Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. vi, 5), intemperance is the chief corruptive of prudence: wherefore the vices opposed to prudence arise chiefly from l.u.s.t, which is the princ.i.p.al species of intemperance.
Reply Obj. 2: The constancy which is a part of fort.i.tude regards hardships and objects of fear; but constancy in refraining from pleasures pertains to continence which is a part of temperance, as stated above (Q. 143). Hence the inconstancy which is opposed thereto is to be reckoned a daughter of l.u.s.t. Nevertheless even the first named inconstancy arises from l.u.s.t, inasmuch as the latter enfeebles a man"s heart and renders it effeminate, according to Osee 4:11, "Fornication and wine and drunkenness take away the heart [Douay: "understanding"]." Vegetius, too, says (De Re Milit. iii) that "the less a man knows of the pleasures of life, the less he fears death."
Nor is there any need, as we have repeatedly stated, for the daughters of a capital vice to agree with it in matter (cf. Q. 35, A.
4, ad 2; Q. 118, A. 8, ad 1; Q. 148, A. 6).
Reply Obj. 3: Self-love in respect of any goods that a man desires for himself is the common origin of all sins; but in the special point of desiring carnal pleasures for oneself, it is reckoned a daughter of l.u.s.t.
Reply Obj. 4: The sins mentioned by Isidore are inordinate external acts, pertaining in the main to speech; wherein there is a fourfold inordinateness. First, on account of the matter, and to this we refer "obscene words": for since "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" (Matt. 12:34), the l.u.s.tful man, whose heart is full of lewd concupiscences, readily breaks out into lewd words. Secondly, on account of the cause: for, since l.u.s.t causes thoughtlessness and rashness, the result is that it makes a man speak without weighing or giving a thought to his words, which are described as "scurrilous."
Thirdly, on account of the end: for since the l.u.s.tful man seeks pleasure, he directs his speech thereto, and so gives utterance to "wanton words." Fourthly, on account of the sentiments expressed by his words, for through causing blindness of mind, l.u.s.t perverts a man"s sentiments, and so he gives way "to foolish talking," for instance, by expressing a preference for the pleasures he desires to anything else.
_______________________
QUESTION 154
OF THE PARTS OF l.u.s.t (In Twelve Articles)
We must now consider the parts of l.u.s.t, under which head there are twelve points of inquiry:
(1) Into what parts is l.u.s.t divided?
(2) Whether simple fornication is a mortal sin?
(3) Whether it is the greatest of sins?
(4) Whether there is mortal sin in touches, kisses and such like seduction?
(5) Whether nocturnal pollution is a mortal sin?
(6) Of seduction;
(7) Of rape;
(8) Of adultery;
(9) Of incest;
(10) Of sacrilege;
(11) Of the sin against nature;
(12) Of the order of gravity in the aforesaid sins.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1]
Whether Six Species Are Fittingly a.s.signed to l.u.s.t?
Objection 1: It would seem that six species are unfittingly a.s.signed to l.u.s.t, namely, "simple fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, and the unnatural vice." For diversity of matter does not diversify the species. Now the aforesaid division is made with regard to diversity of matter, according as the woman with whom a man has intercourse is married or a virgin, or of some other condition.
Therefore it seems that the species of l.u.s.t are diversified in this way.
Obj. 2: Further, seemingly the species of one vice are not differentiated by things that belong to another vice. Now adultery does not differ from simple fornication, save in the point of a man having intercourse with one who is another"s, so that he commits an injustice. Therefore it seems that adultery should not be reckoned a species of l.u.s.t.
Obj. 3: Further, just as a man may happen to have intercourse with a woman who is bound to another man by marriage, so may it happen that a man has intercourse with a woman who is bound to G.o.d by vow.
Therefore sacrilege should be reckoned a species of l.u.s.t, even as adultery is.
Obj. 4: Further, a married man sins not only if he be with another woman, but also if he use his own wife inordinately. But the latter sin is comprised under l.u.s.t. Therefore it should be reckoned among the species thereof.
Obj. 5: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 12:21): "Lest again, when I come, G.o.d humble me among you, and I mourn many of them that sinned before, and have not done penance for the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness that they have committed." Therefore it seems that also uncleanness and lasciviousness should be reckoned species of l.u.s.t, as well as fornication.
Obj. 6: Further, the thing divided is not to be reckoned among its parts. But l.u.s.t is reckoned together with the aforesaid: for it is written (Gal. 5:19): "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, l.u.s.t [Douay: "luxury"]."
Therefore it seems that fornication is unfittingly reckoned a species of l.u.s.t.
_On the contrary,_ The aforesaid division is given in the Decretals 36, qu. i [*Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa].
_I answer that,_ As stated above (Q. 153, A. 3), the sin of l.u.s.t consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason. This may happen in two ways. First, in respect of the matter wherein this pleasure is sought; secondly, when, whereas there is due matter, other due circ.u.mstances are not observed. And since a circ.u.mstance, as such, does not specify a moral act, whose species is derived from its object which is also its matter, it follows that the species of l.u.s.t must be a.s.signed with respect to its matter or object.
Now this same matter may be discordant with right reason in two ways.
First, because it is inconsistent with the end of the venereal act.
In this way, as hindering the begetting of children, there is the _vice against nature,_ which attaches to every venereal act from which generation cannot follow; and, as hindering the due upbringing and advancement of the child when born, there is _simple fornication,_ which is the union of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman. Secondly, the matter wherein the venereal act is consummated may be discordant with right reason in relation to other persons; and this in two ways. First, with regard to the woman, with whom a man has connection, by reason of due honor not being paid to her; and thus there is _incest,_ which consists in the misuse of a woman who is related by consanguinity or affinity. Secondly, with regard to the person under whose authority the woman is placed: and if she be under the authority of a husband, it is _adultery,_ if under the authority of her father, it is _seduction,_ in the absence of violence, and _rape_ if violence be employed.
These species are differentiated on the part of the woman rather than of the man, because in the venereal act the woman is pa.s.sive and is by way of matter, whereas the man is by way of agent; and it has been stated above (Obj. 1) that the aforesaid species are a.s.signed with regard to a difference of matter.
Reply Obj. 1: The aforesaid diversity of matter is connected with a formal difference of object, which difference results from different modes of opposition to right reason, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 2: As stated above (I-II, Q. 18, A. 7), nothing hinders the deformities of different vices concurring in the one act, and in this way adultery is comprised under l.u.s.t and injustice. Nor is this deformity of injustice altogether accidental to l.u.s.t: since the l.u.s.t that obeys concupiscence so far as to lead to injustice, is thereby shown to be more grievous.
Reply Obj. 3: Since a woman, by vowing continence, contracts a spiritual marriage with G.o.d, the sacrilege that is committed in the violation of such a woman is a spiritual adultery. In like manner, the other kinds of sacrilege pertaining to l.u.s.tful matter are reduced to other species of l.u.s.t.
Reply Obj. 4: The sin of a husband with his wife is not connected with undue matter, but with other circ.u.mstances, which do not const.i.tute the species of a moral act, as stated above (I-II, Q. 18, A. 2).
Reply Obj. 5: As a gloss says on this pa.s.sage, "uncleanness" stands for l.u.s.t against nature, while "lasciviousness" is a man"s abuse of boys, wherefore it would appear to pertain to seduction. We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts circ.u.mstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses, touches, and so forth.
Reply Obj. 6: According to a gloss on this pa.s.sage "l.u.s.t" there signifies any kind of excess.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 154, Art. 2]
Whether Simple Fornication Is a Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that simple fornication is not a mortal sin. For things that come under the same head would seem to be on a par with one another. Now fornication comes under the same head as things that are not mortal sins: for it is written (Acts 15:29): "That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." But there is not mortal sin in these observances, according to 1 Tim. 4:4, "Nothing is rejected that is received with thanksgiving." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.
Obj. 2: Further, no mortal sin is the matter of a Divine precept. But the Lord commanded (Osee 1:2): "Go take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications." Therefore fornication is not a mortal sin.
Obj. 3: Further, no mortal sin is mentioned in Holy Writ without disapprobation. Yet simple fornication is mentioned without disapprobation by Holy Writ in connection with the patriarchs. Thus we read (Gen. 16:4) that Abraham went in to his handmaid Agar; and further on (Gen. 30:5, 9) that Jacob went in to Bala and Zelpha the handmaids of his wives; and again (Gen. 38:18) that Juda was with Thamar whom he thought to be a harlot. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.
Obj. 4: Further, every mortal sin is contrary to charity. But simple fornication is not contrary to charity, neither as regards the love of G.o.d, since it is not a sin directly against G.o.d, nor as regards the love of our neighbor, since thereby no one is injured. Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.
Obj. 5: Further, every mortal sin leads to eternal perdition. But simple fornication has not this result: because a gloss of Ambrose [*The quotation is from the Gloss of Peter Lombard, who refers it to St. Ambrose: whereas it is from Hilary the deacon] on 1 Tim. 4:8, "G.o.dliness is profitable to all things," says: "The whole of Christian teaching is summed up in mercy and G.o.dliness: if a man conforms to this, even though he gives way to the inconstancy of the flesh, doubtless he will be punished, but he will not perish."
Therefore simple fornication is not a mortal sin.