The Sixth and Ninth Commandments

It is usual to treat of these two Commandments together, for the Sixth, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,”¹ in expressly forbidding the chief sin, implicitly forbids all other external sins against the laws of marriage, and the Ninth, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, neither shalt thou desire his wife,’’² forbids internal sins of covetousness and lust. The general doctrine concerning internal sins was given in a former Book; the special doctrine about covetousness in so far as it is against justice is clear from what was said about avarice and what will be said later about justice; the doctrine about external sins of lust will be evident from what has to be said in this place.

¹ Exod. xx 14.

² Exod. xx 17.

THE means devised by God for the preservation and increase of the human race is the union of the sexes. This union has for its primary object the procreation of children, who require for their proper education the long and assiduous care of both father and mother. Nature, then, as well as the law of God and of the Church, requires that children should only be begotten of parents joined in lawful and indissoluble wedlock. As nature has taken care that the individual should take the food and drink necessary for his personal support by giving him the spur of appetite for nourishment and pleasure in taking it, so the same great Mother has taken care of the race by joining venereal pleasure to the act of procreating children. This venereal pleasure is lawful when indulged in between married people and according to the laws of marriage. In all other cases it is unlawful, and is forbidden by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Venereal pleasure must be distinguished from sensual and from venereo-sensual pleasure. Venereal pleasure has its seat in the genital organs, and is caused by their motions, the irregular motions of the flesh. Sensual pleasure is other than venereal, and rises from indulgence of the senses, from the contemplation of a beautiful picture, from listening to sweet music, from touching the glossy and soft coat of a cat. This sensual pleasure is morally harmless in itself, but there is a certain kind of pleasure which is sensual in its origin but which is connected with, and ordinarily causes, venereal pleasure. It arises from such acts as voluptuous kissing, and is called by divines venereo-sensual, On account of its connection and tendency, venereo-sensual pleasure is evil, and ordinarily is more or less sinful, as we shall see in what follows.

Sins of impurity are consummated or non-consummated. Consummated sins go as far as complete venereal pleasure, which is had through intercourse or through pollution. They are consummated according to nature if the generation of offspring can follow from them; otherwise they are consummated against nature. Non-consummated sins are looks, touches, and immodest conversation, which do not reach complete venereal pleasure.

All sins of impurity of whatever kind or species are of themselves mortal, ‘This doctrine is taught in such passages of Holy Scripture as the following: 1 Cor. vi 9-10; Gal. v 19; Matt. v 28. Moreover, as we saw above, those sins are grievous which cause great harm to society or to the individual; but there is scarcely any cause so prolific of public and private evil of all sorts as sins of impurity, so that we must conclude that they are grievous even by the light of reason. Furthermore, all sins of impurity, if voluntary in themselves and fully deliberate, are mortal; or in other words, it is grievously sinful directly to seek any even slight unlawful venereal pleasure, or to consent to it deliberately even when it has not been directly sought, This doctrine is the approved teaching of theologians, and it has a rational basis, inasmuch as the tendency of men to these sins is so strong and their weakness so great, that slight indulgence in venereal pleasure almost necessarily leads to grave excesses, so that even in light matter there is the whole reason of the prohibition, and so all sins of impurity, if fully deliberate and voluntary in themselves, are mortal, and there are none that are venial merely on account of parvity of matter.

On the other hand, if venereal pleasure is not voluntary in itself but only in its cause, nor deliberately consented to when it arises, although it was foreseen that it would follow from some other action, as from reading a lascivious book, or looking at an immodest object out of curiosity, it may be only venially or it may be mortally sinful, according to circumstances. In general, if in the case in question there is proximate danger of giving consent to the impure pleasure, or if its cause is of its nature such as to occasion great venereal pleasure, this will be mortally sinful even when only indirectly voluntary; in other cases it will be only venially sinful.¹ This same principle will guide us in questions concerning the greater or less malice of venereo-sensual pleasure.

¹ Cf. Book I, p. 8.

THESE are commonly reckoned as six in number: fornication, adultery, incest, criminal assault, rape, and sacrilege. All are grave sins against chastity, and the last five contain grave malice against other virtues as well. Something must be said about each one.

Fornication is the act of carnal intercourse between persons of different sex who are not married but who are free to marry.

Holy Scripture teaches us that fornication is a grave sin, for “fornicators shall not possess the kingdom of God.”¹ “No fornicator hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”² It is a grave sin not merely because it is forbidden by positive law, but because it is intrinsically wrong and contrary to the law of nature. Innocent XI condemned the following proposition: ‘‘ It seems so clear that fornication in itself is not wrong, and is only evil because it is forbidden, that the contrary is altogether against reason.”³ This truth is sufficiently clear to unaided reason, for the human offspring requires for long years the constant care not only of the mother, but of the father as well, and so nature requires that the father should be certain, otherwise so great a burden could not be laid upon him. But the fact of paternity would be very uncertain if fornication were allowed, and so we must conclude that it is wrong in the nature of things. As St Thomas observes,⁴ the fact that in particular cases the paternity of a child born out of wedlock is sufficiently clear, and the child’s education can be provided for, does not militate against the force of the general argument, for in striving to lay down general rules of conduct we must have regard to what would happen ordinarily if such an action were lawful, not to what takes place in special circumstances.

¹ 1 Cor. vi 9; cf. Gal. v 19.

² Eph. v 5.

³ Prop. 48, condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679.

⁴ Summa, 2-2, q. 154, a. 2.

Adultery is the act of carnal intercourse between persons of different sex of whom one at least is married to someone else. Besides being a grave sin against chastity, adultery is also a serious violation of justice, which prescribes fidelity to the marriage vows as long as they exist. Even if the other party whose marriage rights were violated by adultery should - have given his consent to the sin, it still is against justice, for, like the right to life, marriage rights are inalienable, and cannot be renounced by those who own them. If both parties who sin together are married to someone else, there will be a double sin against justice committed by both of them, and the circumstance should be mentioned in order to secure the integrity of confession. This is clear, and it is confirmed by the condemnation of Proposition 50 by Innocent XI.

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

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

Criminal assault is the using of violence against a woman to compel her to commit sins of impurity. It contains a grave and special sin against justice as well as the malice of impurity, and it is severely punished by criminal law. It is probable that there is no specific difference in the sin whether the woman be a virgin or not.

Rape is the violent abduction of a person from a place of safety for the purpose of satisfying lust. The violence may be offered to the person abducted, or to the parents, or to those who have charge of her, and it adds a special malice of its own to the sin besides the malice against chastity.

By sacrilege is here understood the violation by carnal sin of a. person, place, or object, consecrated to God. The doctrine concerning it will be sufficiently clear from what was said above under the First Commandment.

These three are numbered: pollution, or mollities; sodomy; and bestiality — concerning which we must treat in the following articles.

Pollution is the voluntary emission of human seed outside intercourse, whence it is also called the solitary sin. It is called voluntary either in itself or in its cause, to distinguish it from the involuntary kind, which can arise from various causes and especially occurs naturally in sleep to relieve a superfluity. It is called an emission of seed to distinguish it from that discharge by which a less dense fluid, of an altogether different kind, flows from the urethra in those of and under the age of puberty, whether with venereal excitement or without it.

Directly voluntary pollution is intrinsically evil and a mortal sin. This is established from Holy Scripture and from the constant teaching of the Church. Innocent XI condemned this proposition: "Self-abuse is not forbidden by the law of nature. Hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin." The same is proved from the very bad effects which follow from this vice, both to the individual, by weakening the powers of his mind and body, and to society, inasmuch as those entangled in this vice, content with solitary pleasure, would shun the grave burdens of marriage, to the ruin of the human race. In every case it is unlawful, so that no exception is admitted; for, because of men's very great proneness to this kind of sin, if it were ever permitted they would readily invent occasions of indulging themselves, to their own ruin. Hence it must never be lawful, not even to save life. Several of the older Doctors taught, probably, according to St Alphonsus, that it is lawful to expel corrupt seed without any sensation of lust. Modern writers, however, deny that seed is ever corrupted, so that the foundation of that opinion appears to be wanting.

it is lawful, and expedient, to remove what has gathered under the foreskin in order to lessen irritation,

¹ 1 Cor. vi 10.

² Theol. Mor., 3, n. 478.

Indirectly voluntary pollution is a grave sin, or a slight one, or none at all, according to the circumstances. If it arises from a cause gravely evil in the matter of lust it is a mortal sin, because in willing such a cause a man implicitly wills the pollution also. If it arises from a cause slightly evil in the matter of lust, as from the curious reading of a less than decent book, the pollution itself is more probably only venial, “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” If it is foreseen as following incidentally from an honourable action, as from riding, or from a manner of lying down adopted for a reasonable cause, there will be no sin. But if it follows incidentally from an action evil under some heading other than lust, as from drunkenness or from breaking a fast, it seems to be venial, since some fault against chastity as well is admitted when pollution is foreseen as following from an action one has no right to perform. Some excuse from all fault, even venial, a pollution which follows incidentally from an action only venially evil under a heading other than lust. As is clear, in this question we leave aside the danger of consenting to the pleasure arising from the pollution, which we have not supposed. Pollution in sleep which happens as a result of a previous mortal sin in the matter of lust is itself a mortal sin; if it follows from a venial sin in the matter of lust, or from the mortal sin of drunkenness, it is itself venial; otherwise it is no sin. If anyone awakes while undergoing a pollution, there is no obligation positively to suppress it, provided no consent is given: the mind ought to be turned to God or to other things lest it consent to the evil. Provided there is a just and proportionate cause for performing actions — as with physicians who treat women — from which a pollution is foreseen as following which is neither intended nor consented to, this will be no sin, as is clear from the principle of the double effect.

¹ St Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 3, n. 484.

² ibid.

Although women do not furnish seed but an ovum to be fertilised by seed in the conjugal act, they are nevertheless capable of a like complete pleasure in solitude, as the male sex is. Hence, just as in men the incomplete sin of immodest touch and pollution are distinguished in kind, so in women the consummated solitary sin is distinguished in kind from the non-consummated. So it seems must be held with the common opinion. Not always, however, in women who undergo a pollution

is there an emission outside the vessel, but the discharge remains within. From pollution, moreover, as is clear, the menses are carefully to be distinguished, which after puberty is reached and until the menopause nearly all women experience every month without any heat of lust.

Those under the age of puberty, who have no generative seed, are incapable of the complete pleasure which accompanies a consummated sin, and hence at least probably cannot physically commit the sin of pollution. By voluntarily taking pleasure in immodest motions those under puberty do indeed sin mortally, but probably, for the reason stated, it is only the sin of immodest touch.

We have seen that a pollution which follows from a cause only slightly evil in the matter of lust, and which is not voluntary in itself, is only a venial sin. But it is a question controverted among the Doctors whether, if because of some particular disposition or weakness of a person a pollution almost always follows from such a cause, he is bound under grave sin to refrain from performing the action — on the ground that the cause is then judged to influence the effect gravely — or only under slight sin. If there is proximate danger of giving consent, all admit that there is a grave obligation to abstain from performing the action; otherwise the opinion of many seems probable, that the obligation is only slight. For the reason assigned by St Alphonsus for the doctrine given above still holds good: “because, since the pollution is not willed in itself but only in its cause, it will be evil in the degree in which the cause itself is evil.” And the reason why the cause seems in this case to influence the effect more gravely is the subjective disposition of the agent, which is not willed, and therefore does not affect the imputability of the effect.

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.

Bestiality is intercourse with a beast.

Provided there is pollution, it is indifferent whether the beast be male or female, of what species it may be, or by what part the act is performed, since the malice of this sin consists in approach to a different species, with which generation cannot be had. It is a graver sin than even sodomy, since in this sin the same species is not kept. It is established today that generation does not follow from the intercourse of a man with a beast.

Sodomy and bestiality are most gravely punished by the ecclesiastical law and also by the civil law (Can. 2357, 2359).

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.

You shall not commit adultery.

Nor shall you desire his wife (your neighbor's).

Exod. 20:14, 17.

1. By the sixth precept of the Decalogue all things are prohibited which are repugnant to the ordered propagation of the human race. For all these, in their own way, are reduced to adultery, as to the primary act repugnant to this ordered propagation. But by the ninth precept all interior concupiscence is prohibited concerning those external works which already had been previously prohibited by the sixth precept. Each of these precepts prohibits lust, which is: the inordinate appetite or use of venereal things. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 154, a. 1; L. 412, 414. Therefore the malice of lust consists in this: that man uses venereal things, that is, the motion of the genital spirits and semen, which by nature and by God as author of nature is ordained to the due propagation of the human race, inordinately for pleasure or for another perverse end.

Inordinately, that is, outside marriage, or contrary to the laws of marriage within marriage.

Now then: 1. Lust, of whatever genus or species, is per se a grave sin. The reason is: 1. Because it fights gravely against nature. For the use of the venereal matter from its nature was instituted and is 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 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. And thus the Apostle Paul, in the Epistle to the Galatians 5:19, says: manifest are the works of the flesh, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust... which I foretell to you, as I have foretold: that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God. - L. 414; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 153, a. 2, 3.

2. Directly voluntary lust in any genus never admits smallness of matter. The reason is that any delectation directly sought necessarily introduces subversion, in a most grave matter, of the natural order established by the Creator. This is clear also from proposition 40 condemned by Alexander VII, which lies thus: It is a probable opinion which says that a kiss had for carnal and sensible delectation, which arises from the kiss, is only venial, the danger of further consent and of pollution being excluded. - Sporer, de Matrim., n. 689-690; L. 475, 476; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 153, a. 2, 3.

3. But indirectly voluntary lust admits smallness of matter, because then there is no consent or intention toward venereal pleasure, but only toward the cause, which is lightly sinful, since it influences venereal delectation only lightly. G. 412 (Gury, Comp. Theol. mor., t. 1, n. 412); L. 482, 483. And indeed, since that cause per se influences that pleasure only lightly, and therefore ineffectively, there is had indeed a permission of it, in no way a willing of it. But if someone not only permits that venereal pleasure, but also actually wills and intends it, in that cause, he will be guilty of grave fault; because in reality he wills and intends a venereal thing, which is gravely illicit.

4. Moreover, lust is directly opposed to chastity, which taken generally is: the moral virtue which moderates the inordinate appetite and use of venereal things. A part of chastity, and indeed the 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 forever. Virginity is lost physically in a girl by the opening or breaking of the virginal cloister, and in a male by the effusion of semen; but morally it is lost, more or less, both by a woman and by a male, through voluntary pollution, or merely venereal delectation, or only through consent to these, although in reality neither pollution nor venereal delectation takes place. Yet as regards the political state and in the face of the Church, a girl remains a virgin so long as the cloister of virginity has not been violated by intercourse, and a male so long as he has not carnally known a woman. Whence "a nun who before profession or consecration voluntarily polluted herself, although she loses, as was said, virginity according to virtue, nevertheless since she does not lose it according to state, because she rejoices in an intact virginal cloister, needs no dispensation for making profession and for receiving the veil granted only to virgins. And for the same reason, the same woman can without scruple accept a legacy left to virgins alone, and pronounce herself a virgin in order to marry, etc. Azor, citing Bonac. and others, teaches that a virgin secretly violated in the cloister cannot put herself forward for requesting the veil of consecration, even if from this she is going to incur infamy; but that she can exercise the offices proper to a virgin, indeed offer herself for them, lest she be defamed; because, he says, ecclesiastical institutes do not oblige with so much rigor. But with peace to Azor, a most learned man, this reason proves that in a similar danger of infamy she can not only put herself forward for the aforesaid offices, but also request the veil of consecration, as he holds, citing Suarez and Pell., because that likewise is from an ecclesiastical institute." Tamburini, Explic. Decal., l. VII, c. 5, n. 2, 3; Sporer, after tr. V, append. ad VI praecept., n. 6; Struggl, tr. 7, q. 4, art. 1, n. 2; Billuart, tr. de Temper., Dissert. 4, de Cast., etc., art. 1, 2, 5; Dissert. 5, de Luxur., art. 1, 2; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 152.

2. Note 1. In order that the object of lust be rightly understood, in this matter a twofold delectation must be distinguished: one venereal, which is also called carnal, another sensible. Venereal delectation, or delectation concerning a base thing, can be either merely spiritual, namely that which is in the mere will, without any base commotion in the body, or not merely spiritual but at the same time carnal, as if there is present a base commotion in the body. La-Croix, l. 3, n. 890-892. This venereal and carnal delectation is felt in the genital parts through the commotion of the genital spirits and semen; on the contrary, sensible delectation is felt in other senses from their application to their own object, and from the proportion of this object to its proper sense. If venereal delectation is intended either directly in itself, or indirectly in the cause, it is called sought; but if, after it has followed besides the intention, free consent of the will is added, the delectation is called admitted.

Sensible delectation is twofold: one is purely such, the other is sensible-venereal. Purely sensible delectation is that which arises from an object which of itself precisely is not apt to move to venereal delectation; as, for example, the delectation which arises from the touch of silk, the smell of a flower, the hearing of music, the taste of sugar. Sensible-venereal delectation is that which arises from an object which of itself in some way is apt to move to venereal delectation, as, for example, the delectation which arises from touch, from the embrace of a woman, from her kiss, etc. L. 412, 413, 415.

Venereal delectation deliberately voluntary among persons to whom intercourse is illicit properly looks to lust and is a grave sin from its whole genus, not admitting smallness of matter. The reason is that venereal delectation of itself is ordained to the generative act and the propagation of the human race, which is a most grave matter; and if besides it is notable, it contains from its intrinsic nature the proximate danger of pollution, which is directly repugnant to generation. This is confirmed from proposition 40, condemned by Alexander VII, already cited in n. 1, 2. For that condemnation of the proposition is to be understood: 1. of warmer and lingering kisses, which from their nature proximately dispose to venereal delectation; by no means, however, of lighter kisses and those transitorily impressed, which only remotely dispose to venereal delectation; 2. of even lighter kisses, but had for the sake of carnal or venereal delectation. For in that proposition carnal and sensible are joined, so that by the name sensible delectation you understand carnal delectation itself, or delectation which is sensible and at the same time carnal. If, therefore, those kisses are grave on account of the proximate danger and on account of the intended end of venereal delectation, venereal delectation of itself is grave. Hence "he sins gravely who spontaneously consents to light carnal motions spontaneously occurring." L. 415.

Purely sensible delectation, as such, does not properly pertain to lust, but to sensuality, and of itself it is not evil, but indifferent. Nor indeed can another malice be found in it except that which generally is in an act which is not referred to a rational end; such certainly would be the case if someone not only acted with that delectation, but also for the sake of that same delectation, positively excluding a further honest end and resting in it.

Finally, sensible-venereal delectation either from its nature proximately disposes to venereal delectation, or only remotely. If proximately, it is a grave sin on account of the proximate danger of venereal delectation. If remotely, it does not per se exceed venial sin, if it is directly intended, on account of the inordination which is directly intended in it, yet not a grave one, since the proximate danger of venereal delectation is absent. Whence, from some sensuality only, to look at a beautiful woman, to touch her face or hand, or to give her a light kiss, another depraved intention or danger of consent to another grave thing being excluded, is only a venial sin. Struggl, tr. 2, q. 2, n. 15, 4, 5, 6, 7; Tamburini, Expl. decal., l. 7, c. 8, n. 1 et seqq.; Sporer, de Matr., n. 686, 688, 691; Billuart, Dissert. 5, de Luxur., art. 1, 2; Ithurriaga, Cas. 51, n. 3 seqq.; Cas. 18, n. 1 seqq.

The theologians commonly warn, however, as regards practice, that "from sensual delectation to venereal, especially in the sense of touch or sight, the progress is easy." Billuart, de Temp., diss. 5, art. 2; L. l. 3, n. 416; l. 6, n. 854.

3. Note 2. In order that it may also be rightly understood how virginity is a part, and indeed the most perfect part, of chastity taken generally, and is not confused with it, a threefold chastity must be distinguished: conjugal, vidual, virginal. Conjugal chastity is that which in marriage moderately uses lawful pleasures. Vidual chastity is that which, after the death of a spouse or after virginity lost from some other source, thenceforth abstains from the appetite and use of venereal things by a firm purpose. Finally, virginal chastity is that which proposes perpetually to abstain from all carnal pleasures, both illicit and those lawful in marriage. St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 151, 153.

4. Note 3. Finally, that what has been said concerning the nature of virginity may be rightly understood, it must be known that some place the virginal cloister in women in a certain membrane, which is called the hymen and is situated at the entrance of the vagina, and this, having been torn by male intercourse or by another extraneous cause, is abolished; but others wish it to be nothing other than the compression or folding together of the orifice of the female vessel, which is dilated by the congress of a man or by another extraneous cause, and thus the vessel is opened. But although the hymen is commonly found in virgins, nevertheless its presence or absence is not indeed a certain sign of virginity; for several cases of virgins are cited who have lacked it. Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 3; Milne Edwards, Lecons sur la Physiologie, Paris 1870, tome 9, pag. 59, 65, 66; Debreyne, Moechialogie, l. P., ch. 1, art. 2, sect. 2; Longet, Physiologie, Paris 1850, t. 2, pag. 139; Ant., p. 113, 115 (Antonelli, Medicina Pastoralis, second edition, pag. 113, 114, 115).

5. Lust is one kind interior, another exterior. The former is the voluntary occupation of fantasy, intellect, and will through joy, morose delectation, or desire concerning a venereal thing for the sake of pleasure. The latter is the very use of venereal things for the sake of pleasure, and it is multiple in species; for one kind is in non-consummated acts, another in consummated acts, which differ in species from the former; and both this kind, which is in consummated acts, and that which is in non-consummated acts, is 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 effusion of prolific humor. Acts which do not reach this term are non-consummated acts, which properly are acts of sensuality and immodesty. - St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 151, a. 4; q. 154, a. 1, ad 5; q. 155, a. 2, 3, 4; L. 412.

We shall explain these various species of lust step by step here in various chapters and articles.

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.

“40. 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 venially sinful, when the danger of further consent and of pollution is excluded.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII, 18 March 1666. Cf. no. 82 and the following number.

“48. It seems so clear that fornication according to itself involves no malice, and is evil only because it is forbidden, that the contrary seems altogether discordant with reason.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“That a woman’s kiss, since nature does not incline toward this, is a mortal sin; but the carnal act, since nature inclines toward this, is not a sin, especially when the one performing it is tempted.” Condemned as an error by Clement, Ad nostrum, 3, On Heretics.

“25. He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: ‘I committed a grave sin against chastity with an unmarried woman,’ without explaining the intercourse.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

“50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the husband consenting, is not adultery; and therefore it is sufficient in confession to say that one has committed fornication.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“49. Masturbation is not prohibited by the law of nature. Hence, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI. Cf. the following number.

“24. Masturbation, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same lowest species; and therefore it is sufficient to say in confession that one procured pollution.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

Cf. no. 823

1101. 1. As to the negative part, by this precept there are prohibited: (a) adultery, which, besides the baseness which is common to it with other kinds of intemperance, also has joined to it a sin of injustice not only against the neighbor, but also against civil society; (b) every kind of impurity and immodesty, indeed every intimate lust of the soul, insofar as these dispose to adultery and disturb the order of generation divinely instituted.

2. As to the affirmative part, chastity is prescribed to each one, to be observed according to his state. For procuring this, these will be of the greatest help: (a) consideration of the baseness inhering in carnal sins, and of the injustice by which adultery is compounded, together with the infamy and manifold ruin which follow sins of this kind; (b) avoidance of idleness, excess in food and drink, immodest looking with the eyes, more elegant adornment, lascivious speech, and obscene books; (c) for suppressing the force of lust, confession and Communion should be employed, assiduous prayers joined with alms and fasting, vigils, pious pilgrimages, and other afflictions of this kind.

Concerning these things we have treated in the Treatise on Chastity and in the Supplement to the Treatise on Matrimony.

1104. By these precepts we are admonished that the law of God is of such a kind that it must be observed not only in external acts, but also in the intimate sense of the soul.

1. Here there is prohibited, not the very power of desiring, which may be used both for good and for evil, but only that lust of desiring which the Apostle calls the concupiscence of the flesh.¹⁶ Now this cupidity is condemned either because it seeks evil, as adulteries, or because the things sought are another's, such as house, field, wife, ox, ass, and many other things, which, by the very fact that they are another's, the divine law forbids one to covet.

¹⁶ Gal. 5:16, 24.

Above others, however, those labor under this vice of cupidity: (a) those who delight in dishonorable games, or who abuse games immoderately; (b) merchants who desire a shortage of goods and high prices of grain, and who take it ill that others besides themselves sell or buy, so that they themselves may sell more dearly or buy more cheaply; (c) those who desire others to be in need so that they themselves may gain by selling or buying; (d) physicians who desire diseases; (e) legal consultants who covet the force and abundance of causes and lawsuits, etc.

2. The affirmative part of the precept, especially of the tenth, consists in this, that if riches abound, we not set the heart on them, and be prepared to cast them away through zeal for piety and divine things, and gladly spend money in relieving the miseries of the poor; if means are lacking, that we bear poverty with an equal and cheerful soul. By this law likewise it is prescribed that with ardent zeal and the highest desire we choose that to be done, not which we covet, but which God wills, as is explained in the Lord's Prayer.

Concerning internal sins and desires we have treated above, n. 499-506.

These are, summarily set forth, the holy precepts of God, of which a richer explanation can be found both in the course of our moral Synopsis and in the reading and meditation of the third part of the Roman Catechism. Moreover, the Roman Catechism teaches us both the manner of proposing doctrine persuasively and clearly, and the considerations by which souls may be moved to observing the law of God, whether considered in general or in the individual precepts.

1. Argument of the volume. In this volume of our moral work, which borrows its special name from the virtue of chastity, in the first place we have proposed to hand down all those things which books or booklets on the Sixth and Ninth Precepts are wont to contain; yet rather briefly, since concerning these matters we have already spoken more fully in the special volume On Chastity and the Contrary Vices¹.

But the duties of chastity vary according to the condition of persons, who can be betrothed persons de futuro, spouses, and persons altogether celibate. And because, besides the duties of piety and charity, concerning which there is treatment in vol. II, On the Duties of the Virtues, the remaining duties which spouses owe to each other are rather intimately connected with chastity itself, we have judged it better to transfer the whole moral section on matrimony here. This advantage is added, that our volume III may thus be shown more to be principally canonico-liturgical.

¹ A doctrinal and moral treatise, second edition, XII-420 pp. 1921.

2. Disposition of the volume. This plan has led us to arrange the volume, which consists of one book only, so that, after an introduction concerning sexual matter has been premised, there would follow:

Treatise I, On the virtue itself of chastity and on the contrary vice;

Treatise II, On the duties and chastity of betrothed persons de futuro;

Treatise III, On the duties and chastity of spouses;

Treatise IV, On the chastity of the rest;

Treatise V, On connected modesty, on immodest acts, and on disguised lust.

May God grant, by the intercession of the Immaculate Mother of Christ, that this book may be for many not only a reminder of virtue and vice, but, most especially, a persuader to purity!

Titia, of a very nervous temperament, confessed that she had rather often suffered grave movements against chastity. When the confessor asked whether they were voluntary, Titia answered that she had by no means consented to evil pleasure, but nevertheless had given cause to those movements by reading slightly bad romantic books and by not restraining her eyes from looking at animals mating. The confessor doubts whether Titia sinned gravely, whether she is bound to declare the number and lowest species of those sins, and whether she is bound in the future to abstain from similar things under penalty of the denial of absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is lust, and in what does its malice consist?

Lust is an inordinate appetite for sexual things. Sexual things, however, are ordered to the generation of offspring, which must take place only in marriage. Hence every use of sexual things which takes place outside marriage, or in marriage but contrary to its laws, is inordinate and sinful.

2. Is smallness of matter found in sins of lust?

Lust directly sought or admitted is gravely unlawful and does not admit smallness of matter. Indirect lust, however, admits smallness of matter.

3. From what is the malice of sins which are voluntary only in their cause to be measured?

Sins which are voluntary only in their cause have the malice of that cause, for they are formally evil to the extent that they are voluntary, but by hypothesis they are voluntary only in their cause.

4. What is to be said of the case?

Titia rather often suffered grave movements against chastity from reading slightly bad romantic books and from looking at animals mating. She did not, however, consent to those movements, and it is supposed that Titia did not indulge in the reading and the sights in order to procure those evil movements for herself. The confessor doubted whether Titia had sinned gravely or not. It is not established that Titia sinned gravely, because the immodest movements were voluntary only in their cause, but the causes were only slightly bad; hence Titia sinned only lightly. Therefore she is not bound in confession to declare the number and lowest species, nor to abstain from similar things in the future under penalty of the denial of absolution. Nor did Titia expose herself to the proximate danger of sinning gravely, insofar as, although rather often tempted, she never fell gravely. Nevertheless, she is certainly to be exhorted, and is bound under pain of venial sin, to abstain from such actions, especially since in lust a light indulgence easily declines into grave excesses.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, nn. 37, 40, 822.

Caia, a girl sixteen years of age, is accustomed to read romantic books which, although they are not bad, are nevertheless very diffuse in describing love affairs. While she reads, evil thoughts and even impure carnal movements are accustomed to arise, but for the most part she does not consent to them, although she continues to read because other girls read such books and she wishes to pass the time. Once or twice, however, she consented to the pleasure arising from the evil movements, and once she sinned by touching herself immodestly; she afterward confessed these sins by saying that two or three times she had procured immodest pleasure for herself, without adding anything else. Hence it is asked:

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Is venial sin from smallness of matter to be admitted in sexual matters?

No, if sexual pleasure is directly sought or admitted, as was said above, p. 237.

2. Is anyone bound to avoid the cause of evil movements?

It is supposed that consent is not given to those movements. If the cause produces evil movements accidentally and is useful and not dishonorable in itself, then there is no obligation to avoid such a cause. But if it is a cause lightly dishonorable in the genus of lust, it is to be avoided under pain of venial sin; if it is gravely dishonorable in the same genus, it is to be avoided under pain of grave sin, unless there is a just and proportionate honorable reason for positing that cause.

3. Are immodest touches and looks distinguished in species from one another and from consummated acts of lust?

Those imperfect acts are certainly distinct from perfect and consummated acts, just as a building begun is distinguished from the same building completed. Whether those same imperfect acts are distinguished among themselves in the genus of lust is disputed. Several affirm it, because the objects of those acts are diverse and the acts themselves proceed from diverse faculties. Others, however, with St. Thomas, deny it, because those acts are not evil precisely in themselves, but by reason of the evil pleasure which arises from them. But the pleasure which arises from all those acts is the same. Hence the acts also, insofar as they are evil in the genus of lust, have the same specific malice.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Mor., vol. i, n. 783.

4. What is to be said of the case?

The reading in which Caia indulges is not bad, nor by hypothesis is it a proximate occasion of sin; hence, although it is accustomed to produce evil thoughts and evil movements in Caia, she is not strictly bound under sin to avoid it. Nevertheless, by way of counsel, indulgence in such reading should be sparing, since there are very many other books which are more useful and not liable to the same danger, and more suitable for cultivating the mind. Caia, however, at least probably satisfied the obligation by the manner in which she confessed the non-consummated sins of lust, according to what was said above.

Albert, a young Catholic, comes to confession and explains that he is betrothed to Bertha, likewise a Catholic. He visits her often and not rarely then sins by evil thoughts and desires; indeed, three or four times a week he has been accustomed to walk alone with her alone, when, he confesses, it has happened that he kissed her, embraced her, and sometimes touched her shamefully. When the confessor questions him further, he explains that these things have happened in almost the same way for a year. The confessor is placed in the greatest distress about what, finally, is to be done, whether he ought to prohibit the visits themselves, or whether it suffices to give some counsel. Hence it is asked:

1. Is lightness of matter to be admitted in sins of lust?

2. With respect to the unlawfulness of actions, does the same rule apply to those betrothed for future marriage as to unmarried persons in matters of lust?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. See the answer to this question above, p. 237.

2. With respect to the unlawfulness of actions in the matter of lust, does the same rule apply to those betrothed for future marriage as to unmarried persons?

Those betrothed for future marriage, insofar as they are not yet joined in marriage, have no right to sexual pleasure, and therefore they must abstain from it and from those acts which are proximate occasions of sexual pleasure, just as unmarried persons must abstain from the same things.

Nevertheless, they are on the way to marriage, which condition gives a right to honorable means by which mutual love is fostered and manifested. Hence visits, conversations, letters, as well as kisses according to the honorable custom of the place, and other signs of mutual love, are permitted to those betrothed for future marriage. If those signs in a particular case are proximate occasions of sin, an effort must be made that, with remedies applied, they become remote, and that the marriage be entered into as soon as possible.

3. What is to be said of the case?

Albert is accustomed to sin by thoughts and desires when he visits his betrothed, Bertha. Three or four times a week he is accustomed to walk alone with her alone, and then to kiss her, embrace her, and sometimes touch her shamefully. These things occurred for almost a year.

The confessor must first urge the penitent that the marriage be entered into as soon as possible. In the meantime, there must be abstention from acts wholly unlawful, such as immodest touches, evil thoughts, and desires. The confessor cannot forbid visits and conversations. Walks of the man alone with the woman alone, provided they take place on public ways or with a female companion of Bertha added, could be tolerated because of custom and because of the almost insuperable difficulty of breaking them off. Albert is to be admonished to treat Bertha, his betrothed, with reverence if he wishes to find the same woman faithful as a wife.