Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 224 (1/2)
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 friends.h.i.+p, 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 friends.h.i.+p require, so that they may live together in a useful and becoming amity; nor should one man have many relations.h.i.+ps 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 wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d, becomes an act of religion, as in the case of those who vow and keep chast.i.ty.