

a. Perfect sodomy among persons of the same sex can be committed in diverse ways; nevertheless it does not differ specifically, whether intercourse occurs in the preposterous vessel or in another part of the body. Wherefore in confession it suffices to know that intercourse with effusion of semen has taken place, nor is it necessary to ask further about the mode of intercourse.

b. Imperfect sodomy between a male and a female is committed in only one way, namely if intercourse occurs in the preposterous vessel. But if intercourse has place in another part of the body, sodomy is not committed, but fornication in affection with pollution in effect.

3. It makes no difference whether someone was acting or suffering; the species of the sin is the same. Wherefore in confession one must not ask about this matter. But whether pollution, which happens more easily in the agent than in the patient, has had place or not must be declared.

4. Where sodomy simply is reserved, perfect and consummated sodomy is to be understood, which is committed between males with penetration of the preposterous vessel and with insemination made there.²

¹ Cf. Rom. 1, 24 ff.; Gen. 18, 20 f.

² Cf. Salmanticenses, tr. 26, c. 7, n. 109.

Sodomy is a complete venereal act in an undue vessel, and it is a most grave sin against nature. Intercourse with the same sex, with copulation through the anus, is perfect sodomy; intercourse of different sexes, with copulation through the anus, is imperfect sodomy, which differs in species from the former. If sodomy is reserved, unless something else is expressly declared by the one who reserves it, perfect sodomy is understood.

Many theologians, however, teach that sodomy consists in intercourse directed to an undue sex, so that it is indifferent by what part the act is performed, provided the male member is applied to the undue sex with pollution. This opinion is certainly probable, indeed, as some say, common; hence it is enough if the confessor understands that there was intercourse with a desire directed to the undue sex and with pollution, nor is it necessary to inquire about the manner of the act.

¹ St. Alphonsus, 3, n. 466.

Sodomy, therefore, consists in intercourse with an undue sex together with pollution; whence, if anyone pollutes himself by simply touching another who is unaware of his malice, without affection toward the person and without intercourse, it is held to be pollution and not sodomy. If the other also sins, the circumstance of complicity must be made known in confession. It is probable that the sin of the one acting and of the one submitting are not distinguished in species, if pollution was present on both sides.

I. Psychopathies are physical abnormalities which are manifested especially by abnormal acts of the sensitive appetites, especially of the concupiscible appetite. In those who are physically constituted in such a way, the vehemence of the acts of the sensitive appetites is by no means proportionate to the causes which are truly present; therefore the sensitive life dominates in an abnormal way. Very many specimens of psychopaths are distinguished, the principal ones of which are: 1. hysteria; 2. the asocial-criminal specimen. There are added, 3. sexual abnormalities, which, although in themselves they do not belong to psychopathy, are nevertheless akin to it.

1. Hysteria. Its distinctive mark is that those who are affected by hysteria desire to seem, both to themselves and to others, greater than they really are, and they desire that greater and more wonderful things should happen to them than really and ordinarily are accustomed to happen. But hysterical persons, since their wishes are by no means fulfilled in the truth of things, with the help of a lively imagination do this: they seek to become possessors of their wishes in another way. They desire that others be concerned with them, that they themselves be, as it were, the center of all thoughts, that marvelous and wonderful things which increase the liveliness of their imagination happen to them. On account of these things, which are, as it were, certain notes and distinctive marks of hysterical persons, such persons, who occur especially among women, must be treated with every prudence. Thus it can happen that, desiring in an insane way that something marvelous happen to them, they tend toward a sexual relation with ecclesiastics or confessors. Likewise it happens that they invent violence brought against themselves or solicitations proposed to them.

Crises can occur in hysterical persons; then they are shaken by convulsions, or they are as if in a state of sleep and torpor, or they are affected by vehement depression. These things, however, occur only by way of exception, for the essence of hysteria consists in the hysterical complexion itself.

2. The asocial-criminal specimen. These persons plainly lack all higher affections, feel nothing humanely, and are led only by concern for themselves, or egoism. To this specimen of psychopathy the name "moral insanity" is also given.

Corollary. In those whose complexion is affected psychopathically, moral responsibility will often be present only in a diminished way; indeed, in certain psychotic states, occurring extraordinarily, responsibility will be plainly removed.

3. Sexual abnormalities, which consist in this, that the venereal appetite departs from the normal manner, whether with respect to the time of manifesting itself, or with respect to intensity, or with respect to object. It is said:

a) With respect to the time of manifesting itself. Namely, it happens that in children, with respect to the venereal appetite, a precocious maturity, and one of a higher degree, is found; this disposition can indeed render the said children very dangerous for others.

b) With respect to intensity. Namely, some labor under a wholly unbridled and insatiable propensity toward venereal things; if this reaches the extreme degree, in men it is called satyriasis, as if making satyrs, and in women uterine fury or nymphomania.

c) With respect to object. Namely, the venereal passion in some persons is borne toward objects which of themselves are in no way, or not in that way, ordered to venereal sensations. To this are referred: homosexuality, sadism, masochism, fetishism, and exhibitionism.

a) Homosexuality is had when the sexual inclination is borne toward persons of the same sex. In a woman it is called Lesbian or Sapphic love; if it is borne toward boys, it is called pederasty.

b) Sadism, from the Marquis de Sade, who was affected in this way and described his own foul deeds, exists if libido is excited by perpetrating acts of cruelty, for example by piercing a girl with a knife.

c) Masochism, from Sacher-Masoch, who describes these things in works of fiction, is so called if libido is excited by suffering acts of cruelty.

d) Fetishism exists if libido is excited by imagination or handling of things or parts of the body which do not pertain to venereal matters, such as the hand, foot, hair, clothing, etc.

To the aforesaid there is added exhibitionism, which consists in the propensity of a man to exhibit his body or naked genitals to women.

Corollary I. Sexual abnormalities, as we have already suggested, are not yet in themselves signs of a true psychopathy, since they can also be consequences of psychogenic reactions, of which we shall speak in Point III. Therefore it must be seen whether or not symptoms of true psychopathy concur.

Corollary II. Concerning moral responsibility: if symptoms of true psychopathy are present, the things that have been said about those who are affected psychopathically hold good (cf. corollary, n. 54). If the said symptoms are absent, much discretion is still needed for rendering a judgment concerning the imputability of those who are borne with the greatest force into venereal matters. For it seems that credence often cannot be given to the testimony of those themselves who suffer these things; for sometimes they falsely think that they acted voluntarily, although from other indications it appears that this is not true. A more secure judgment indeed is formed concerning those who live piously; the difficulty is much greater in those who care little for piety.

II. Psychasthenia is a state of soul whose distinctive marks are consciousness of culpability and anxieties, increased in an abnormal and vehement way. Many scrupulous persons are to be counted among these.

Corollary. With respect to acts which are placed under the influence of these affections, for example imprecations or pollutions, moral responsibility will be diminished or plainly removed.

III. Neurasthenia is a morbid state of soul whose distinctive mark is fatigue and weariness of the entire nervous system together with the greatest irritability of the sensitive life; therefore neurasthenic persons can remain masters of themselves with greater difficulty.

I. The causes of perpetual separation are adultery and the mutual consent of the spouses for conversion to a more perfect state.

1. Adultery furnishes to the innocent spouse the right of perpetual separation. This is clear from Sacred Scripture,¹ which, while excluding dissolution of the bond (n. 720), indicates perpetual separation. It is further clear from Tradition,² and from the fact that someone vainly demands that faith be kept with him by one to whom he refuses to keep the faith furnished by himself.³ Hence canon 1129, § 1: "Because of the adultery of a spouse, the other spouse, the bond remaining, has the right of dissolving, even in perpetuity, the communion of life, unless he consented to the crime, or gave cause for it, or expressly or tacitly condoned it, or also himself committed the same crime" (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 62, a. 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 960). Moreover, adultery must be: consummated, formal, morally certain, not approved, not compensated, not condoned. It is said:

a) Consummated through copula of itself apt for generation, not merely begun through kisses, touches, embraces, etc.; nor, since here carnal union with a third person is considered, does mere lying together or union of bodies, or onanistic copula, suffice.

b) Formal, not committed by oppression or in good faith (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 62, a. 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 960; Homo Apostolicus, tract 18, n. 95).

c) Morally certain. Certainty of this kind can also arise from indications, conjectures, and vehement presumptions (St. Alphonsus VI, 961; Homo Apostolicus, tract 18, n. 93).

d) Not approved, that is, it is required that the other did not consent to the adultery nor directly give cause for it; not, however, that he or she did not furnish an indirect cause for it, for instance by denying the debt, by treating the spouse badly (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 62, a. 1; St. Alphonsus VI, 966).

e) Not compensated by adultery committed by the other party before the sentence of divorce was issued by the ecclesiastical judge. It does not matter that one committed adultery more often than the other, or that the crime of one is occult and that of the other public. But if, after adultery has been committed by both, one comes to his senses while the other continues in adultery, the one who is amended can with sufficient probability institute divorce (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

f) Not condoned either expressly or tacitly. "Tacit condonation is had if the innocent spouse, after he has been made more certain concerning the crime of adultery, has freely associated with the other spouse with marital affection; moreover it is presumed unless within six months he has expelled or left the adulterous spouse, or has made a legitimate accusation" (canon 1129, § 2).

Sodomy with a third person and bestiality are equated with adultery, because what is considered here is present, namely carnal union with a third person. Otherwise one must speak concerning sodomy perpetrated with the spouse (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 62, a. 1, ad 4; St. Alphonsus VI, 962, question 2°).

Corollary I. The innocent spouse is not bound of himself to institute divorce; incidentally he can be bound either on account of hope of amending the guilty one, or on account of avoiding scandal arising from the fact that someone would seem to consent to the continued adulteries of the spouse. Practically, however, an obligation will scarcely be present, with the inconveniences also about to follow considered (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 62, a. 2; St. Alphonsus VI, 963, 964).

Corollary II. The innocent party, whether he or she has departed by sentence of a judge or by his or her own authority, is never bound to receive the adulterer, however amended, or to return to him or her (canon 1130), unless the innocent party commits adultery before the sentence of divorce has been issued by the ecclesiastical judge. After this sentence has been issued, the obligation is sufficiently probably lacking according to that maxim, "What has once been well decided... ought not to be reconsidered by any repetition" (St. Alphonsus VI, 965; 967, doubt 2; Homo Apostolicus, tract 18, n. 96). Nevertheless it is always laudable to receive the penitent one back into favor.

Corollary III. The innocent spouse can admit or recall the adulterous party, unless with the innocent spouse's consent the latter has taken up a state contrary to marriage (canon 1130), namely sacred Orders or Religion. If, however, the adulterous wife prudently fears cruelties, she is not bound to return (St. Alphonsus VI, 976).

2. Mutual consent confers the right of perpetual separation in a twofold case:

a) If one or both parties emit perpetual religious profession, with the other party consenting; but in order that religious profession be valid, a dispensation of the Holy See is required (canon 542, 1°). Once religious profession has been emitted in this way, neither ever has the right of returning to the other or summoning the other.

b) If the husband receives sacred Orders, with the wife consenting; but in order that the reception be licit, a dispensation of the Holy See is required (canon 987, 2°). The reception of Order without the consent of the spouse is likewise illicit, indeed in such a way that the husband can be compelled to return and to abstain from all acts of Order.

In occurring cases, the Holy See can establish conditions for the other party who does not enter Religion, or for the wife whose husband receives sacred Orders; common law now prescribes nothing.

¹ Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:11-12.

² The Dogmatic theologians should be consulted.

³ Rule of Law 75 in VI.

I. Notion. Sodomy is intercourse with a person of the same sex (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 154, a. 12, ad 4; St. Alphonsus III, 466).¹ It is also called sodomy properly so called, to distinguish it from unnatural intercourse with a person of diverse sex, which is customarily called sodomy improperly so called (n. 57). If sodomy is committed with boys, it is called pederasty.

Moreover, the essence and malice of this species of lust seems to consist in congress or in venereal mingling with an individual indeed of the same species, but of a sex with which the act of generating cannot be instituted. Hence for sodomy, besides persons of the same sex, there are required: 1. an act placed after the manner of intercourse; 2. an act placed, by means of the genital member, on the part of the agent; 3. the insertion of the genital member into the vessel of the other. It is said:

1. An act placed after the manner of intercourse; hence sodomy is not had in effect if someone touches with the hand, even with effusion of semen, the private parts of another.

2. An act placed by means of the genital member, because otherwise venereal mingling is not had.

3. The insertion of the genital member into the vessel of the other, because otherwise true mingling is lacking. It is required, therefore, either that a male insert the virile member into the posterior vessel or - as others add - into the mouth of another male; or that a woman insert the vulva into the vulva or into the posterior vessel or - as others add - into the mouth of another woman.

I said: or - as others add - into the mouth of another male, and: into the mouth of another woman. Namely, the said acts seem to be called sodomy properly so called, because here too there is had venereal mingling with a person of the same sex (St. Alphonsus III, 466; Homo Apostolicus, tr. 9, n. 25). Nevertheless, congress with a person of the same sex in the posterior vessel and in the mouth do not differ in species, because the malice of each consists in venereal mingling with a person of the same sex in an undue vessel.

Corollary I. Sodomy between women can indeed be attempted, but, if the structure of the genitals is normal, it cannot be actually exercised. When women, as seems sometimes to happen, apply vulva to vulva or to the posterior vessel of another woman, there is certainly an affection toward sodomy, but true sodomy seems not to be present; since it is not seen why, once the necessity of congress in a vessel is admitted among males, intercourse toward a vessel among women would suffice. The fact that congress in a vessel cannot take place between them proves rather that sodomy is impossible for them, unless the clitoris is abnormally developed, than that congress in a vessel is not required.

Corollary II. Intercourse of a man with a man which has taken place neither in the posterior vessel nor in the mouth, but in another part of the body, is not sodomy, but pollution in effect; nevertheless, regularly speaking, it will have annexed an affection toward sodomy (St. Alphonsus III, 466).

Corollary III. They commonly say that true sodomy is had whether seminal emission occurs inside or outside the vessel, so that there is no need to indicate that point (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

¹ Those who are especially borne by affection toward persons of the same sex are called homosexuals.

II. Morality. 1. Sodomy is intrinsically and gravely evil, indeed after bestiality the gravest sin of lust. It is intrinsically evil because it involves the use of semen or quasi-semen which is not ordered to the good of the species (n. 28). It is gravely evil because, equally with pollution, it contains, if the discussion is of a man, a use of semen which is neither apt for generating nor ordered to the education of the one to be generated; if the discussion is of a woman, it involves the use of quasi-semen which is not ordered to education (n. 28). Finally, it is a most grave sin, as is clear from the testimonies of Sacred Scripture: "But the men of Sodom were very wicked, and sinners before the Lord exceedingly."¹ - "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, because it is an abomination."² - "God delivered them up to shameful passions. For their women changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their desires toward one another, males with males working shame."³ It is clear besides from the very notion of sodomy handed down, which in the use of venereal things excludes not only the due organ but also the due sex.

2. The sins of the agent and of the patient do not differ in species. But since the circumstance of seminal emission must be made known, and it can be presumed on the part of the agent but not so certainly on the part of the patient, the penitent should be asked whether he was agent or patient, unless you prefer to inquire directly, or it is sufficiently clear from elsewhere, whether or not seminal emission took place (St. Alphonsus III, 468).

3. Sodomy perpetrated with a blood-relative or affine, equally as direct intercourse had with them, also takes on the malice of incest; perpetrated with a married woman, it also contains the guilt of adultery.

¹ Gen. 13:13.

² Lev. 18:22.

³ Rom. 1:26-27.

III. Penalties. 1. Laypersons and clerics constituted in minor orders, legitimately condemned for... sodomy... are by that very fact infamous, besides other penalties which the Ordinary shall judge should be inflicted (can. 2357, § 1; can. 2358).

2. Clerics in sacred orders, whether secular or religious, if they have admitted sodomy, are to be declared infamous, deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, or function which they may have, and in graver cases deposed (can. 2359, § 2).

Observe, however, that where in the Code there is speech of penalties against sodomy, sodomy perpetrated between males is understood, in the posterior vessel, with seminal emission made there. Sodomy is to be taken in the same sense if anywhere it is reserved.

Note. Sodomy is more often committed in cities than in villages, especially by reason of sleeping in the same bed. If someone seems to have to be questioned - for example, if a man confesses that he has sinned with a man, or a woman that she has sinned with a woman, and introduces a prudent suspicion of sodomy - it must be inquired whether intercourse or a joining of bodies took place. The inquiry can be instituted in this way: Did they exercise mutual touches? If this is affirmed, was it by hand or by body? If by body, did they join bodies?¹

¹ Aertnys, Theologia pastoralis, n. 38.

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

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

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

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

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

What is sodomy? "There is a great question in what act sodomy consists. Some hold that it consists in concubitus toward an undue vessel. Others, in concubitus toward an undue sex. Each opinion is probable, and in each opinion there is seen the special deformity which sodomy has against nature, which requires that both be preserved for generation, that is, the due vessel and the due sex." L. 466. The second opinion is said by St. Alphonsus, l. c., to be the more probable and common opinion of theologians. "The reason is that true and proper sodomy is committed in access to a person with whom generation can in no way take place." L. ib.

According to this opinion it does not matter in what vessel males or females come together among themselves, in the anterior or posterior, or in another part of the body, since the malice of sodomy consists in affection toward the undue sex, and is complete in its genus when the application of the genital member to a part of the body of the same sex is done by way of concubitus. But if there were only application of the hand, foot, or mouth to the genital parts of another, even if pollution should have place from each side, it would not be reputed sodomy, because it would not be concubitus. Cf. 814. L. 446, 485; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 154, aa. 11, 12; Rom. 1:26, 27; Constitutions of St. Pius V, Cum primum, 1 Apr. 1566; Horrendum illud, 30 Aug. 1568; C. I. Poen. 338; C. G. 330; E. M.

You will resolve: "Hence it is inferred, 1. that the coition of a female with a female is true sodomy, as S. Thomas, Roncaglia, Holzmann, Sporer, the Salmanticenses with Cajetan, etc., say. Although Elbel l. c. with Felix Potestas not improbably thinks that concubitus of this sort, even with affection toward a preposterous vessel, seems to be only improper sodomy, since perfect intercourse cannot be given between females. It is inferred, 2. that any concubitus, or conjunction of bodies, had with a person of the same sex is true sodomy, whether in the preposterous vessel or in another part; for then, regularly speaking, affection toward an undue sex is always present, as Tamburini, Roncaglia, Tournely, La-Croix, the Salmanticenses hold. Hence Roncaglia, Tamburini, and the Salmanticenses say, against Graffius, that it is not necessary in Confession to explain whether pollution was within or outside the vessel; for it suffices to confess, I sinned with a boy, so that the confessor may judge that sodomy with pollution was present. But if pollution was not present, it would have to be explained.

It is inferred, 3. with the Salmanticenses, Bonacina, Tamburini, and the more common opinion, that the coition of a man in the preposterous vessel of a woman is only imperfect sodomy, distinct in species from perfect, as Tournely and Tamburini say. The latter notes with Filliucci, and Holzmann and Sporer rightly agree with the common opinion, as he asserts, that if a man should have intercourse between the legs, arms, or other parts of a woman, it would be a certain inchoate intercourse, at least in affection. Hence, according to this doctrine, a man lying with a virgin outside the vessel commits two sins, against the same chastity indeed, but of diverse species, one of fornication in affection, the other against nature in effect. But the aforesaid Sporer, Holzmann, Tamburini with Angelus, say that a confessor, understanding that a woman was known outside the natural or preposterous vessel, ought not ask in what place or how." L. 466. Moreover Sporer 627 has these things: "Note this, when a man and woman, thus mixing, pollute themselves outside the vessel: if indeed it is done from affection toward the person herself, as ordinarily happens, it pertains to fornicatory, adulterous, incestuous intercourse, etc., according as the person was; but if it is done from affection toward preposterous parts, it will be imperfect sodomy about which we are treating; finally, if it is done without concubitus or any conjunction, but merely for fulfilling lust, it is softness." L. 485.

Is pollution in the mouth of a diverse species? - "Sporer with some apud Diana affirms, and they call this sin irrumation. But Holzmann, Filliucci, Cajetan, Graffius, etc., more probably say that, if a man is polluted in the mouth of a female, it will be inchoate intercourse; but if in the mouth of a male, it will be sodomy." L. 466. Cf. here on Marriage, 1081.

In the sin of sodomy, must it be explained who was agent or patient? More probably, per se, it is not to be declared, because the species of the sin is the same. Yet the circumstance of pollution, if it was present, which more easily happens in the agent, must altogether be opened. L. 468; Lugo de Poenit. d. 16, n. 243.

Note: The Salmanticenses with Bonacina probably note that sodomy with a female is not comprehended under the reservation of sodomy, since it is not true sodomy. But otherwise, if sin against nature is reserved. By a reservation of this sort, however, Bishops commonly do not intend to comprehend pollutions also. L. 471. Clerics who have been found to labor under this crime, from the Lateran Council, "are to be cast down from the clergy or thrust into monasteries for doing penance... We deprive secular and regular Clerics... exercising so dreadful a crime, by the authority of the present canon, of every clerical privilege, and every office, dignity, and ecclesiastical benefice." St. Pius V, C. Horrendum illud, 30 Aug. 1568, sections 1, 3.

"Does the man sin mortally by beginning copulation in the improper vessel, so that afterwards he may consummate it in the due vessel? Commonly and more truly they affirm.... The reason is that coitus of this kind, even without insemination, is true sodomy, although not consummated; just as copulation itself in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, although insemination is not present." L. 916. The same Holy Doctor, ibid., affirms the same concerning simple touching of the male organs with the same improper vessel, "because at least such touching cannot morally be done without sodomitic affection."

116. "The great question is in what act sodomy consists. Some hold that it consists in concubitus toward an undue vessel. Others, in concubitus toward an undue sex. Each opinion is probable, and in each opinion there is discerned the special deformity which sodomy has against nature, which requires each to be observed for generation, that is, a due vessel and a due sex." L. 466. The second opinion is called more probable and common among theologians by St. Alphonsus, l. c. "The reason is that true and proper sodomy is committed in access to a person with whom generation can in no way occur." L. ibid.

117. Note. According to this second opinion it does not matter in what vessel males or females coit among themselves, in the anterior or posterior, or in another part of the body, since the malice of sodomy consists in affection toward an undue sex, and is complete in its genus when the application of the genital member to a part of the body of the same sex occurs in the manner of concubitus. But if there were only an application of the hand, foot, or mouth to the genital parts of another, even if pollution took place on both sides, it would not be considered sodomy, because it would not be concubitus. Bonv.; L. 466. 485.; Hom. Ap. Tr. 9. n. 24. 25.; cf. here n. 103.; St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 154. a. 11. 12.

118. Corollaries. "Hence it is inferred, first, that the coitus of a woman with a woman is true sodomy, as St. Thomas, Roncaglia, Holzmann, Sporer, the Salmanticenses with Cajetan, etc., say. Although Elbel, l. c., with Felix Potestas, not improbably thinks that a concubitus of this kind, even with affection toward the preposterous vessel, seems to be only improper sodomy, since among women there cannot be perfect copulation. It is inferred, second, that any concubitus whatever, or conjunction of bodies, had with a person of the same sex, whether in the preposterous vessel or in another part, is true sodomy; for then, regularly speaking, there is always affection toward an undue sex, as Tamburini, Roncaglia, Tournely, Croix, and the Salmanticenses hold. Hence Roncaglia, Tamburini, and the Salmanticenses say, against Graffius, that it is not necessary to explain in confession whether pollution was within or outside the vessel; for it is sufficient to confess, I sinned with a boy, so that the confessor may judge that sodomy with pollution was present. But if pollution was not present, it would have to be explained. It is inferred, third, with the Salmanticenses, Bonacina, Tamburini, and the more common opinion, that the coitus of a man in the preposterous vessel of a woman is only imperfect sodomy, distinct in species from perfect sodomy, as Tournely and Tamburini say. The latter notes with Filliucci, and Holzmann and Sporer rightly agree with the common opinion, as he asserts, that if a man were to coit between the thighs, arms, or other parts of a woman, there would be a certain begun copulation, at least in affection. Hence, according to this doctrine, a man lying with a virgin outside the vessel commits two sins against the same chastity indeed, but of diverse species: one of fornication in affection, the other against nature in effect. But the aforesaid Sporer, Holzmann, Tamburini with Angelus, say that the confessor, understanding that the woman was known outside the natural or preposterous vessel, ought not to ask in what place or in what manner." L. ibid.

Moreover these are the words of Sporer 627.: "Note this: when a man and a woman, mixing themselves thus, are polluted outside the vessel: if indeed it is done from affection toward the person herself, as ordinarily happens, it pertains to copulation which is fornicary, adulterous, incestuous, etc., according as the person was; but if it is done from affection toward the preposterous parts, it will be imperfect sodomy, of which we are treating; if finally it is done without concubitus or any conjunction, but merely to satisfy lust, it is softness." L. 485.

Scavini has these words, q. 6. in the note: "Even among women complete sodomy is had either by means of an instrument, or naturally, in the manner in which it can be completed, whenever namely there is application of one part to the part of another with some semination within a vessel. Thus the Salmanticenses, Luraschi, etc."

119. Is pollution in the mouth of a different species?

Resp. "Sporer affirms with some apud Diana, and calls this sin irrumation. But Holzmann, Filliucci, Cajetan, Graffius, etc., more probably say that, if a man is polluted in the mouth of a woman, it will be begun copulation; but if in the mouth of a male, it will be sodomy." L. 466.

120. In the sin of sodomy must it be explained who was the agent or the patient?

Resp. More probably it is not to be declared of itself, because the species of the sin is the same. Billuart with others. Nevertheless, the circumstance of pollution, if it was present, which more easily happens in the agent, must altogether be opened. Yet for the most part both are polluted. Therefore the judgment of the confessor in this matter can be sufficiently formed from things commonly occurring, without need to interrogate in a matter so shameful and dangerous. L. 468.; G. 434.; Lugo, de Poenit. D. 16. n. 243.

121. What are the penalties against sodomy?

Resp. Most grave penalties have been established by Canon Law against sodomites; these nevertheless, according to the truer opinion, are not incurred before the sentence of a judge. L. 470-472.; and l. 4. n. 251. Those practicing sodomy, however, incur irregularity from the Constitution of St. Pius V, Horrendum illud, August 30, 1568.

122. If sodomy is reserved, is sodomy with a woman also comprehended in the reservation?

Resp. "The Salmanticenses with Bonacina probably note that sodomy with a woman is not comprehended under the reservation of sodomy, since it is not true sodomy; but otherwise if a sin against nature is reserved." By a reservation of this kind bishops commonly do not intend to comprehend pollutions also. L. 471.

433. • The horrendous crime of sodomy is intercourse with a person of the same sex or of a different sex, but in an undue vessel.

Hence a twofold sodomy is distinguished: 1. perfect, which is intercourse with a person of the same sex; 2. imperfect, which is intercourse with a person of a different sex outside the natural vessel, or with affection toward an unnatural vessel.

Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution. This is clear from the horror which it excites among all, and also from the unheard-of punishments inflicted by God on Sodom and the other cities polluted by this sin.

434. Resolves. - 1. Perfect sodomy differs in species from imperfect sodomy, because through the former a man is borne inordinately into both sex and undue vessel ¹, while on the contrary through the latter he is borne inordinately only into an undue vessel.

¹ Most commonly Theologians (see St. Alph., lib. 3, n. 466), and also Canonists (see Reiffenstuel, lib. 5, tit. 16, n. 88; Schmalzgrueber, same title, n. 112; and Pirhing, same title, n. 69), constitute the perfect nature of this crime in the disorder of undue sex alone, contrary to what certain interpreters of civil law seem to affirm (see St. Alph., l. c.), while they place it especially in the disorder of the undue vessel; nevertheless these in this matter seem rather to have had regard to the penalties which they judged should be inflicted in the same civil forum also on this latter disorder. Therefore the Author could seem to have departed from each opinion, while he requires each disorder for it. But the matter is not so; for in reality he added the latter disorder not as if the essence of this crime resides in it, but because it pertains to the nature of the act or consummated intercourse; from which it has also happened that among persons of the inferior sex (as some noted in St. Alph., l. c.) only improper sodomy is given, because that consummation has no place in these.

Moreover, these things had to be noted on account of the reservation of cases. For when sodomy is reserved absolutely and simply, according to general principles the perfect crime and one consummated in its own genus must be understood. Therefore it is necessary to have designated what act is required for perfect and consummated sodomy.

2. Coitus of a man in the undue vessel of a woman is imperfect sodomy, yet distinct in species from perfect sodomy.

3. Nevertheless it would not be called sodomy if there were only an application of the hand or foot to the genital parts of another, because there would be no intercourse.

4. More probably per se it need not be declared who was the agent or the patient, because the species of the sin is the same. - Billuart, with others. - Yet the circumstance of pollution, if it was present, which happens more easily in the agent, must altogether be opened. - St. Lig., n. 468.

35. (B) Sodomitic copula had between spouses is also a grave sin, i.e., penetration of the posterior vessel with effusion of seed in the same; for it is a grave disorder against nature, since it renders conception impossible; and also against conjugal fidelity, which forbids spouses to use the body of the consort except in a mode apt for generation; it also induces very bad diseases in the woman¹.

¹ See these described apud Surbled, op. cit., vol. II, p. 58-63.

Nevertheless to begin copula in the posterior vessel with the intention of consummating it in the vagina; or to touch the posterior vessel with the genitals, provided the effusion of seed is forestalled, and every sodomitical affection is excluded, are probably not mortal sins: because the former act is done as a preparation for copula in the due vessel, but the latter is only a touch between spouses not prohibited under grave obligation. Nevertheless they are to be exhorted to abstain from these things, as being indecent, and lest perhaps they soon commit sodomy itself.

An act by which spouses come together after the manner of animals, yet so that copula takes place in the due vessel, must be distinguished from the sin of sodomy; in which case some say that they came together in a posterior manner or from behind. Then the confessor ought to ask whether generation was possible in this mode or not; if they answer that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not sodomitical, but only disordered in position; and this sin indeed does not exceed venial sin.

36. Here it is asked whether a wife can cooperate with sodomitical copula. The Sacred Penitentiary, April 3, 1916², responded thus: "But if the husband should wish to commit with her the crime of the Sodomites, since this sodomitical coitus is an act against nature on the part of each spouse thus coiting, and it is gravely evil by the judgment of all Doctors: hence, for no cause at all, not even to avoid death, can the wife licitly comply with her immodest husband in this matter." Therefore the opinion of those who, before this decree, thought that the woman could suffer that concubitus in order to avoid death cannot be admitted; but the common doctrine must be held, namely that that cooperation, even passive, is a sin against nature.

² Apud Marc, Institutiones Morales, 16th ed., 1920, n. 2116.

(C) Onanistic copula is also gravely prohibited; it must be treated specially because of its frequency and depraved consequences.

55. 2. Concerning sodomy. (A) Paul testifies that the unspeakable crime of sodomy flourished among the pagans:¹ "For their women changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And likewise the males also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their desires toward one another, males with males working shame."

¹ Rom. 1:26-27.

A twofold sodomy is distinguished: perfect, or properly so called, which is intercourse of two of the same sex, namely of male with male,² or of female with female; imperfect, or improperly so called, which is intercourse with a person of different sex, but in an unnatural vessel. They are two diverse species. - For sodomy simple touch does not suffice, but there is required, at least on one side, application of the genital member to the body of another, in whatever manner it is done.

² When men abuse boys to fulfill lust, it is called pederasty.

(B) Sodomy is a most grave sin, graver than fornication and simple pollution, both because it is most against nature and because both sodomites furnish scandal to each other and concur in the sin of the other.

56. Although perfect sodomy can be performed in various ways, penitents are not to be asked about these: it is enough to know whether it was consummated by effusion of seed.

Sodomy improperly so called, which is committed in the preposterous vessel, is accustomed to induce most grave diseases, especially in women; concerning these read physicians.

There is a more horrendous kind of sodomy, which by theologians is called irrumatio, by the common people abuse of the mouth: it consists in licking the genitals of the same or of another sex, and in other shameful acts committed with the tongue and mouth; this likewise draws many diseases after itself.

When sodomy is a reserved sin, as in many dioceses, sodomy properly so called, and indeed consummated, is understood, unless another thing is declared; this more frequently happens among males, but sometimes also among girls and women, who rub genitals against genitals with each other.

343. - Sodomy is defined as the lustful lying together of two persons of the same sex. A person who violates nature by this rationale is delighted by his own sex. This enjoyment of the body of another, but of the same sex, is theologically essential to sodomy. But it supposes a lying together, or the application of one body to another, although no penetration of the sexual organ into any vessel is required. Sodomy is completed when, in this lying together, the agent obtains satiating pleasure, whether, penetration having been made, he casts semen into the vessel of the other; or pours it merely between the thighs or externally upon the body; or pours forth no semen, as occurs of itself when the matter is between women.

2. But an effusion into the anus appears to pertain to the canonical rationale of perfect sodomy. Wherefore, when not every sin against nature perpetrated with another, but sodomy alone, is reserved, the reserved sin is understood to be so perfect that the vessel of the other has received the semen or quasi-semen poured forth by the other. This can scarcely occur between women.

344. - 2. Specific varieties.

a) The circumstances of a vow, relationship, or conjugal bond add respectively the malice of personal sacrilege, incest, or adultery. Concerning local sacrilege, the observation made in no. 314 returns.

b) The circumstance of the agent or patient does not change the species of the exterior act, nor must it of itself be declared. The patient was formerly called properly the pathic or effeminate. Cf. 1 Corinthians 6:10.

But in the patient a perverse affection can more easily be absent than in the agent.

Wherefore, one who declares the passive part must also disclose whether or not he himself experienced pollution.

On the contrary, one who confesses himself the agent already tacitly confesses his own pollution; he must expressly accuse only the pollution of the other, of which he was necessarily an accomplice by his action.

Among women, the parts and the commotions can rather be presumed equal, so that they need not be questioned concerning pollution.

c) This shameful act committed with a boy receives the special name of pederasty. And because the boy is incapable of consent, the moral malice of stuprum then easily accrues. One sinning thus was called a paedico or paedicator.

Paganism was so infected with this abominable vice that boys were trained for these shameful acts, or slaves, even after castration had been performed, were destined and sold for them.

345. - 3. Stuprum of the mouth itself, or irrumation ¹, that is, pollution performed in the mouth of another male, of itself betrays merely a sodomitical affection, just as in the mouth of a woman it would of itself manifest a fornicatory affection. St. Alphonsus, book 3, no. 466.

¹ The same name is retained when pollution is absent. Cf. St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 935.

Performed in the posterior vessel of a woman, it is accustomed to be designated by the name of imperfect sodomy. But attention must be given to the affection, which often will be merely fornicatory, as when it is performed in the mouth. Cf. what was said above, no. 269.

346. - 4. Finally, mutual pollution through touches alone, for example of the hands, is of itself a double effeminacy, to which a sodomitical affection can accrue.

I. Sodomy (sodomieterij) properly so called is concubitus toward an undue sex, that is, of two persons of the same sex, namely male with male, or female with female. Hence:

1. in order that true sodomy be present, a simple touch is not sufficient, even mutual, even with pollution, and even pollution procured by one another, whether exercised by hand, foot, mouth, or arm upon the genitals of the other; but concubitus is required, and therefore on at least one side the application of the genital member to the body of another, and indeed to some vessel of the body. Therefore for men there is required intromission of the virile member into the posterior vessel, or even into the mouth if it is done with one lying upon the other; for women, the application of the genital organ of one to the other or to the posterior vessel, namely of external pudendum to external pudendum or to the posterior vessel. But if the application is made to another part of the body, even with emission of semen, it will be pollution procured by touch of another person, not sodomy; unless inchoatively and in affection, if there is affection toward an undue sex, pollution with sodomitical affection, and the partner is not considered as a mere means of procuring pollution;

2. in order that sodomy be altogether perfect and fully consummated in the notion of sodomy, there is moreover required the complete use of the genitals, and therefore not only the intromission of the posterior vessel by the virile member, or the application of the anterior vessel, or external pudendum, to the anterior or posterior female vessel; but also the emission of semen or humor of the female canal, not only into the mouth, for then it is called irrumation, but into the vessel indicated above, so that it receives the semen or humor.¹ Hence, where sodomy is a reserved sin, it ought to be consummated in this sense, unless otherwise expressly noted. This happens more easily among males; concerning females it is understood with difficulty and generally is judged impossible, as is to be supposed in practice, because they are not to be questioned concerning these minute and scandalous circumstances. Ferraris notes, however, that according to some, women can by means of a certain diabolical instrument transmit distillation of the female canal and receive it into themselves.

¹ From the emission of semen the sin is consummated in the notion of lust, but not in the notion of sodomy unless the semen is emitted into the undue vessel.

II. Sodomy is a most grave and execrable sin, as is clear:

1. from its nature, both in itself, because it most gravely disturbs order and therefore is most of all against nature, and by reason of cooperation, because both sodomites give scandal to one another and each concurs in the most grave sin of the other;

2. from the graver penalties inflicted by ancient law or by God himself (Gen. XIX);

3. from the doctrine of the Apostle in Rom. I, 26-28.

III. Observations. 1. Several more recent authors often seem to place the very essence or specific notion of sodomy, as also of bestiality, and the essential distinction, in affection toward a person of the same sex, or toward an animal, or in the special pleasure thence arising. Yet this does not seem to agree with the general principles in moral matter; for pleasure is not evil unless the action from which it follows is evil, whence it does not constitute the very essence of the sinful act. But internal affection can be a circumstance on the part of the agent which adds to the external sin an internal malice specifically distinct, sodomy in affection; yet it cannot change the nature of the external sin itself or constitute its specific difference. This is essentially in the special perverse use of the genital organ; whence for effective sodomy there is required intromission or the use of an undue organ, as being of the same sex.

2. Let it not be thought that the aforesaid sin of sodomy is committed more rarely: sometimes it exists under the form of pederasty (knapenschending); in great cities there are also brothels of men; in the army, especially among cavalrymen, and in ships among sailors, it is frequent enough. Similarly in history certain more celebrated women are known who approached other women in true congress,² although one perfectly consummated perhaps must be judged impossible.

² Compare above, p. 10, note 3.

3. It does not have to be explained who was the agent, who the patient, because that circumstance does not change the species. Nevertheless it must be declared whether pollution occurred, and especially if it did not occur.

4. Concubitus in a vessel, especially as to women, easily has the malice of fornication as companion: for the female patient, while provoking the acting female, is accustomed to say: "Do with me as a man," indeed sometimes the acting female not only lies together, but uses some instrument, as if a virile member. Therefore the confessor will be able prudently to inquire, rather than concerning base modes or circumstances, concerning this malice of fornication.

5. Likewise the circumstances of consanguinity, affinity, marriage, vow, and so forth, add malice to sodomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

804. From the things said, you will resolve: 1. It is not sodomy if there are only mutual touches, even with pollution, but without concubitus, or conjunction of bodies. Nor is it sodomy if a man pollutes himself between the legs, arms, or breasts of a woman; but it is fornication in effect, pollution in effect; but if in her mouth, some say it is a special sin against nature, which they name irrumation; others, as above, call it fornication in affection, pollution in effect. But if pollution of a man happens in the mouth of a male, it will be perfect sodomy (III, 466; VI, 935; H. Ap., IX, 25).

2. In confession, of itself, the following must be declared: a) The sex of the accomplice, namely to distinguish perfect sodomy from imperfect. - b) The sodomitical congress itself, i.e. shameful concubitus; but not in what part of the body it was present, if the sex was the same; but copulation in the posterior vessel, if the sex was diverse. c) The quality of the person, whether married, a relative, etc. d) Whether pollution was present or not; which indeed is presumed in the agent, often arises in the patient; but the circumstance whether someone was agent or patient does not change the species of itself. Pollution, if it happened, is to be confessed in species as a sin distinct from sodomy. e) Whether force was applied (III, 468 ff.; H. Ap., IX, 24).

3. But the confessor, when he has understood that a woman was known by a man outside the natural or posterior vessel, should not inquire further in what place, or how (III, 466). Similarly, if a man says: I lay with a man; or a woman: I lay with a woman; he should not inquire whether upon bare flesh, or upon clothing, etc.; for once the lustful congress and quality of the person have been declared, nothing further is to be investigated; and sodomy is supposed to have been done in that mode in which, by reason of the sex, the thing

could have happened. - But if the case were reserved, the confessor would have to investigate whether it was perfect consummated sodomy (which can be had only between males); but, in practice, let him proceed most cautiously, lest he place indecent questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. Th. II-II, q. 154, a. 5, 11 and 12.

1014. A sin of luxury against nature is that which repugns the order and mode which nature established in the venereal act for generation, to which alone it is ordered by nature; hence it is a distinct species of luxury, since it has a special deformity.

There are four subordinate species of it, including a diverse repugnance to nature and reason. For the venereal act, so that offspring can be conceived from it, requires four things: 1) the intercourse of two; 2) the same specific nature in each; 3) diversity of sexes; 4) the connatural mode of lying together. Therefore there are four species of sin against nature:

1. If, without intercourse, pollution is procured for the sake of venereal pleasure; this is called the solitary sin or mollities (zelfbevlekking);

2. If it happens through intercourse with a thing of a different species; this is called bestiality (beestachtigheid);

3. If it happens through intercourse with an undue sex, that is, with the same sex, for example male with male, or female with female; this is called sodomy properly so called (sodomieterij);

4. If, while the due sex is preserved, the due natural mode of lying together is not preserved, so that generation is impeded; this is unnatural intercourse with a woman (a. 11). This can happen in two ways: a) on the part of the organ: it is called sodomy improperly so called, if copulation happens in an undue organ, for example in the posterior vessel; b) on the part of the mode alone, if copulation is exercised in the due organ, but in such a way that, from the very mode by which the action is carried out, generation is impeded, either because the man withdraws himself before insemination and pours out seed externally, or because he or the woman uses an instrument or another means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the womb. It is usually called onanism.

Therefore sins against nature are morally distinct in species from one another, as repugning nature and reason in diverse ways; and the contrary was condemned by Alexander VII.¹

¹ Proposition 24 was condemned: "Mollities, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it suffices to say in confession that one procured pollution."

A mere change of the natural position in copulation is not against nature except insofar as generation would be impeded by it, which ordinarily does not happen; otherwise it will rather be beside nature than against nature, and is only venial in spouses and sometimes nothing, namely if some reason requires that it be done so.

1015. Luxury against nature is in the genus of luxury the gravest in itself and other things being equal, because it transgresses that which is determined according to nature itself concerning the use of venereal things; but the other sins transgress only that which is further determined by reason. Yet by reason of an added circumstance these can be graver in another genus: thus adultery by reason of injustice is graver than pollution, and sacrilege by reason of irreligion; but pollution is graver than both in the account of luxury (a. 12).

Among sins against nature, bestiality is the gravest, because the due species is not preserved; after this is sodomy, because there the due sex is not preserved; then there is an undue mode of lying together, but more if the due organ is not preserved, than if the mode alone is impeditive of generation; the lowest place is held by pollution, which consists only in the omission of intercourse with another. For the gravity of sin is considered more from the abuse of some thing than from the omission of due use (ad 4).

Let it be noted: 1) Sodomy is an execrable sin, as is clear both from the fact that even brute animals regularly abhor it, and from the graver penalties inflicted by ancient law or by God himself (Gen. 19). The same holds concerning bestiality, as is proved from the penalties laid down against it by God, for example, Lev. 20.

2. For these sins to be committed externally in their proper species, a mere touch exercised upon a person of the same sex or upon an animal is not sufficient, even with sodomitic or bestial affection; rather, intercourse to an undue vessel is required, whether it is not destined for coition or is naturally destined for it. Indeed, for them to be fully consummated in their species, insemination within the vessel is required.

3. Intercourse with a demon is reduced to bestiality, because the demon is of a different species from man: whether the demon really appears under a human form, which happens rarely, or the sinner, by hallucination, sets him before himself as present in this way. This sin additionally includes the malice of superstition against religion; then another diverse species of luxury according to the form under which the demon is seen by the sinner: if as a person of the same sex, the malice of sodomy is present; if as a person of a different sex, the malice of fornication; if under the form of another's spouse or of a nun, the malice of adultery or sacrilege, etc.

1016. Pollution, or the solitary sin, is the separated complete use of the genitals without intercourse. It is said:

1. Complete use of the genitals: for thus it is distinguished from immodesty or acts of imperfect luxury, which are only the beginning and preparation of complete luxury, and it differs from these in species, as the mere beginning of a work differs from consummation, beginning from terminus, and an incomplete species from a complete species;

2. Without intercourse, because if it happens in natural intercourse, it will be fornication or another species according to nature; if in unnatural intercourse, namely had in an undue organ, it will be another species against nature. Therefore from the fact that it is a solitary vice, or that it implies the separated use of the genital organ, pollution differs in species from other consummated sins according to and against nature.

The complete use of the genital organ is apt to produce perfect and satiative venereal pleasure; and in men, the expulsion of seed, which aggravates the sin comparatively to what takes place in women. Yet these two things do not constitute the essence of the solitary sin, but are a certain bad effect which usually accompanies it, and an indication and sign of the complete use of the genitals. But the essential inordination is in the perverse use of the genital organ, which someone employs for individual satisfaction, without any order to generation and the good of the species for the sake of which alone it can be employed. Hence the complete solitary sin also exists in women,1 and can exist in men if they do not have seed, as sometimes happens in the young and the old, or if accidentally it does not flow out externally.

1017. Pollution directly and in itself voluntary is intrinsically and gravely evil, and therefore prohibited by natural law, so that it can never be made honorable by any end. - It is proved:

1. From the Scriptures: 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:².

² Hence, when the doubt was proposed: "whether masturbation directly procured so that sperm may be obtained by which a contagious disease may be scientifically detected and, as far as possible, cured is licit," the Holy Office responded: in the negative, 24 July 1929.

2. From the condemnation of proposition 49 by Innocent XI.³

³ "Mollities is not prohibited by natural law; hence if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under mortal sin."

3. By reason: This act is directly against the primary end to which the genital organs, venereal pleasure, and human seed are destined by nature and by the author of nature. Therefore a) it is an inordination intrinsically evil and illicit by the law of nature, so that it can never be made honorable by any end;3 b) it is also a grave or mortal inordination, because it is directly opposed to the primary inclination of our nature and to the greatest common good of human society, namely its conservation and propagation. Hence if fornication itself is a mortal sin because it is against the due education of offspring, a fortiori pollution, which is against propagation itself.

This is confirmed: "If in any case whatsoever it were licit to procure pollution for oneself or another, since in it men are affected with the greatest pleasure, they would easily abuse that license and extend it to almost infinite cases, and thus, content with that pleasure, they would neglect marriage and the legitimate mode of generating with the greatest detriment of the human species. Therefore in this, as in many other matters, one must not attend precisely to the actual harm which follows, but to the harm which would follow or would be apt to follow if this were licit."⁴

⁴ Some modern authors doubted concerning this, among whom was also Noldin; but in new editions of his work this was corrected by Fr. Schmitt.

Every pollution of itself is a sin of the same species, in whatever way it happens.

Accidentally, however, by reason of a special circumstance, another species can be added. Hence pollution is divided into simple, which besides the malice of pollution has no other malice joined; and qualified, which has another joined, either on the part of affection toward the object thought of, as if someone, while polluting himself, has a fornicarious, incestuous, adulterous, sacrilegious, sodomitic, etc. affection, by taking pleasure precisely in a woman, a blood relative, a married woman, one sacred to God, a male, as such, or by desiring them; or on the part of the person polluted or polluting, as if a religious, a married person, etc. pollutes himself or another, or is polluted by another. These circumstances, as adding a species, must be declared in confession.

1. Billuart, diss. VI, a. 11.

1018. Corollary. - The doctrine set forth applies to pollution directly and in itself voluntary; but not to pollution voluntary only in the cause or indirectly. For this is not always gravely evil, indeed not always a sin, as is clear from the principles set forth concerning the voluntary in the cause and the indirect, which are to be applied here.

1. It is not illicit to posit an action from which pollution is foreseen to follow, provided the action is licit in itself and at the same time necessary or useful, provided consent to the pollution or proximate danger of consent is absent. For no one is bound to omit an action licit in itself, necessary or useful for a good effect, because of some evil, not very great, following from it apart from intention, provided the evil is not the means for obtaining the good effect. But in the case the action, as is supposed, is licit in itself, and necessary or useful; the passive pollution following from it apart from intention is a rather slight evil, bringing little or altogether no inconvenience either to the acting individual or to the human species. Therefore the action is licit, provided the pollution is not the means by which the good effect is obtained.

2. It is a venial sin, without sufficient reason, to posit an action lightly evil and lightly and remotely influencing pollution which is foreseen to follow from it. For pollution, since it is not willed in itself, is not more voluntary and sinful than its cause as cause; but the cause as cause is only lightly evil, since its influence is only light and remote; for a light influence upon something grave is something light. Therefore pollution is only lightly evil; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consenting to it.

3. A fortiori it is only venial, without sufficient reason, not to impede depraved motions of concupiscence and pollution itself, while nevertheless it can be impeded without inconvenience; because in the case every tendency or positive consent of the will toward pollution is lacking; unless, however, there is proximate danger of consent to it.

4. It is mortal, by reason of pollution, without a just cause, to posit an action mortally evil from which pollution is perfectly foreseen naturally to follow, or an action which per se, notably, and proximately influences it so that it is apt to follow from it. For to will an effect and to will its proximate cause are of the same morality, unless there underlies a grave and just reason.

1019. Remark. - As to nocturnal pollution, its malice is to be weighed from its causes. Hence it either is or is not a sin according to the condition of the cause in which it was foreseen, or ought to have been foreseen. If the cause is not culpable, as if it is posited from a just reason, and a fortiori if it is merely natural, neither will the pollution itself be culpable; if the cause is culpable venially, lightly and remotely influencing it, it will be venial; if the cause is mortal, gravely and proximately influencing it, it will be mortal.

The horrendous crime of sodomy is sexual intercourse with a person of the same or different sex, but in an undue vessel. Hence a twofold kind is distinguished: 1st. perfect, which is sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex; 2nd. imperfect, which is sexual intercourse with a person of different sex outside the natural vessel.

I say 1st. Sodomy is a crime much graver than simple pollution. This is clear from the horror which it excites among all, and also from the unheard-of punishments inflicted by God upon Sodom and the other cities defiled by this sin.

I say 2nd. Perfect sodomy differs in species from imperfect, because to be carried toward the sex and toward the undue vessel contains a double special malice. But although imperfect sodomy is itself also a great sin, nevertheless when sodomy is named without qualification, only perfect sodomy is understood, especially where it concerns censures and reservation, unless the superior has declared the contrary. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.

You Will Ask. Must it be declared in confession who was agent or patient in sodomy?

Response. Negatively, because the species of the sin is the same: but the circumstance of pollution, which can happen more easily in the agent, is altogether to be declared. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 468.

THIS unspeakable vice is named from the miserable Pentapolis, and it designates carnal copulation of the same sex.

THEY ASK first: whether it is Sodomy when a man is coupled with a woman in a perverse vessel.

THE FIRST opinion asserts that it is: so Julius Clar. lib. 5. sentent. §. sodomia, Decius in leg. si qua mulier, Cod. de secundis nuptiis, Sanchez lib. 10. de matrim. dub. 4. and St. Thomas art. 5.

THE SECOND opinion, the common one, teaches that it is not properly Sodomy; so broadly the Saintly Doctor seems to take it in the Compend. Theol. lib. 3. cap. 21. Yet this is certain, that all those copulations against nature enumerated above, whether with a male or with a female, suffice for divorce. It is not however reserved. So Diana part. 2. tract. 1. miscel. resol. 29.

In which sense the name of fornication is understood in Matth. 19. because they divide the flesh which God has joined together. So St. Jerome understands it ad 19. Matth. and it is reported in cap. dixit Dominus 32. quaest. 1. And this sentence and reason they commonly follow with St. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 31. quaest. 1. ad 5. St. Thomas ibi quaest. unic. art. 1. ad 4. whom Sanchez reports lib. 10. de matrimon. disp. 4. num. 3. Fagundez in 6. praecep. lib. 6. capite 9. num. 8.

HENCE also the copula of a woman with a woman, or of a female with a man in perverse ways, or with a beast, are sodomies improperly: yet it would be a reserved case, if a woman should emit seed in that vessel, not so if in the natural vessel. See Diana part. 7. tract. 12. resol. 13.

THE PUNISHMENTS of sodomy are death in both accomplices leg. cum vir nubit in foeminam, Cod. de adulter. ad leg. Iuliam, there armari iura gladio ultori, and in the text in Authent. Ut non luxurietur cont. naturam, §. propterea. But if the emission, or commingling, is in the hands, or the like, he is not condemned by this punishment, as they commonly teach, in Fagundez num. 9. But if, the copula having been completed, he emits seed outside, he is still to be killed, as Farinacius says quaest. 148. Cremation is imposed on the dead by the municipal laws.

MINORS are indeed bound, with a reservation of non-carnal crimes, as homicide, blasphemy, but not of carnal ones, since these they ordinarily do not complete cap. 1. de delict. puer. and this even if he suffers it from one of age, as Bassaeus says num. 21. v. Luxur. See Diana part. 7. tract. 12. resol. 13.

THEIR GOODS are also confiscated, but it is not received by custom. So Farinacius quaest. 148. Sodomites are also intestable. See Farinacius q. 148. Baiardus addit. ad Iul. Clar. §. sodomia.

It is a crime of the mixed forum, and it can be punished by censures even in a layman.

BUT a CLERIC convicted is deprived of his benefice, deposed, and thrust into a monastery, according to the text. cap. de clerici, de excess. Prael. Indeed they teach that he can even be degraded and handed over to death and to flames: Vivianus opinione 727. Menoch. de arbitr. qq. quaest. 286. Bermon. de publico concubinatu, rubric. de sodomia, num. 29.

THEY DOUBT whether he is suspended by that very fact. The Legists of both laws commonly assert it, in Fagundez num. 17.

THE OPPOSITE, however, is truer. So the Lateran Council extra de excess. Praelat. says: let them be cast down from the clergy, as St. Bonaventure reports in Confess. cap. 3. particula 5. nor is he suspended by the new law of Pius V., but the sentence of a judge is required beforehand; for only the punishment of excommunication carries with it its own execution of the crime, so that it is incurred by that very fact without any declaring sentence of the crime or of the fact; but the remaining punishments require a sentence. So Suarez Tom. 5. de cens. disp. 30. sect. 1. Hieron. Gabriel confil. 196. et confil. 187. Sylvestet V. affasinos, Fagundez in 5. praecep. Decal. cap. 2. num. 9. et in 6. praecep. lib. 6. cap. 9. num. 18.

NOTE truly that the Decree of Pius V. does not include any sodomite whatever, but one who exercises it habitually, as they note: Navar. sum. cap. 27. num. 249. Rodriquez qq. Regul. lib. 1. quaest. 29. art. 12. argumento, §. Illud, ff. de aedilitio edict. by which text Bartol. in prooem. Panormit. in cap. 1. de iudic. say that neither a merchant, nor an artisan, nor a harpist is called such who strikes or trades once or twice, but frequency is required, so that he be held such by common opinion; and Navarrus says that in this sense it was explained to him by the Datary, in the name of the Supreme Pontiff. Wherefore Farinacius departs num. 30. saying that one can be handed over for a single fall, etc. Where note that another Bull had been published before by Pius V. in the year 1566, in which he does not put exercentes, but perpetrantes; but I observe that it is a frequentative word, which Fagundez does not notice n. 20. Then I say that in the year 1568 another was published saying exercentes, which tempers the preceding one.

NEVERTHELESS the opinion of Farinacius is also probable, because the word exercising signifies to commit in the first act, according to the text. Item leg. Iulia de adult. et Instit. tit. de public. iudic. Then because the Bishop of Septimacensis tract. de discept. cap. 33. says that the same Pius V. understood it thus, as he received from his own utterance.