Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 224

Reply Obj. 1: If a married man has intercourse with another woman, his sin may be denominated either with regard to him, and thus it is always adultery, since his action is contrary to the fidelity of marriage, or with regard to the woman with whom he has intercourse; and thus sometimes it is adultery, as when a married man has intercourse with another's wife; and sometimes it has the character of seduction, or of some other sin, according to various conditions affecting the woman with whom he has intercourse: and it has been stated above (A. 1) that the species of l.u.s.t correspond to the various conditions of women.

Reply Obj. 2: Matrimony is specially ordained for the good of human offspring, as stated above (A. 2). But adultery is specially opposed to matrimony, in the point of breaking the marriage faith which is due between husband and wife. And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.

Reply Obj. 3: The wife is under her husband's authority, as united to him in marriage: whereas the maid is under her father's authority, as one who is to be married by that authority. Hence the sin of adultery is contrary to the good of marriage in one way, and the sin of seduction in another; wherefore they are reckoned to differ specifically. Of other matters concerning adultery we shall speak in the Third Part [* Cf. Suppl., Q. 59, A. 3; QQ. 60, 62], when we treat of matrimony.

_______________________

NINTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 9]

Whether Incest Is a Determinate Species of l.u.s.t?

Objection 1: It would seem that incest is not a determinate species of l.u.s.t. For incest [* _Incestus_ is equivalent to _in-castus_ = "unchaste"] takes its name from being a privation of chast.i.ty. But all kinds of l.u.s.t are opposed to chast.i.ty. Therefore it seems that incest is not a species of l.u.s.t, but is l.u.s.t itself in general.

Obj. 2: Further, it is stated in the Decretals (x.x.xVI, qu. 1 [*Cf.

Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa]) that "incest is intercourse between a man and a woman related by consanguinity or affinity." Now affinity differs from consanguinity. Therefore it is not one but several species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 3: Further, that which does not, of itself, imply a deformity, does not const.i.tute a determinate species of vice. But intercourse between those who are related by consanguinity or affinity does not, of itself, contain any deformity, else it would never have been lawful. Therefore incest is not a determinate species of l.u.s.t.

_On the contrary,_ The species of l.u.s.t are distinguished according to the various conditions of women with whom a man has unlawful intercourse. Now incest implies a special condition on the part of the woman, because it is unlawful intercourse with a woman related by consanguinity or affinity as stated (Obj. 2). Therefore incest is a determinate species of l.u.s.t.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 1, 6) wherever we find something incompatible with the right use of venereal actions, there must needs be a determinate species of l.u.s.t. Now s.e.xual intercourse with women related by consanguinity or affinity is unbecoming to venereal union on three counts. First, because man naturally owes a certain respect to his parents and therefore to his other blood relations, who are descended in near degree from the same parents: so much so indeed that among the ancients, as Valerius Maximus relates [*Dict. Fact. Memor. ii, 1], it was not deemed right for a son to bathe with his father, lest they should see one another naked. Now from what has been said (Q. 142, A. 4; Q. 151, A. 4), it is evident that in venereal acts there is a certain shamefulness inconsistent with respect, wherefore men are ashamed of them. Wherefore it is unseemly that such persons should be united in venereal intercourse.

This reason seems to be indicated (Lev. 18:7) where we read: "She is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness," and the same is expressed further on with regard to others.

The second reason is because blood relations must needs live in close touch with one another. Wherefore if they were not debarred from venereal union, opportunities of venereal intercourse would be very frequent and thus men's minds would be enervated by l.u.s.t. Hence in the Old Law [*Lev. 18] the prohibition was apparently directed specially to those persons who must needs live together.

The third reason is, because this would hinder a man from having many friends: since through a man taking a stranger to wife, all his wife's relations are united to him by a special kind of friendship, as though they were of the same blood as himself. Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16): "The demands of charity are most perfectly satisfied by men uniting together in the bonds that the various ties of friendship require, so that they may live together in a useful and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relationships in one, but each should have one."

Aristotle adds another reason (2 Polit. ii): for since it is natural that a man should have a liking for a woman of his kindred, if to this be added the love that has its origin in venereal intercourse, his love would be too ardent and would become a very great incentive to l.u.s.t: and this is contrary to chast.i.ty. Hence it is evident that incest is a determinate species of l.u.s.t.

Reply Obj. 1: Unlawful intercourse between persons related to one another would be most prejudicial to chast.i.ty, both on account of the opportunities it affords, and because of the excessive ardor of love, as stated in the Article. Wherefore the unlawful intercourse between such persons is called "incest" antonomastically.

Reply Obj. 2: Persons are related by affinity through one who is related by consanguinity: and therefore since the one depends on the other, consanguinity and affinity entail the same kind of unbecomingness.

Reply Obj. 3: There is something essentially unbecoming and contrary to natural reason in s.e.xual intercourse between persons related by blood, for instance between parents and children who are directly and immediately related to one another, since children naturally owe their parents honor. Hence the Philosopher instances a horse (De Animal. ix, 47) which covered its own mother by mistake and threw itself over a precipice as though horrified at what it had done, because some animals even have a natural respect for those that have begotten them. There is not the same essential unbecomingness attaching to other persons who are related to one another not directly but through their parents: and, as to this, becomingness or unbecomingness varies according to custom, and human or Divine law: because, as stated above (A. 2), s.e.xual intercourse, being directed to the common good, is subject to law. Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16), whereas the union of brothers and sisters goes back to olden times, it became all the more worthy of condemnation when religion forbade it.

_______________________

TENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1]

Whether Sacrilege Can Be a Species of l.u.s.t?

Objection 1: It would seem that sacrilege cannot be a species of l.u.s.t. For the same species is not contained under different genera that are not subalternated to one another. Now sacrilege is a species of irreligion, as stated above (Q. 99, A. 2). Therefore sacrilege cannot be reckoned a species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 2: Further, the Decretals (x.x.xVI, qu. 1 [*Append. Grat. ad can.

Lex illa]), do not place sacrilege among other sins which are reckoned species of l.u.s.t. Therefore it would seem not to be a species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 3: Further, something derogatory to a sacred thing may be done by the other kinds of vice, as well as by l.u.s.t. But sacrilege is not reckoned a species of gluttony, or of any other similar vice.

Therefore neither should it be reckoned a species of l.u.s.t.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv, 16) that "if it is wicked, through covetousness, to go beyond one's earthly bounds, how much more wicked is it through venereal l.u.s.t to transgress the bounds of morals!" Now to go beyond one's earthly bounds in sacred matters is a sin of sacrilege. Therefore it is likewise a sin of sacrilege to overthrow the bounds of morals through venereal desire in sacred matters. But venereal desire pertains to l.u.s.t. Therefore sacrilege is a species of l.u.s.t.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (I-II, Q. 18, AA. 6, 7), the act of a virtue or vice, that is directed to the end of another virtue or vice, a.s.sumes the latter's species: thus, theft committed for the sake of adultery, pa.s.ses into the species of adultery. Now it is evident that as Augustine states (De Virgin. 8), the observance of chast.i.ty, by being directed to the worship of G.o.d, becomes an act of religion, as in the case of those who vow and keep chast.i.ty.

Wherefore it is manifest that l.u.s.t also, by violating something pertaining to the worship of G.o.d, belongs to the species of sacrilege: and in this way sacrilege may be accounted a species of l.u.s.t.

Reply Obj. 1: l.u.s.t, by being directed to another vice as its end, becomes a species of that vice: and so a species of l.u.s.t may be also a species of irreligion, as of a higher genus.

Reply Obj. 2: The enumeration referred to, includes those sins which are species of l.u.s.t by their very nature: whereas sacrilege is a species of l.u.s.t in so far as it is directed to another vice as its end, and may coincide with the various species of l.u.s.t. For unlawful intercourse between persons mutually united by spiritual relationship, is a sacrilege after the manner of incest. Intercourse with a virgin consecrated to G.o.d, inasmuch as she is the spouse of Christ, is sacrilege resembling adultery. If the maiden be under her father's authority, it will be spiritual seduction; and if force be employed it will be spiritual rape, which kind of rape even the civil law punishes more severely than others. Thus the Emperor Justinian says [*Cod. i, iii de Episc. et Cler. 5]: "If any man dare, I will not say to rape, but even to tempt a consecrated virgin with a view to marriage, he shall be liable to capital punishment."

Reply Obj. 3: Sacrilege is committed on a consecrated thing. Now a consecrated thing is either a consecrated person, who is desired for s.e.xual intercourse, and thus it is a kind of l.u.s.t, or it is desired for possession, and thus it is a kind of injustice. Sacrilege may also come under the head of anger, for instance, if through anger an injury be done to a consecrated person. Again, one may commit a sacrilege by partaking gluttonously of sacred food. Nevertheless, sacrilege is ascribed more specially to l.u.s.t which is opposed to chast.i.ty for the observance of which certain persons are specially consecrated.

_______________________

ELEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 11]

Whether the Unnatural Vice Is a Species of l.u.s.t?

Objection 1: It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species of l.u.s.t. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the enumeration given above (A. 1, Obj. 1). Therefore it is not a species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 2: Further, l.u.s.t is contrary to virtue; and so it is comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under vice, but under b.e.s.t.i.a.lity, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. vii, 5).

Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 3: Further, l.u.s.t regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (Q. 153, A. 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of l.u.s.t.

_On the contrary,_ It is reckoned together with the other species of l.u.s.t (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural l.u.s.t."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 6, 9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of l.u.s.t. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all l.u.s.tful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "b.e.s.t.i.a.lity." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue s.e.x, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and b.e.s.t.i.a.l manners of copulation.

Reply Obj. 1: There we enumerated the species of l.u.s.t that are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was omitted.

Reply Obj. 2: b.e.s.t.i.a.lity differs from vice, for the latter is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.

Reply Obj. 3: The l.u.s.tful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

_______________________

TWELFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 12]

Whether the Unnatural Vice Is the Greatest Sin Among the Species of l.u.s.t?

Objection 1: It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of l.u.s.t. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of l.u.s.t.

Obj. 2: Further, sins committed against G.o.d would seem to be the most grievous. Now sacrilege is committed directly against G.o.d, since it is injurious to the Divine worship. Therefore sacrilege is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Obj. 3: Further, seemingly, a sin is all the more grievous according as we owe a greater love to the person against whom that sin is committed. Now the order of charity requires that a man love more those persons who are united to him--and such are those whom he defiles by incest--than persons who are not connected with him, and whom in certain cases he defiles by the unnatural vice. Therefore incest is a graver sin than the unnatural vice.

Obj. 4: Further, if the unnatural vice is most grievous, the more it is against nature the graver it would seem to be. Now the sin of uncleanness or effeminacy would seem to be most contrary to nature, since it would seem especially in accord with nature that agent and patient should be distinct from one another. Hence it would follow that uncleanness is the gravest of unnatural vices. But this is not true. Therefore unnatural vices are not the most grievous among sins of l.u.s.t.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [*The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii x.x.xii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that "of all these," namely the sins belonging to l.u.s.t, "that which is against nature is the worst."

_I answer that,_ In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (A. 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of l.u.s.t they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of l.u.s.t. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (A.

10, ad 2).