(d) Touches.--Kisses are seriously dange_Moral theology

lingeringly exchanged between adults of different sex who are attracted

to one another as male and female; in other cases, kisses, if impressed

on decent parts of the body and in a decent manner, may be only

slightly dangerous. Holding or grasping between such adults is also a

serious danger when it is vehement (e.g., the tight squeeze or hug of

certain dances) or long (e.g., the repeated or hour-long fondling of

love-makers); it is of slight or no danger in other cases, as in the

customary handclasp of greeting, Handling or feeling, if passing,

hurried or light, is generally not dangerous, when it has to do with

the becoming parts of another person, or with the less becoming parts

of a person of the same sex, or with personal private parts; it is only

slightly dangerous, under the same conditions, in reference to the

verenda of animals or small infants; it is gravely dangerous when

directed to the privates of another person who has passed infancy, or

to the less becoming parts of a person of opposite sex, or to the

breasts of a woman, unless it be entirely casual, passing, or light.

Tactile contact made under the clothing is of course more dangerous

than that which is external.

2519. The Moral Species of Lewdness.--(a) Theoretically, it is more

probable that the imperfect sins of impurity do not differ from the

perfect sins to which they tend; for the natural circumstances or

antecedents of an act have really the same morality as the act itself

(see 2486). In the physical order, the fetus, the infant, and the child

do not differ essentially from the full-grown man; and likewise, in the

moral order, the thought, the purpose and the external beginning do not

differ essentially from completed murder, even though for some reason

the act be not finished. Hence, immodest words, reading, looks and

touches belong to fornication, or adultery, or incest, or sodomy,

according to their tendency (e.g., to read an immodest love story with

another man’s wife and to kiss her is incipient adultery, and, if the

guilty person has a vow of chastity, it is also sacrilege). But the

species is taken only from the object, not from the purely accidental

circumstances, such as the elicitive faculty (e.g., an immodest look at

another does not differ essentially from an immodest touch) or the

intensity (e.g., incomplete pleasure in touches by one who has not

attained puberty does not differ essentially, according to some, from

the completed pleasure of which he is capable). Moreover, it seems

that, in regard to looks if not as regards touch, abstraction (see

2506) is easily made by the guilty person from various circumstances;

for example, one who looks immodestly on a person consecrated to God,

may be thinking only of his unlawful love for a person of the other

sex, and so may be guilty of incipient fornication, but not of

sacrilege, or he may be thinking, without any affection for the other

person, only of his own pleasure, and so may perhaps be guilty only of

incipient pollution. A less probable opinion makes lewdness a species

of sin distinct from pollution and the other consummated sins.

(b) Practically, penitents should confess that their sin was indecent

and not completed lust (such as pollution), and they should also

confess whether the lewdness was committed by speech, reading, looks,

kisses, embraces, or touches; and also the object of the sin, whether

male or female, whether married or single, relative or non-relative,

etc. Otherwise, since few penitents know how to distinguish the moral

species of sins, there will be great danger of incomplete confessions;

and, moreover, the additional sins usually committed in cases of

lewdness (e.g., scandals, injustices, and bad company keeping) will not

be disclosed. If a consummated sin of fornication, pollution, etc.,

followed the indecency, this consummated sin should be confessed

distinctly. Similarly, those who expose, incite or tempt others to

impure thoughts or to lewdness in word, reading, looks, kisses or

touches, should confess the kind of sin they intended (see 1497), even

though their purpose failed, whether it was incipient fornication,

sacrilege, sodomy, etc. But some authors admit a generic confession (in

which the penitent merely states that he sinned mortally or venially,

as the case was, by indecency), if the lewdness was solitary, or was

committed with another but certainly without scandal or lustful desire

of the other person.

2520. The Consummated Sins of Impurity.--There are in all seven species

of completed acts of impurity. (a) Thus, some sins of impurity are

against reason because they do not observe the ends of sexual

intercourse. These ends are, first, the begetting of children (to which

is opposed unnatural impurity), and, secondly, the rearing of children

(to which is opposed fornication).

(b) Other sins of impurity are against reason because they violate a

right of the person with whom intercourse is had (incest), or of a

third party to whom that person belongs. If the third party is injured

in conjugal rights, there is adultery; if in parental rights, there is

defloration or rape, according as the injury is done without or with

force; if in religious rights, there is sacrilege. This second category

of sins is classed under impurity rather than under injustice, because

the purpose of the guilty person and his act belong to venereal sin.

2521. Comparative Malice of the Sins of Consummated Lust.--(a) In the

abuse of an act, the worst evil is the disregard of what nature itself

determines as the fundamentals upon which all else depends, just as in

speculative matters the worst error is that which goes astray about

first principles. Now, the prime dictates of nature as to sexual

intercourse are that it serve the race and the family. Hence, the sin

of unnatural lust (which injures the race by defeating its propagation)

and the sin of incest (which injures the family by offending piety) are

the worst of carnal vices.

(b) In the abuse of an act a lesser evil is that which observes the

natural fundamentals, but disregards what right reason teaches about

things secondary, in the manner of performing the act. But reason

requires that in sexual intercourse the rights of the individual be

respected. A most serious violation of individual right is adultery,

which usurps the right of intercourse belonging to another; next in

gravity is rape, which violently seizes for lust a person under the

care of another or undefiled; next is defloration, which trespasses on

the right of guardianship, or removes bodily virginity, but without

violence; last among these sins is fornication, which is an injury done

not to the living, but to the unborn.

2522. Multiplication of Sins of Lust.--The various kinds of lust may be

combined in one and the same act, as when unnatural vice (e.g., sodomy)

is practised with a relative (incest). Sacrilege, of course, aggravates

every other kind of carnal sin, and thus there is sacrilegious sodomy,

sacrilegious adultery, sacrilegious incest, etc.

2523. Fornication.--Fornication is the copulation of an unmarried man

with an unmarried woman who is not a virgin.

(a) It is copulation, or sexual intercourse suited for generation of

children. Thus, it differs from lewdness, which consists in

unconsummated acts, and from sodomitic intercourse, which is

consummated but unsuited for generation. Onanism is an aggravating

circumstance of fornication, or rather a new sin of unnatural

intercourse. (b) It is committed by unmarried persons, and thus it

differs from adultery. (c) It is committed with a woman, and is thus

distinguished from sodomy. (d) It is committed with a woman who is not

a virgin, and thus differs from defloration.

2524. Sinfulness of Fornication.--It is of faith that fornication is a

mortal sin.

(a) Thus, it is gravely forbidden by the divine positive law. Hence,

whores and whoremongers are an abomination to the Lord (Deut., xxiii.

17); fornicators are worthy of death (Rom., i. 29-32), they shall not

enter the kingdom of God (Gal., V. 19-21; Eph., v. 5; Heb., xiii. 4;

Apoc., xxi. 8). The Fathers teach that fornication is a grave crime

(St. Fulgentius), and that it brings condemnation on the guilty person

(St. Chrysostom). The declarations of the Church on the evil of this

sin are found in the Council of Vienne and in the censures of Alexander

VII and Innocent XI (Denzinger, nn. 477, 1125, 1198).

(b) Fornication is gravely forbidden by the natural law. For it is

seriously against reason to cause an injury to the entire life of

another human being; but fornication does this very thing by depriving

the unborn child of its natural rights to legitimacy, to the protection

of both parents, and to education in the home circle. True, in some

cases there may be no prospect of a child, or there may be provision

for its proper rearing; but these cases are the exception, since

fornication from its nature tends to the neglect of the child, and the

morality of acts must be judged, not by the exceptional and accidental,

but by the usual and natural. Those who commit fornication are thinking

of their own pleasure rather than of duty, and will generally shirk the

difficult burdens of parenthood. Society also would be gravely wounded

if unmarried intercourse were at any time lawful. Hence, St. Paul

reproves the pagans, though ignorant of Scripture, for their sins of

fornication (I Cor., vi. 9-11; Eph., v. 1-6), since reason itself

should have taught them the unlawfulness of this practice. It seems,

though, that invincible ignorance of the wrong of fornication is

possible among very rude or barbarous people, since the injury to the

neighbor does not show itself so clearly in this sin as in many others.

2525. Fornication Compared with Other Sins.--(a) It is less serious

than those that offend a divine good (e.g., unbelief, despair, hatred

of God, irreligion), or human life (e.g., abortion), or the human goods

of those already in being (e.g., adultery). (b) It is more serious than

sins that offend only an external good (e.g., theft), or that are

opposed only to decency in the marriage state (e.g., unbecoming kisses

of husband and wife).

2526. Circumstances of Fornication.--(a) Circumstances that aggravate

the malice are the condition of the person with whom the sin is

committed (e.g., that the female is a widow, or the employee of the

man, or his ward, or a minor).

(b) Circumstances that add a new malice to fornication are of various

kinds. Thus, previous circumstances are the distinct desires of the sin

entertained beforehand, the solicitation and scandal of the other party

or parties with whom the sin was committed; concomitant circumstances

are the quality of the persons (e.g., fornication is sacrilegious if

one of the parties is consecrated to God, and also, according to some,

if one party is a Christian and the other an infidel; it is unjust if

one of the couple is betrothed to a third party), or the quality of the

act itself (e.g., if it is performed onanistically, though pollution

may be excused if it results accidentally from the good purpose to

discontinue the sinful act); subsequent circumstances are injury done

to the partner in sin (e.g., by refusal to pay the support or

restitution due) or to the offspring (e.g., by exposure, abortion,

neglect).

Whether the fornication of an engaged person with a third party is a

distinct species of sin is disputed. (a) According to some, it is a

distinct species, or at least a form of adultery on account of the

infidelity. (b) According to others, it is a distinct species if the

guilty party is the woman, but not if it is the man, for the infidelity

of the former is a far more serious matter than the infidelity of the

latter. (c) According to still others, it is never a distinct species,

since engagement to marry is a dissoluble agreement and the injury to

the contract is therefore not a notable one. In this last opinion the

manner of the sin is an aggravating circumstance, not a distinct

species that has to be declared in confession.

2527. Forms of Fornication.--There are three special forms of

fornication, which are all the same essentially, but which differ

accidentally in malice or in results.

(a) Thus, ordinary fornication is that which is committed with a woman

who is neither a harlot nor a concubine. This sin is in itself the

least grave of the three, since it is not so harmful as whoremongering,

nor so enduring as concubinage. Ordinary fornication also has its

degrees of bad and worse: thus, engaged persons who sin together

habitually are worse than those who sin only occasionally, and

circumstances such as artificial onanism and abortion add to the guilt.

(b) Whoremongering is fornication committed with a harlot, that is,

with a woman who makes a business of illicit intercourse and hires

herself out for pay to all comers. Rarely does a harlot choose her life

from passion or love, but is dragged in by white slavers, or enters

from poverty, or after disgrace, or the like. This sin is worse than

ordinary fornication from the viewpoint of propagation, since few

harlots become mothers. But its most dire consequences are visited on

the guilty persons themselves and on society: for the life of a

prostitute is a most degrading slavery; to her patrons she communicates

the most terrible diseases, which are then carried to innocent wives

and children, and to the innocent she often becomes a cause of ruin,

seeking her trade in the streets and public places. Today, according to

reliable newspaper reports, many men and women have become rich in the

terrible business known as the white-slave traffic. This horrible abuse

has grown into a vast international machine which is efficiently

organized, and which profits not only from prostitution, but from many

other kinds of crime. The patrons of brothels, therefore, cooperate

with the crying injustice that is often done the fallen woman, and with

the criminals who destroy souls and bodies for their own advantage.

with a woman who is not a public harlot but who has contracted with one

man for habitual sexual intercourse as if they were man and wife.

According to reports, this is quite common in Europe, where lawful

marriage is very often preceded by free unions. The trial marriage

advocated by some in this country, in which paramours agree to live

together as husband and wife for a certain term of years or at

pleasure, also falls under the category of concubinage. This sin is

worse than mere whoremongering in one respect, namely, that it includes

the purpose to continue in the state of sin, at least for a certain

length of time. Moreover, there is often the public scandal and

contempt for public opinion which other kinds of fornication may be

free from. One who practises concubinage is living in a proximate

occasion of sin, and hence he cannot be absolved unless he dismisses

the concubine, if they cohabit, or agrees to keep away from her, if

they do not cohabit.

2528. The State and Places of Prostitution.--It is clear that civil

government has no right to support or provide places of prostitution,

or to give permission for its practice, since fornication is

intrinsically evil. But what should be said of toleration or license

given to prostitutes by the public authority?

(a) Theoretically, the civil power has the right to give toleration or

license; for, if the common welfare will suffer from a greater evil

unless a lesser evil is suffered to go on, the lesser evil should be

endured, and it is certain that there are greater evils than

prostitution (such as rape and unnatural crimes of lust).

(b) Practically, the question is open to dispute. Older moralists held

that toleration was actually more beneficial to the common good than

suppression. But under the conditions of the present time many

moralists think it is a mistake to give any recognition to prostitutes,

and much less to houses of prostitution. Even in large cities, where

alone the license could be beneficial, the purposes of toleration are

not fulfilled; for the moral evil seems to be greater, since an

appearance of legality is given to prostitution, its practice is

facilitated, its habitats become dens of every kind of iniquity, and

the purpose of segregation is not realized; the physical evils also are

not lessened, but perhaps increased, for even with medical inspection

of prostitutes, syphilis and gonorrhea cannot be prevented.

2529. Defloration and Rape.--Defloration and rape are distinct species

of lust, for each of them in its very concept includes a special and

notable deformity not found in other species of impurity.

(a) Defloration is unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman who is virginal

in body (1488 a). It has the special deformity of depriving the woman

of the physical integrity that is most highly prized among all the

unmarried of her sex, or at least of her own self-respect, and of

setting her on the way to become a strumpet rather than an honorable

wife or spinster. Some authors do not consider defloration a special

sin unless it is done by violence, or unless injury is done the

parental right over the virgin; and even the authors who consider

unforced defloration a special sin hold that the new or additional

malice in it is slight and venial, and therefore not a necessary matter

of confession. The first sin of fornication by a male is not a special

sin, because the consequences are not so serious for the man as for the

woman, but of course seduction is always a special sin, whether the

injured party be male or female.

(b) Rape is physical or moral coercion (i.e., force or fear) employed

against any person (male or female, married or single, pure or

corrupt), or against his or her guardians, to compel him or her to an

act of lust. It has the special deformity of inflicting bodily injury

on the person ravished. The sin of rape should not be confused with the

canonical crime of rape, which consists in abduction, and which is an

impediment to marriage (Canon 1074); nor with seduction, as when an

innocent person is deceived into believing that an act of impurity is

lawful, or is tricked into sin by false promises of marriage.

Equivalent to rape is the carnal knowledge of a person drugged,

hypnotized, or otherwise unconscious, or the seduction of an infant. A

person who is ravished is obliged to deny all consent internally, and

to resist or make outcry when this is possible (see 2497 a).

2530. Adultery.--Adultery is also a distinct species of lust.--(a)

Definition.--Adultery is sexual intercourse with the husband or wife of

another. If the sin is committed only in desire, there is mental

adultery; if the paramours allow themselves unlawful familiarities

without intercourse, or if a married person is guilty of solitary lust,

there is imperfect adultery.

(b) Sinfulness of Adultery.--Adultery is a grave sin, since it is an

act of impurity and is expressly forbidden in the sixth commandment

(Exod., xx. 14), and is classed among the sins that exclude from the

kingdom of heaven (I Cor., vi. 9, 10). It is a special sin, because it

is a violation of the faith pledged in the contract and Sacrament of

Matrimony, and an injury to the right of one’s spouse and of the

conjugal state (Matt., xix. 5; Rom., vii. 3; I Cor., vii. 39). Even

though a husband gives his wife permission to commit adultery or vice

versa, the injustice remains, for though the individual is not formally

injured, the married state is injured, since no married person has the

right to give a permission opposed to the sacredness of the marriage

vows (Denzinger, n. 1200).

The first is that in which a married man sins with a single woman; the

second that in which a married woman sins with a single man; the third

that in which a married man sins with another man’s wife. The second is

worse than the first, on account of its consequences (e.g., sterility,

uncertainty of paternity, rearing of an illegitimate child in the

family); the third is worse than the second, because in addition to the

consequences just mentioned, it contains a double injustice (viz.,

unfaithfulness to an innocent wife and unfaithfulness to an innocent

husband), and it multiplies the sin. If an adulterer’s husband or wife

is also unfaithful, the injustice is lessened, but not removed; for not

merely the two married persons are to be considered, but also the

children, the family, society, and God; and the wrong done by one of

the parties does not take away the right to fidelity pledged absolutely

to all of these in marriage.

(d) Effects.--The party whose marriage rights have been injured by

adultery was permitted under some former civil codes to kill a wife

taken in adultery. But such laws were against justice and charity:

against justice since no guilty person should be put to death unheard,

and no injured person should be judge and accuser in his own case;

against charity, since by such summary vengeance the adulteress would

be sent to death in the midst of sin and without opportunity for

repentance. The remedies of Canon Law for the innocent spouse will be

noted below (2542).

2531. Incest.--Incest is impurity committed with a person related to

one within the degrees in which marriage is forbidden.

(a) It is impurity, internal or external. Internal desires are mental

incest, while external unconsummated (e.g., kisses) or consummated

(e.g., intercourse) acts are actual incest.

(b) It is committed with a relative, that is, with a person, male or

female, who is near to one by the tie of common ancestry (blood

relationship, kinship, consanguinity), or of marriage to one’s kin

(marriage relationship, affinity), or of sacramental administration

(spiritual relationship), or of adoption (legal relationship). Alias

species cognationis non pertinent ad incestum, sed novam aliquam

malitiam possunt tribuere; v.g., si partes sunt parochus et parochiana,

confessarius et poenitens, habetur scandalum, seductio.

between blood relatives is forbidden in all degrees of the direct line

(e.g., as to all female ancestry and posterity of a man) and in the

first three degrees of the collateral line, which includes, for a man,

his sisters, nieces, grandnieces, aunts, first and second cousins,

grand aunts and their daughters and granddaughters. Marriage between

those who are relatives-in-law is forbidden in all degrees of the

direct line (e.g., as to wife’s mother, daughter, etc.) and in the

first two degrees of the collateral line (e.g., wife’s sister, first

cousin, aunt or niece). Spiritual relationship which is impedient of

marriage exists between a person baptized and his baptizer, and also

between the god-child and the god-parent in baptism. Legal relationship

exists between the adopter and the adopted, when and as the civil law

makes it a bar to marriage.

(d) Incest is committed within the forbidden degrees, and hence if a

dispensation from an impediment of relationship had been granted to

parties about to marry, a sin between them would not be incestuous.

2532. Incest as a Distinct Species of Sin.--(a) There is a specific

distinction between incest and other forms of lust, since incest

violates not only purity, but also the piety and respect due each other

by those who are so closely related as to be unable to contract a

lawful marriage. Nature itself abhors this sin; for, apart from the

exceptional cases in which a dispensation is given, even lawful

marriage with near relatives would be an incentive to many sins before

marriage and would prevent the widening circle of friendships between

mankind which marriage with non-relatives produces, and would cause a

physical and mental enfeeblement of the race. In Scripture incest is

spoken of with peculiar horror as a nefarious deed deserving of death

(Lev., xx. 11 sqq.), and as an act unworthy even of pagans (I Cor., v.

1 sqq.).

(b) There are three distinct sub-species of incest, namely, natural

incest (between kin by blood or marriage), spiritual incest (between

the baptized and his baptizer or god-parent), and legal incest (between

persons who are kin in virtue of 8, marriage-impeding adoption). The

first violates piety due to natural origin, the second that due to

spiritual origin, and the third that due to legal origin. And in each

species the nearer the relationship, the greater the sin (e.g., incest

with a sister-in-law is less than that with a sister, incest with a

sister is less than that with a mother).

2533. Carnal Sacrilege.--Carnal sacrilege is the violation by an act of

impurity of the sacredness of a person, place or thing.

(a) It is a violation of sacredness, and thus it is a special sin,

adding irreligion to lust (see 2308 sqq.).

(b) It is an act of impurity, internal or external, consummated or

non-consummated. The impurity, however, must be so related to that

which is sacred as to treat its sanctity with injury or contempt

(formal disrespect), and there is no sacrilege if the impurity is

associated with something holy in such a way as not to show any notable

irreverence (material disrespect).

sacred person (see 2309) when he is impure internally or externally, or

by a non-sacred person when in desire or act he commits impurity with a

sacred person. If two sacred persons sin together, there is a double

sacrilege, which multiplies the sin.

(d) Its second species is local sacrilege, and is committed when an

impure act is done in a sacred place (2311) in such a way as to show

formal disrespect. Hence, consummated acts done in a church are

sacrilegious, and the same is probably true of non-consummated acts, at

least if they are of an enormous kind (e.g., a lascivious dance), and

even of internal desires to sin in the sacred place. But impure

thoughts or passing glances of prurient curiosity in a church are not

sacrilegious.

(e) Its third species is real sacrilege, and it occurs when impurity is

committed in such a way as to show formal disrespect to a sacred object

(2311). Hence, there is sacrilege of this kind when one commits

impurity immediately after Communion, or when one uses the Sacrament of

Penance as a means to solicit impurity. But the fact that a person

commits impurity while wearing a scapular is not sacrilegious, unless

contempt for the scapular was intended.

2534. Unnatural Lust.--Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are

crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only

illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of

reproduction. In some non-venereal respects, however, natural sins of

impurity may be worse than the unnatural; for example, adultery is

worse as regards injustice, sacrilegious lust as regards irreligion,

etc. There are four distinct species of unnatural impurities--

pollution, unnatural coition, sodomy, bestiality (see Denzinger, n.

1124).

(a) For procreation nature requires copulation, and hence pollution is

unnatural, for it exercises semination without copulation, either alone

(self-abuse, solitary vice, masturbation) or with another (softness).

(b) For procreation nature requires proper copulation, that is, one

that will permit of a fertile union between the two life elements, the

sperma and the ovum. Hence, unnatural coition does not comply with this

necessity, for it does not employ the proper organ of sexual union,

substituting rectal for vaginal intercourse, or else by some form of

natural or artificial onanism it frustrates the act of its destined

conclusion. This sin is worse than pollution, since pollution omits to

use intercourse, whereas unnatural coition positively abuses it.

condition disregarded by sodomy, which is the lustful commerce of male

with male (pederasty, uranism), or of female with female (tribadism,

sapphism, Lesbian love). This sin is worse than unnatural coition, for

it is a greater perversity to neglect one of the two needed life

elements than to neglect the right process for their union (see Gen.,

xix. 24, 25; Lev., xx. 13; Rom., i. 26, 27).

(d) Finally, for procreation nature requires homogeneous intercourse, a

law violated by bestiality, which is coition of a human being, male or

female, with a brute animal. This is the worst of unnatural impurities,

since it sins against the most fundamental condition for the sexual

act, namely, that the participants be of the same nature (see Lev., xx.

15, 16). Similar to bestiality is the crime of necrophilism

(intercourse with a corpse).

2535. Pollution.--Pollution is the voluntary emission of semen apart

from coition.

(a) It is an emission, that is an external discharge. The internal

secretion in the so-called female semination is also included by many

under the head of pollution. The carnal motions spoken of in 2497 b are

a preparation for pollution.

(b) It is a discharge of semen, that is, of the male fluid that

fertilizes the female ovum. But equivalent pollution, from the moral

viewpoint, is found in the discharge of certain non-prolific fluids

that are accessory to generation or that produce in their movement a

venereal satisfaction, such as the vaginal fluid in females (female

semination), the urethral fluid in males capable or incapable of

procreation (distillation). There is no pollution, however, in natural

discharges such as menstruation and urination.

consummated sins. But pollution may be committed either alone (solitary

vice), or with another, and in the latter case it pertains reductively

to adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc., as the case may be.

(d) It is voluntary directly or indirectly: directly, when one intends

it as an end (e.g., for the sake of the pleasure) or as a means (e.g.,

as a relief from temptation or bodily itching, to obtain a specimen of

semen for medical diagnosis); indirectly, when one unjustifiably does

something from which one foresees that pollution will result. In all

these cases pollution is formal or sinful, and it is not to be confused

with material or natural pollution, which is a discharge of semen or

distillation that is involuntary or unimputable.

2536. Cases of Material or Non-Sinful Pollution.--(a) Involuntary

pollution is passive or active. The former happens even when one is

awake. It is evoked by such slight causes as physical movement and

exertion, and is unaccompanied by pleasure; when habitual, it is a

disease due to organic debility The latter happens during sleep, and

may be caused by a superfluity of fluid. It is accompanied by pleasure

and often by libidinous dreams. It is a means used by nature to relieve

the system, and is therefore healthful and beneficial, unless the

discharges are too frequent (e.g., nightly). There is no obligation of

repressing the continuance of a pollution that began involuntarily

during sleep, since it may be regarded as an act of nature; but consent

must be withheld (2498 sqq.). Moreover, if merely natural pollution be

considered, not as to its venereal gratification but solely as to its

good effects (e.g., that it ends a temptation, that it benefits the

mind or the health), there is no sin in rejoicing at its accomplishment

or in desiring its fulfillment, provided nothing is done to produce it

and the intention is good; for then the object of the will is

indifferent and the end is good.

(b) Unimputable pollution is caused by a lawful act from which one

foresees that pollution will ensue, there being no proximate danger of

consent to sin, and the pollution being only permitted, and that for a

proportionately grave reason.

2537. Unimputable Pollution.--In reference to unimputable pollution the

following distinctions should be noted:

(a) the danger risked by an act may be either of formal pollution

(i.e., with consent to sin) or of material pollution (i.e., without

consent to sin);

(b) the danger of pollution is either proximate or remote, the former

being that from which pollution naturally and usually results and the

latter that from which it does not naturally or usually result.

Remotely dangerous are acts of a non-venereal kind, such as horseback

riding, gymnastics, drinking alcoholic beverages, and also acts of a

sexual kind that are only mildly exciting, such as conversations or

books that are slightly “off color” when the parties are of mature age

(see 2517, 2518). Proximately dangerous are acts of a venereal kind

that notably inflame passion, such as warm and lingering kisses between

persons of opposite sexes (see 2517, 2518);

serious, or slight. A grave reason is real necessity (e.g., the removal

of disease or pain or of a very painful or troublesome itch due to the

blood or disease) or great utility (e.g., the preservation of health,

cleanliness of body); a serious reason is an important convenience of

soul or body (e.g., the exercise of common politeness, the enjoyment of

reasonable comfort); a slight reason is one in which none of the

mentioned motives is found (e.g., the satisfaction of an idle

curiosity, the removal of a trifling irritation or itch).

2538. Proximate and Remote Occasions of Pollution.--It is never lawful

to expose oneself to the immediate danger of sin, for he who loves the

danger loves the sin (see 258, 260); but if one uses means to make the

danger remote, one may lawfully encounter it for a good reason (see

258, 260, 261). It is lawful to permit an evil effect when there is

sufficient justification according to the principle of double effect

(see 103 sqq.).

(a) Hence, if there is proximate danger of formal pollution (that is,

of consent to sin), no reason excuses an act even of a non-sexual kind,

such as horseback riding. But if the act is necessary, the danger must

be made remote by the use of special means, such as prayer, firm

resolves, etc. (see 2497 sqq.).

(b) If there is proximate danger of material pollution, a grave reason

suffices (e.g., the care of patients by physicians and nurses,

assistance of bathers by attendants, warm soporific drinks taken for

the sake of sleep).

suffices (e.g., customary salutations of the country, physical

exercises, moderate comfort in posture, seasoning in food.). A slight

reason may excuse at times from mortal sin (e.g., unnecessary curiosity

about the sciences of anatomy or sexology).

2539. The Theological Malice of Sinful Pollution.--(a) From its nature

pollution is a mortal sin, because it is an act of impurity (1494) and

a perversion of nature (2534). Moreover, its consequences are most

injurious to society (it tends to self-indulgence and the avoidance of

the burdens of marriage) and to the individual (when habitual, it

weakens mental and will power and often brings on a breakdown of bodily

vigor especially among young people), In Scripture it is represented as

gravely illicit (I Cor., vi. 10; Gal., v. 19; Eph., v. 3). Hence,

pollution is always a mortal sin when directly willed (e.g., when

practised deliberately in order to be rid of a temptation or of bodily

irritation or itch certainly due to superfluity of semen or to

passion), and also when indirectly willed if there is proximate danger

of consent to sin (e.g., when one who has always committed formal

pollution in certain company goes into that company without necessity,

or without use of means to prevent a fall) or grave danger of pollution

and no sufficient reason for permitting it (e.g., undue familiarities

from which nocturnal pollution is foreseen as most probable).

(b) From the imperfection of the internal act, pollution is sometimes

only a venial sin. This happens in case of invincible ignorance (e.g.,

young children who do not understand the evil of masturbation, students

who have been taught by instructors or physical directors that it is

necessary for health or that it is unsanitary but not sinful), or of

incomplete consent (e.g., when the person is only half awake and does

not ordinarily desire pollution, when he is a psychopathic and not

fully responsible for his acts).

indirectly and permitted without sufficient reason, if there is only

slight danger of it from the nature of the action performed (see 2496).

Examples are the reading for pastime of love stories before falling

asleep with the prevision that this may possibly bring on pollution

during sleep.

2540. If the action productive of pollution is gravely illicit, as

being seriously opposed to chastity (e.g., lewdness) or to some other

virtue (e.g., extreme intemperance in drugs or alcohol), is one thereby

guilty of the grave sin of pollution?

(a) If the case be considered in the abstract, the answer is in the

negative. For if the action in question is only remotely dangerous as

regards pollution (e.g., an action of a non-venereal kind such as

intemperance does not necessarily tend to impurity, an act of a

venereal kind that is momentary, such as a desire, does not strongly

affect the passions), the sin is only venial in so far as pollution is

concerned (see 2517, 2518).

(b) If the case be considered in the concrete, the answer is in the

affirmative as a rule when there is question of a habit. For generally

those who act habitually in this way yield consent to the pollution as

well as to the sin that precedes. Authorities note, however, that he

who repents of the cause of pollution before the pollution results is

not guilty of the actual pollution.

2541. The Moral Species of Sinful Pollution.--(a) The general species

of pollution is distinct from other consummated sins of impurity, since

it is unnatural, and this in a special way (see 2534, and Denzinger, n.

1124), But some authors regard equivalent pollution (see 2493, 2535) as

not a consummated sin, since it is without true semination, and hence

according to them it may be confessed simply as impure pleasure (see

2519 b).

(b) The particular species of pollution is derived from circumstances

that give it a new essential malice. If it is solitary, and committed

by one who is under no bond of marriage or vow, and accompanied by no

thought or desire except in reference to self or self-gratification

(autoerotism, narcissism), there is the single sin of pollution. But

there are other sins if it is committed by one under special obligation

(i.e., adultery or sacrilege), or if committed with another person

(e.g., seduction, cooperation, rape), or if committed with impure

thoughts or desires about others (e.g., mental adultery, fornication,

sodomy, bestiality). The manner in which pollution is performed (e.g.,

whether cooperative pollution is active or passive, by irrumation or

concubitus or touch, with or without an instrument) is _per se_ an

accidental circumstance. According to some authors, cooperative

pollution brought on by touch alone is not diversified in species, if

there is no special affection for the other person, but only the desire

of carnal gratification, and hence it may be declared simply as

pollution from touch.

2542. Penalties for Immorality Decreed in Canons 2357-2359.--(a) Laymen

who are guilty of certain offenses against the sixth commandment become

infamous on conviction and are excluded from legitimate ecclesiastical

acts. In case of adultery, the injured spouse may obtain a separation,

temporary or perpetual, from the offending spouse (Canon 1129). (b)

Clerics in minor orders are subject to special punishments, and may

even be dismissed from the clerical state. (c) Clerics in major orders

are subject to penalties named in law (e.g., suspension, infamy,

deposition) for graver crimes such as concubinage, adultery, and to

penalties decreed by the lawful superior for other delinquencies.

2543. The Potential Parts of Temperance.--The appetites of pleasure are

the most difficult to restrain, and there is need of a perfect virtue

like temperance to rule over them and keep them within the bounds of

reason. The analogous or potential virtues of temperance are that one

which is able to check, though it does not tame, the animal appetites

(continency), and those that preside and rule over the less violent

appetites for vengeance, exercise of authority, superior excellence,

knowledge, amusement and display (meekness, etc.). See above, 2465 c.

2544. Continence.--(a) Its Nature.--This quality, as here taken, is the

state of one who has not gained mastery over the passions sufficient to

keep down strong, frequent and persistent rebellions, but whose will is

firmly disposed to resist their attacks. It is less than a moral

virtue, then, since it does not tranquillize the lower appetites. The

temperate man has already subdued his passions, and hence he is less

disturbed by them, or at least he has less trouble in rejecting their

onsets.

(b) Its Relation to Temperance.--Greater difficulty increases merit, if

it is due to the presence of a corporal or external impediment (e.g., a

man of sickly constitution or one who suffers great opposition deserves

more credit for his work than a man of vigorous constitution or one who

enjoys great favors and opportunities); not, however, if it is due to

the absence of a spiritual excellence (e.g., a man who finds work hard

because he is lazy does not deserve more credit than another who finds

it easy because he is industrious). Hence, temperance is more deserving

than continence, for it controls passion with greater ease simply

because it has subjected not only the higher but also the lower

appetite to the dictates of reason.

which does not follow the dictate of reason to resist the onslaughts of

passion; it sees and approves the higher things, but it follows the

lower. This sin is less grievous than intemperance, just as a passing

indisposition is less harmful than a settled malady. For passion comes

and goes, and the incontinent man quickly regrets his weakness; but a

sinful habit of gluttony or impurity is permanent, and is so like a

second nature that its votaries rejoice when they have satisfied their

desires (Prov., ii. 14). Incontinence in pleasure is more disgraceful

than incontinence in anger, for anger is less distant from reason; but

on the other hand the irascible man usually sins more grievously by the

greater harm he does to others. It is more difficult to contain oneself

from wrath than from intemperance in the sense that wrath storms the

soul by a more vehement and compelling attack; yet, it is harder to be

unconquered by pleasure, because it lays persistent siege to the soul

and demands a more unwearied vigilance.

2545. Meekness.--Meekness or mildness is the virtue that moderates

anger.

(a) It is a virtue, since it consists in moderation according to right

reason. Our Lord proclaims it blessed (Matt., v. 4). and St. Paul

numbers it among the Fruits of the Spirit (Gal., v. 23). Illustrious

models of mildness are Joseph (Gen., l. 20), Moses (Num., xii. 3),

David (I Kings, xxiv), Christ (Luke, xv; John, i. 29, viii. 11), St.

Paul (Acts, xx. 31).

(b) Its office is moderation, and hence in its manner, though not in

its matter, it is like temperance. It follows the middle way between

the extremes of sinful indignation and sinful indulgence.

that inclines one to avenge an evil by punishing its author. Like other

passions (121), anger is indifferent in itself, but it is made good or

evil by its reasonableness or unreasonableness. The meek man is angry

at times, but only when and where and as he should be (Ps. iv. 5); his

anger is not a blind impulse, but a righteous zeal that attacks a wrong

only after reason has shown that this is the proper course.

2546. Anger.--Anger is sinful when it deviates from reason, as to its

matter or its manner.

(a) Thus, it is unreasonable as to its matter (i.e., its vengeance)

when it punishes unjustifiably (e.g., when the person punished is

innocent, when the penalty is excessive, when the legal order is not

followed, when the motive is not justice or correction, but hatred,

etc).

(b) It is unreasonable as to its manner (i.e., the degree of excitement

felt or shown) when temper goes beyond measure. Great anger is not

sinful when a great evil calls for it (e.g., the anger of Our Lord

against the money-changers in John, vi. 14 sqq.; that of Mathathias

against the idolatrous Jew in I Mach., ii. 24); but to fly into a rage

at nothings or trifles is sinful.

2547. Gravity of the Sin of Anger.--(a) If anger is sinful on account

of its matter, it is mortal from its nature as being opposed to charity

and justice. He that is angry against his brother is worthy of hell

fire (Matt., v. 21, 22). It may be venial, however, on account of

imperfection of the act (e.g., the sudden impulse to strike down those

who do not agree with one’s opinions) or the lightness of the matter

(e.g., a slap or push or box on the ears given a naughty child when a

word of reproof would have sufficed).

(b) If anger is sinful on account of its manner, it is venial from its

nature; for excess in an otherwise indifferent passion is not a serious

disorder (see 2450). But the sin may be mortal by reason of

circumstances, as when an angry person acts like a wild man, curses and

swears, breaks the furniture, gives serious scandal on account of his

position, or the time or place, or injures his health by the violence

of his paroxysm.

2548. Is Anger a Graver Sin than Hatred and Envy?--(a) As to its

matter, anger is less grave than hatred and envy, for it pursues evil

under the guise of spiritual good, pretending at least that the harm it

intends is just, whereas hatred and envy pursue evil precisely as it is

injurious to another, or as it is a means to one’s own temporal and

external good or glory. Likewise, anger is less grave objectively than

concupiscence, for the voluptuous man aims at utility or pleasure,

whereas the revengeful man aims at what he makes believe is just.

(b) As to its manner, anger surpasses the vices mentioned in certain of

its violent manifestations. The infuriated man, when crossed, creates a

scene and makes a fool of himself; his blood boils, his face is

flushed, his eyes dart fire, he froths at the mouth and trembles, he

pounds, stamps and bellows like an enraged bull.

2549. Anger as One of the Seven Capital Vices.--(a) It has a certain

preeminence in evil. Its matter is quite attractive, for revenge is

sweet and the cloak of just retaliation makes it seem good; its manner

is powerful, for it drives one on to dare even the most shocking crimes.

(b) It is the spring of many sins. In the heart anger produces

indignation against the object of displeasure, whom the angry man looks

upon as base and unworthy, and soreness about the treatment of self,

which fills the mind with plans of revenge. Sins of the mouth due to

anger are incoherent cries of rage, words of contumely and blasphemy

(Matt., v. 22), while its sinful deeds include quarrels and every kind

of injury.

2550. Sinful Indulgence.--Sinful indulgence, which is opposed to

meekness by excess, is often a mortal sin on account of the grave harm

it inflicts upon the common welfare and the protection it affords to

crime. Thus, Heli was seriously reproved and punished because he winked

at grave disorders, or at least was too easy-going in his corrections

(I Kings, ii, iii).

2551. Clemency.--Clemency is a virtue that inclines one, from a spirit

of kindness and moderation, to be as easy in inflicting punishments as

the claims of justice will allow.

(a) Clemency is a virtue, because it is reasonable, does good to

others, and makes the doer good. It is beneficial to public as well as

private interest: “Mercy and truth preserve the king, and his throne is

strengthened by clemency” (Prov., xx. 28).

(b) It inclines one to be easy, that is, to temper or relax the

severity of the law. Thus, it differs from the virtues of legal justice

and of charitable forgiveness, the former of which, when necessary,

insists on the full rigor of the law (see 2381 sqq.), whereas the

latter, when permissible, grants an enemy a full pardon (see 1198).

chastisement visited on wrongdoers. Hence, it differs from meekness,

which deals with the internal emotion of anger, and from mercy, which

deals with external goods bestowed upon the suffering.

(d) It is easy only in so far as the claims of justice will allow; that

is, it acts from a sense of responsibility to the rights and claims of

the common good and of all the interests involved, and decides

according to an impartial and enlightened judgment that circumstances

of person, deed, cause, etc., call for a departure from the strict

requirements of law or custom. Clemency is not the same thing, then, as

arbitrary laxity or sentimentalism.

(e) It is moved in the first place by kindness to the offender, and

thus it differs both from the virtue of equity (which acts from the

sense of higher justice) and from the vices of favoritism, extortion,

and cowardice (which extend forbearance only to friends or to those who

offer bribes or who bring pressure to bear).

(f) It is moved secondly by a spirit of moderation. Many persons are

spoiled by authority: feeling their own importance, they desire to

exercise their powers to the limit and to keep others down as much as

possible. The clement man, on the contrary, keeps his poise and uses

his authority with moderation. Meekness should be practised by all, but

clemency is the proper virtue of superiors.

2552. The Vices Opposed to Clemency.--(a) The extreme of defect is

cruelty, which is a hardness of heart, not moved by the sufferings of

others, that disposes one to inflict excessive punishments. The worst

form of cruelty is savagery, which takes inhuman delight in the

sufferings of others and inflicts pain without regard for guilt or

innocence.

(b) The extreme of excess is undue leniency, which spares the rod when

it should be used. There are times when severity is necessary, as when

a crime was malicious and cold-blooded, when an offender is stubborn

and irreformable, and when mildness will harm the public welfare or

invite the sinner to repeat his offense. In such cases it would be

unwise and harmful to mitigate the sentence which wise statutes or

customs provide for the offense.

2553. Humility.--Humility is the virtue that makes one modest in the

desire of greatness.

(a) It is a virtue, that is, a moral excellence and a voluntary

disposition. Hence, it is not the same as physical humility (e.g., the

humble or lowly circumstances in which a person was born) or as

involuntary humility (e.g., the humiliation which comes upon those who

exalt themselves).

(b) It is concerned with greatness, that is, with the higher things

that pertain to greatness of soul (see 2448 sqq.). There is no

opposition between these two virtues, for greatness of soul makes one

set such a value upon the gifts one has received from God as to aspire

to the betterment for which they prepare one, while humility makes one

realize one’s own shortcomings so sincerely that it keeps one from the

desire of those excellences for which one is unsuited.

reason the passion for greatness, so that one may avoid the extremes of

pride and of abjectness or littleness of soul (see 2465 c).

2554. The Three Acts of Humility.--(a) Its regulatory act is in the

intellect, and consists in the knowledge and acknowledgment of one’s

infirmity and inferiority, not only in comparison with God, but also in

comparison with men.

(b) Its essential act is in the appetite and consists in a regulation

of the hope for greatness so that, recognizing one’s limitations, one

does not strive for that for which one is unfitted. Higher degrees of

humility are those which do not desire honor, or which are pained by

it, or which desire dishonor.

that the humble person avoids singularity in deed, is sparing in his

words and not given to loudness, and bears himself modestly, not

staring about or laughing immoderately. But there is also a false

humility, which is only in externals, and this is really proud

hypocrisy (Ecclus., xix. 23).

2555. Two Requirements of Humility.--Humility is chiefly an abasement

of self before God (Gen., xviii. 27), and it is not opposed to truth or

to good order. Hence, the two following rules on the lowering of self

before fellow-creatures:

(a) in the internal act, humility requires that each one acknowledge

his neighbor as his better, if comparison is made between what the

former has from himself and what the latter has from God (Phil., ii. 3;

Osee, xiii. 9). But it is not against humility to believe that one has

more of divine grace or less of human imperfection than another, if

there are good reasons for the belief (Eph., iii. 5; Gal., ii. 15);

(b) in the external act, humility requires that one show proper signs

of respect to one’s betters. But of persons who are in authority St.

Augustine says that, while before God they should prostrate themselves

at the feet of all, before man they should not so demean themselves to

inferiors as to detract from their dignity or authority. Like the other

virtues, humility must be guided in its manifestations by prudence as

to place, time, and other circumstances.

2556. The Excellence of Humility.--(a) Humility is inferior to the

theological virtues, which tend immediately to the end itself, and also

to the intellectual virtues and legal justice, which rightly dispose

mind and will about the means to that end. Humility and the remaining

virtues incline one to follow the direction of mind and will, but with

this difference that, while humility makes one ready for submission in

all that is right, temperance, fortitude and the rest prepare one for

submission only in some one or other particular matter. To these latter

virtues, then, humility is superior.

(b) Humility is the groundwork of the spiritual edifice negatively or

indirectly; for, since God resists the proud and gives grace to the

humble (James, iv. 6), the obstacles to the other virtues are removed

by humility. But it is faith which positively and directly places the

cornerstone of the spiritual life, for faith is the first approach

towards God: “He who would come to God must believe” (Heb., xi. 6).

2557. Pride.--Pride is an inordinate desire of one’s own personal

excellence.

(a) It is a desire, for the object of pride is that which is pleasing

and yet not easy of attainment.

(b) The desire is concerned with excellence, that is, with a high

degree of some perfection (such as virtue, knowledge, beauty, fame,

honor) or with superiority to others in perfection.

self as exalted on high or raised above others. Ambition seeks

greatness in honors and dignities, presumption greatness in

accomplishment, and vanity greatness in reputation and glory; pride,

from which these other vices spring, seeks the greatness of the ego or

of those things with which the ego is identified, such as one’s own

children, one’s own family, or one’s own race.

(d) The desire is inordinate, either as to the matter, when one desires

an excellence or superiority of which one is unworthy (e.g., equality

with Our Lord), or as to the manner, when one expressly desires to have

excellence or superiority without due subjection (e.g., to possess

one’s virtue without dependence on God or from one’s own unaided

merits). In the former case pride is opposed to greatness of soul, in

the latter case to humility. The contempt which is proper to pride is a

disdain for subjection, and the contempt which belongs to disobedience

is a disgust for a precept; but pride naturally leads to contempt for

law and for God and the neighbor (see 2367).

2558. The Acts of Pride.--(a) In his intellect, the proud man has an

exaggerated opinion of his own worth, and this causes his inordinate

desire of praise and exaltation. But pride may also be the cause of

conceited ideas, for those who are too much in admiration of themselves

often come to think that they are really as great as they wish to be.

(b) The will of the proud man worships his own greatness, and longs for

its recognition and glorification by others.

boasting, self-glorification, self-justification, by his haughty

appearance and gestures and luxurious style, by arrogance, insolence,

perfidy, disregard of the rights and feelings of others, etc.

2559. The Sinfulness of Pride.--(a) Complete pride, which turns away

from God because it considers subjection detrimental to one’s own

excellence, is a mortal sin from its nature, since it is a manifest

rebellion against the Supreme Being (Ecclus., x. 14). Such was the

pride of Lucifer, but it is rare in human beings. Complete pride may be

venial from the imperfection of the act, when it is only a

semideliberate wish.

(b) Incomplete pride, which turns inordinately to the love of created

excellence but without disaffection to superiors, is in itself a venial

sin, for there is no serious disorder in the excess of an otherwise

indifferent passion. But circumstances may make this pride mortal

(e.g., when it is productive of serious harm to others).

2560. Pride Compared with Other Sins.--(a) Gravity.--Complete pride is

less than hatred of God, for the former has as its object personal

excellence, the latter separation from God. But after hatred of God

complete pride is worse disloyalty than any other mortal sin; it

separates from God directly, since it abjures allegiance to the Supreme

Being, while other sins separate from God only indirectly, since they

offend, not from contempt, but from ignorance, or passion or excessive

desire.

(b) Origin.--Pride was the first sin, because by it the angels and our

first parents fell, the angels desiring likeness to God in beatitude,

Adam and Eve likeness in knowledge (Ecclus., x. 15; Prov., xviii. 11;

Tob., iv. 14).

capital vices--namely, vainglory (2450), gluttony (2473), lust (2494),

avarice (2426), sloth (1322), envy (1342), and anger (2549)--not in the

sense that every sin is the result of pride (for many persons sin from

ignorance, passion, etc.), but in the sense that the inordinate desire

of personal excellence is a motive that can impel one to any kind of

sin, just as covetousness offers a means that is useful for every

temporal end (I Tim., vi. 10). Pride is also most dangerous, since it

steals away the reward of virtue itself (Matt., vi. 2); and, as

humility is the first step towards heaven, pride is the first step

towards hell.

2561. Abjection.--The other extreme of pride is abjection. (a) As a

turning away from these higher things to which one should aspire, this

sin is the same as littleness of soul, and it is opposed to greatness

of soul (see 2451). (b) As a turning to lower things or to a submission

to others which is unreasonable, this vice is directly opposed to

humility. Examples are persons of knowledge who waste their time on

menial labor when they should be more usefully employed in other

pursuits, or who permit themselves to be corrected and guided by the

errors and false principles of the ignorant.

2562. Studiousness.--Studiousness (_studiositas_) is the virtue that

makes one modest in the desire of knowledge.

(a) Its object is the desire of knowledge; for man is gifted with

powers of sensation and understanding, and nature inclines him to

desire the exercise of these powers to see, hear, picture, apprehend,

judge, reason, etc.

(b) Its function is to make one modest in this desire (see 2465 c);

that is, it regulates the inclination of nature according to reason, so

that one may avoid both excess and defect in the pursuit of knowledge.

On the one hand, the soul has the urge to discover and learn, but just

as bodily hunger leads to gluttony, if not restrained, so does mental

hunger become a vice (curiosity), if it is not moderated. On the other

hand, the body has a disinclination for the labor, weariness and

hardship which study demands, and, if this reluctance is not overcome,

one becomes guilty of the sin of negligence or ignorance (see 904,

1326, 1671).

natural appetite within moderation, avoiding the extremes of excess and

defect, and keeping custody over senses and mind. This virtue is

praised in Prov., xxvii. 11: “Study wisdom, my son, and make my heart

joyful”; and in I Tim., iv. 13: “Attend to reading.” Essentially, it is

a potential part of temperance, for its chief characteristic is

moderation of an eager desire; but secondarily, it belongs to

fortitude, for great courage, persistence, and self-sacrifice are

necessary for a student.

2563. The Vices Opposed to Studiousness.--(a) The vice of excess is

called curiosity. It is a desire of knowledge that is inordinate on

account of the motive (e.g., when one is curious about the doings of

others because one wishes to injure them, when one gazes about to

satisfy impure desire) or on account of its circumstances (e.g., a

curiosity about the latest news or rumors that keeps one from duty or

more important matters, a curiosity that consults fortune-tellers, a

curiosity that tries to peer into the inscrutable mysteries of God,

Ecclus., iii. 22).

(b) The vice opposed to studiousness by defect is negligence, which is

a voluntary omission of study of those matters one is bound to know, as

when a schoolboy wastes his time in play and idleness. Curiosity and

negligence are usually found in the same person (e.g., those who pry

into the affairs of others without reason, do not, as a rule, mind

their own business well).

2564. The Malice of the Sins against Studiousness.--(a) Curiosity in

itself is venial, for it does not seem a serious offense to busy

oneself with things superfluous. But circumstances sometimes make it

mortal. Thus, the subject-matter may make it serious, as when one is

curious about obscene books, or has a prurient desire to gaze on

unbecoming pictures or plays, or tries to fish out of others

sacramental or other confidential secrets; or the purpose may make it

serious as when one is inquisitive or spying because one wishes to

blacken a neighbor (Prov., xxiv. 15), or the means may make it mortal

as when recourse is had to calumny, fraud, reading private papers,

etc., in order to get information.

(b) Negligence is mortal or venial according to the gravity of the duty

of knowledge. Thus, if a lawyer gave no study at all to a case and

thereby inflicted a grave loss on his client, the negligence would be a

mortal sin.

2565. Modesty.--Modesty should control not only the internal passions

for excellence and learning, but also the external movements of the

body (modesty of bearing) and the external use of corporal things

(modesty of living). (a) Thus, modesty of bearing moderates the bodily

actions, both in serious things (modest behavior) and in things playful

(modest relaxation).

(b) Modesty of living makes one temperate in the use of the externals

that serve life (modesty in style) and of the clothing one wears

(modesty in dress).

2566. Modest Behavior or Decorum.--(a) The Virtue.--The movements and

gestures of the body should be regulated by reason, both because they

are indications of one’s own character and disposition, and because

they express one’s disposition towards those with whom one lives.

Hence, they are not a matter of indifference, but reason demands that

they be suitable both to oneself (i.e., to one’s sex, age, position,

etc.) and to one’s neighbor (i.e., to the requirements of good social

usage in each business or affair of life). Thus, virtuous decorum

employs both sincerity, which makes one honestly respectful in act

(2403), and affability, which makes one agreeable in the company of

others (2421). That this is an important virtue for individuals and

society is declared both by sacred and human authority. Ecclesiasticus

(xix. 26, 27) calls attention to the importance for himself of a man’s

looks, laughter and gait; St. Augustine says that there should be

nothing offensive to others in one’s movements; and Aristotle mentions

among the qualities of the high-minded man that he is sedate and

dignified in demeanor.

(b) The Opposite Vices.--Modest behavior is offended by various vices

of excess and defect. Thus, sincerity is offended by bluntness and

affectation, self-respect by stiffness and servility, and consideration

for others by flattery and rudeness.

2567. Modest Relaxation.--(a) The Virtue.--Just as the body fatigued by

manual labor demands the refreshment of sleep and the recuperation

afforded by vacations or by intermissions of work, so also the mind

cannot be healthy or active unless from time to time it is relieved by

some kind of amusement or diversion. The desire for recreation is,

therefore, one of the chief inclinations of man, and there is special

need of its temperate management by right reason. The person who

prudently provides for pastimes and pleasures as a part of his life has

the virtue which Aristotle called eutrapelia (good wit, urbanity), and

which St. Thomas named gaiety or pleasantness.

(b) The Sin of Excess.--Relaxation is excessive in various ways.

Sometimes the entertainment itself is improper (e.g., obscene comedies,

scandalous dances, unjust games of chance). Sometimes the disposition

of the person himself is sinful (e.g., those who make recreation the

chief occupation of life, Wis., xv. 12; those who recreate only for

pleasure, or who enjoy themselves uproariously). Sometimes the

circumstances make an amusement unsuitable, such as the person (e.g.,

when a man of dignity belittles himself by acting as clown, when a

female takes part in sports unsuited to her sex), or the time (e.g.,

when the hours that should be given to divine services, or to study or

other Work, are spent in golfing or fishing; when Good Friday or a day

of bereavement or penance is chosen for a ball or picnic), or the place

(eg, when a church is used for sports or farces), or the quality (e.g.,

when the Scriptures or other sacred things are caricatured or

parodied), or the quantity (e.g., when one spends so much on theatres,

automobiles, trips and other enjoyments that one has nothing left for

duties of justice, charity or religion; when health is injured by

violent games).

(b) The Sin of Defect.--Those persons offend here who deprive

themselves of necessary relaxation (e.g., misers who fear to take a

holiday or go on an outing lest they lose some money), or who interfere

with the recreation of others (e.g., killjoys who wish to see others

miserable, fanatics who believe that all fun is of the devil). Those

who have little sense of humor or who suffer much may be excused to

some extent if they never laugh, but at least they should try to look

pleasant at times, or at least not frown on innocent happiness.

2568. Gravity of the Sins Opposed to Moderate Enjoyment.--(a) The

Absolute Gravity.--The sins just mentioned are mortal or venial

according to the character of what is done and the circumstances. Thus,

it is a mortal sin to find recreation in wild revelry and debauchery,

or to drive one’s children to the devil by forbidding them necessary

diversion; it is a venial sin to spend a little too much time at the

card table or to work rather too hard.

(b) The Comparative Gravity.--It is worse to relax too much than too

little, for amusement is not taken for its own sake, but is

subordinated to serious things. Just as it is more senseless to take

too much salt or other relish in food than to take too little, because

the salt is secondary, so it is more foolish to play too much than too

little.

2569. Modesty in Style of Living and Dress.-(a) The Virtue.--External

goods, such as dwellings and clothing, are necessary for body and soul,

as a protection to health and decency; others, such as furnishings,

decorations, ornaments, cars, radios, entertainments for guests, etc.,

are useful for convenience, beauty and the maintenance of one’s

station. But one may be immoderate in the use of these goods, and hence

there is need of a virtue to regulate their use, so that it may

truthfully be in keeping with one’s position and be not offensive to

others.

(b) The Sin of Excess.--This is committed when one’s style is

extravagant according to the standards of the community, or when like

Dives, clothed in purple and fine linen, one aims only at display or

sensual gratification, or when one is too much preoccupied with

externals (e.g., when too much time is spent before the mirror or too

much money at the dressmaker’s). Dignitaries and the ministers of the

altar are not guilty of excess in the pomp and splendor which the

Church sanctions, since the honor is intended for their station and the

divine worship they perform.

not up to the reasonable standard of one’s community, especially if

this is due to negligence or itch for notoriety or disregard for

decency. Examples are those who through carelessness go about unwashed

or unshaven, who keep their quarters in a filthy and disorderly state,

or who wear their clothing untidily; also females who dress in male

attire, nudists who appear undressed in public places, and cynics who

scorn the conventions of refined society. It is not sinful, however,

but a virtuous act of temperance, to wear simpler and poorer garments

from the spirit of mortification and humility (Heb., xi. 37). The

clergy and religious, since they should be models of the penitential

spirit, are to be praised, therefore, when they give an example of

plainness and simplicity in personal style and dress.

2570. Morality of Self-Beautification.--Is it wrong to beautify oneself

in order to improve one’s looks or to win admiration?

(a) In itself there is no harm, especially for females, in using means

to improve one’s looks, such as remedies for deformities, facial

paints, powders and cosmetics, hair waves and dyes, and the like. But

accidentally there could be sin (e.g., deception). A poor man would be

a deceiver if he lived in great style to make a woman believe he was

wealthy, and likewise a woman would be a deceiver if she used an

artificial beauty to deceive a man about her age (see 2404).

(b) In itself also it is not sinful to desire that others approve one’s

appearance and dress. Thus, a wife should strive to be attractive to

her husband (I Cor., vii. 34), and modest ornamentation may be used to

win a suitor (I Tim., ii. 9). It is mortally sinful, however, to attire

oneself with the purpose or in a manner to arouse carnal temptation or

to awaken sinful desire in others--for example, if one wishes to

capture the sex love of others without marriage (Prov., vii. 10); it is

venially sinful to groom oneself well from mere vanity, that is, from a

silly ambition to be regarded as handsome and fashionable. By a Decree

of the Sacred Congregation of the Council (January 12, 1930),

parish-priests, parents, and teachers are admonished to oppose indecent

female dress; and it is ordered that women and girls improperly dressed

shall be excluded from Communion or even from church, and special

services and sermons on decency are prescribed for December 8 of each

year (see 1456, 1457).

2571. Complements of the Virtue of Temperance.--(a) The Gift of the

Holy Ghost that perfects temperance is fear of the Lord. The virtue of

temperance makes one abstain from unlawful pleasures because to do so

is reasonable; fear of the Lord inclines one to the same abstinence

from reverence. The Gift of Fear looks first to the greatness of the

Heavenly Father, before whom the nations are as a drop in the bucket

and are counted as the smallest grain of the balance and the islands as

but a little dust (Is., xl. 15); and in this respect it represses

presumption and serves the virtue of hope (see 1041 sqq.). But

secondarily it looks to the insignificance of every delight that is

apart from God, and sees that these inferior joys are passing, insipid

and bitter, like dust blown away by the wind, like a thin froth

dispersed by the storm, like smoke scattered by the breeze (Wis., v.

15), like a sweet poison that turns to gall and destroys (Job, xx. 12

sqq.); and in this respect fear of God sustains temperance, which must

regulate the cravings of the flesh and lower appetites. Fear of God,

then, makes one fly from those things which chiefly allure one to

offend Him, and hence the Psalmist (Ps. cxviii. 120) prays: “Pierce

Thou my flesh with Thy fear.”

(b) The Beatitude that corresponds to the present Gift is the second:

“Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Those who

have the fear of God perceive the true nature of illicit joys and the

evil end that awaits those who chase after them. They prefer, then, to

be sorrowful, that is, to deprive themselves of every wicked pleasure

and love for the sake of the love of God in this life and the enjoyment

of God in the life to come: “Your sorrow shall be changed into joy”

(John, xx. 16).

chastity. Like a good tree that produces a rich harvest of delightful

fruits, filial reverence for God brings forth acts of virtue that have

in them a delicious savor more enjoyable and more lasting than the

fruits of the flesh. These goodly and pleasant fruits of the spirit of

fear of God are modesty in words, deeds and external things, continency

of the single and chastity of the married in thoughts and desires.

2572. The Commandments of Temperance.--(a) Negative Precepts.--In the

Decalogue the vices of intemperance that are most directly opposed to

the love of God and the neighbor (I Tim., i. 5) are expressly

forbidden, namely, adultery in act and adultery in desire. Elsewhere

other sins are forbidden. Thus, drunkenness (“Drunkards shall not

possess the kingdom,” I Cor., vi. 10), every kind of lust (“The works

of the flesh are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury ...

those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom,” Gal., v. 19,

21), anger (“Let all bitterness and anger and indignation be put away

from you,” Eph., iv. 31), pride (“God resisteth the proud,” James, iv.

6), etc.

(b) Affirmative Precepts.--The positive modes of observing temperance

(i.e., rules on fasting) are not prescribed in the Decalogue. For the

law confines itself to general principles that, are of universal

application, whereas the manner of practising fasts and abstinences has

to be suited to conditions of time and place. Hence, it pertains to the

Church to settle by her legislation the details of mortification in

eating and drinking, so that they may be suited to the ever-changing

conditions of human life (2469).

Question III

THE DUTIES OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF MEN

2573. The theological and moral virtues treated in the previous

Question are obligatory upon all states and conditions, for all men

have the same supernatural destiny, and all alike are bound to govern

their acts and their passions by the rule of reason. But not all have

the same calling or office, or consequently the same particular ends to

be striven for or the same special means to be used; wherefore, there

are moral duties proper to particular classes and particular ways of

life. Those special obligations, however, do not constitute new

virtues, but are applications of the seven general virtues to the

states of man diversified in reference to the acts and habits of the

soul. The diversities now spoken of may be reduced to the three

mentioned by St. Paul (I Cor., xii. 4 sqq.), namely, diversities of

graces (i.e., some are gifted to edify the Church in marvellous ways by

knowledge, speech or miracles), diversities of operations (i.e., some

are called to the life of contemplation, others to active life), and

diversities of ministries (i.e., there are various stations, ranks,

occupations, both in ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical life). The

higher graces and ways of the spiritual life of man are treated in

works of ascetical and mystical theology, and we shall confine

ourselves here to two subjects: (a) the duties of men as members of the

Church, that is, the general duties of the faithful and the special

duties of clerics and religious; (b) the duties of men as members of

domestic and civil society.

Before proceeding any further, a word is in order regarding the role of

the laity in the Church.

“We desire that all who claim the Church as their mother should

seriously consider that not only the sacred ministers and those who

have consecrated themselves to God in religious life, but the other

members as well of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, have the

obligation of working hard and constantly for the upbuilding and

increase of this Body” (Pius XII, _Mystici Corporis_).

The Catholic layman, long a silent partner in the Church’s apostolate,

has assumed a more active part in recent years. His role, his

apostolate, his milieu, his special claims to divine graces, his

spiritual prerogatives--all have been made subjects of theological

investigation particularly by European writers. Controversy,

uncertainty, at times even error have characterized their efforts as

they grope their way in a new area of theology. Their efforts

ultimately will lead to the elaboration of a developed theology of the

laity, an extremely important and equally necessary body of knowledge,

for “the laity are in the front line of the Church’s life; through them

the Church is the vital principle of human society. Accordingly they

especially must have an ever clearer consciousness not only of

belonging to the Church, but of being the Church....” (Pius XII,

_Allocution to the Sacred College, AAS_, 38-149).[1]

[1] To detail the advances made in this new area of theology would

demand a volume for itself. We shall have to be content with indicating

a select bibliography of the outstanding works available.

Francis M. Keating, S.J., “Theology of the Laity,” _Proceedings of the

Catholic Theological Society of America_, 1956, pp. 196 ff.; Ives M. J.

Congar, O.P., _Jalons pour une theologie du laicat_, (Paris, Cerf,

1953); translated as _Lay People in the Church_, (The Newman Press,

Westminster, Md., 1957); G. Philips, _Le role du laicat dans l’Eglise,

(Casterman, Tournai-Paris, 1954); translated as _The Role of the Laity

in the Church_. (Mercier, Cork, 1955); Karl Rahner, “The Apostolate of

Laymen,” _Theology Digest_, (Spring 1957), pp. 73 ff.; Jacques

Leclercq, “Can a Layman be a Saint?” _Theology Digest_, (Winter 1956),

pp. 3 ff. (This same issue contains a select bibliography on

spirituality of the laity, p. 8.); Paul Dabin, S.J., _Le sacerdoce

royal des fideles dans les livres saints_, (Blond et Gay, 1941); _Le

sacerdoce royal des fideles dans la tradition ancienne et moderne_,

(Les Editions Universelles, Brussels, 1950): Gustave Weigel, S.J., “The

Body of Christ and the City of God,” _Social Order_, (Vol. 5, 1955, p.

275 ff.).

Art. 1: THE DUTIES OF MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

2574. The General Duties of the Faithful.--The Church has the power to

make laws which will promote the common good of the whole body and the

individual good of the members (see 418). Chief among the laws that

bind the faithful in general are the six known as the Precepts of the

Church, namely, the laws on the observance of Sundays and holydays, on

fasting and abstinence, on yearly confession, on Easter Communion, on

the support of pastors, and on marriage.

2575. The First Precept of the Church.--This precept commands that on

Sundays and holydays of obligation Mass be heard and servile and other

like works be omitted (Canons 1247-1249) by the subjects of church laws

(427 sqq.).

(a) This precept is of natural and divine law as to its purpose and

substance, for reason teaches and the Third Commandment of the

Decalogue prescribes that man set aside some time for the external

worship of God, and avoid those things that distract him from worship

(Catechism of the Council of Trent, pp. 396 sqq,). Hence, even

non-Catholics, though they do not sin by missing Mass (429, 430), are

guilty of sin if they do not from time to time worship God externally.

(b) This precept is of ecclesiastical law only as to its details (i.e.,

the time set apart and the manner of worship and sanctification

decreed). The Old Testament Law observed the Sabbath or last day of the

Week in memory of the creation of the World, and it abstained most

rigorously from work on the Sabbath, because there was a divine

prohibition and because this rest was a figure of things to come. But

in the New Law the ceremonial precepts of Judaism no longer have force,

and the Christian precepts substituted for them were not instituted by

Christ Himself but arose from the custom of the Church. During the

lifetime of the Apostles themselves Sunday (or the first day of the

week) came to be venerated as the Lord’s Day in memory of the

Resurrection, which completed the work of Redemption (Acts, ii. 46,

iii. 1, v. 12, xxi. 26); and from early times various special holydays

were appointed and made days of obligatory worship, as had been the

case with certain feasts in the Old Testament. As early as the third

and fourth centuries laws were made confirming the primitive customs of

assisting at Mass and resting on Sundays and holydays.

2576. The Affirmative and Negative Parts of the First Precept.--The

first precept of the Church has two parts, an affirmative (preceptive)

part which commands the hearing of Mass, and a negative (prohibitive)

part which forbids the doing of servile works. The law is therefore

most salutary and simple, requiring that one take part in the greatest

act of worship, the sacrifice which is a commemoration of Christ, and

that one rest from the labors and cares of the week and be spiritually

refreshed. In reference to the Mass, the precept requires that Mass

itself be heard, and that it be an entire Mass and the same Mass.

(a) Thus, Mass itself must be heard, and hence one does not satisfy the

Sunday obligation by attending other services that precede (e.g., the

Asperges, blessing of palm), accompany (e.g., sermon), or follow (e.g.,

Vespers, Benediction) the celebration of Mass. Neither does this

precept oblige one to attend other services on Sunday, although it is

most suitable to do this, also to make internal acts of faith, hope and

charity, and to read pious books and perform works of charity, and it

is sometimes necessary as a natural obligation to attend the sermon or

catechetical instruction (see 914 sqq.).

(b) A whole Mass must be heard, that is, all the ceremonies from the

prayers at the foot of the altar until the blessing at the end, and it

is irreverent to leave church without necessity before the priest has

left the altar. He who can assist at only the essential and integral

parts of the sacrifice (i.e., from the Consecration to the Communion),

is obliged to so much; but he who arrives after the Consecration and

cannot hear another Mass is not obliged according to one opinion to

remain for the present Mass, since the Consecration, the essential

part, is already past.

obligation by hearing the first half of one Mass being said on one

altar and the second half of another Mass being said simultaneously on

another altar (see Denzinger, n. 1203), nor by hearing the Consecration

in one Mass and the Communion in a previous or subsequent Mass, thus

dividing the sacrifice. But if one may have heard from the Consecration

to the end in one Mass, one may hear the omitted pre-Consecration

parts, it seems, in another Mass that follows, and one should do this

if possible.

2577. How Mass Must Be Heard.--In reference to the person who hears

Mass, the positive part of the precept calls for external assistance

and internal devotion.

(a) Thus, the external or bodily assistance must be such that one can

be said to take part in the divine worship. This happens when one is

physically present, that is, when one is in the same building or place

as the celebrant and can either see or hear him, or is morally present,

that is, not in the same building but able to see or hear him naturally

(e.g., by looking from the window of a neighboring house), or is unable

to see or hear him but joined with the congregation (e.g., those who

are outside the closed doors of the church but who can follow the bells

and choir to some extent, those who are inside with the congregation

but behind a pillar that shuts off the view). In a field Mass

amplifiers can carry the voice far out to the edge of a vast crowd. But

there does not seem to be a sufficient moral presence when Mass is

“seen” by television or “heard” over the radio, since in these cases

one is not present to the consecrated species or united to the

worshippers.

(b) Internal or mental assistance requires the actual or virtual

intention of the will to perform what the Church requires (see 2165),

and the attention of the mind, external according to some, internal

according to others (see 2166 sqq.). Thus, he who goes to church merely

to hear the music or look at the pictures does not hear Mass for lack

of intention; he who sleeps soundly all through the service does not

hear Mass for lack of attention. One who knows what is going on before

him, but whose thoughts are not on any religious matter, complies with

the precept of the Church according to some, but he sins by irreverence

and voluntary distraction. It suffices during Mass to think either on

the Mass itself (which is the best attention), or to think on other

pious subjects (e.g., to make an examination of conscience, to say the

Rosary). Certain actions (e.g., those that are related to the Mass,

such as ringing the bell, taking up the collection, playing the organ)

do not exclude external attention, but others certainly exclude it

(e.g., writing a letter), and others are doubtful (e.g., going to

Confession).

2578. Time and Place of Mass.--In reference to circumstances, the

precept requires that Mass be heard at the proper place and the proper

time.

(a) Place.--The precept may be complied with by attending Mass in any

Catholic rite (Latin, Greek, etc.), and it makes no difference whether

Mass is celebrated in the open air, in a church, or in a public or

semi-public oratory (Canon 1249). But private chapels are for the

benefit of the grantee alone.

(b) Time.--The precept must be complied with on the feast itself, that

is, during the period of twenty-four hours from midnight to midnight.

Sunday Mass cannot be anticipated on Saturday or put off till Monday.

Likewise servile works are unlawful from midnight to midnight.

2579. Servile Works.--The prohibitory part of the precept is concerned

with servile works, that is, labor of a kind that tends to make one

unfit for devotion or that shows disrespect for the sacredness of the

day, even though the labor be done gratis, or for recreation, or out of

devotion. Hence, the law forbids:

(a) works given to the service of the devil, that is, sins that deprive

one of holiness, such as riotous recreations, gambling, drunkenness,

reading improper matter, and attendance at evil movie performances. But

these works are opposed to the end, not to the text, of the law; and

hence the circumstance of time aggravates their malice but does not

give them a new species (see 2314);

(b) works given to the service of the body (servile works properly so

called) or to the service of external goods (forensic and commercial

works). Servile works in the strict sense cause bodily fatigue and are

taken up with material things, and hence they distract the mind from

religious thoughts. Such are manual labors (e.g., plowing, digging,

housecleaning) and mechanical or industrial labors (e.g., printing,

building, plastering, shoemaking). Forensic and commercial labors

(e.g., arguing in court, auctioneering) are also of a very worldly kind

and unsuitable for the quiet and recollection of Sundays and holydays.

2580. The prohibitory part of the Sunday precept does not affect works

which are no impediment to devotion and which cast no dishonor on the

day. Such are:

(a) works devoted immediately to the service of God. The purpose of the

law is to allow leisure for these works, and hence manifestly their

performance is not forbidden. Such works are saying Mass, preaching,

administering the Sacraments, singing in church, and visiting the poor

and sick (John, vii. 23; Matt., xii. 5). But works that are only

remotely related to divine worship (e.g., cleaning the church, painting

the altar, repairing the vestments, decorating the shrines) should not

be done on Sunday without necessity;

(b) works devoted to the service of the mind (liberal works). These

works are of a more elevated kind, do not require great bodily

exertion, and are not looked upon as unsuitable to the Sabbath. Such

are intellectual works (e.g., teaching, reading, writing, studying),

artistic works (e.g., playing the organ, singing, drawing, painting a

picture, embroidering), and works of recreation (moderate sports or

diversions such as baseball, tennis, and chess).

2581. Other Kinds of Works and Sunday Observance.--(a) Common works are

those that stand between the liberal and the servile, since they are

exercised equally by mind and body, such as walking, riding, hunting,

and fishing that is not very laborious. These are lawful.

(b) Doubtful works are those that are now non-servile, now servile,

according to the manner in which they are conducted, such as the work

of painters, sculptors, typists, seamstresses, and photographers. Thus,

it is a liberal work to paint a portrait, a servile work to paint the

walls of a house. In settling the character of various kinds of work,

one must be guided by the prudent opinion of one’s locality, and in

case of doubt and need must seek a dispensation. (For a history of the

theology of servile works see Franz X. Pettirsch, S.J., “A Theology of

Sunday Rest,” _Theology Digest_, Vol. VI, no. 2, Spring 1958, pp. 114

ff.; for a survey of modern studies on the problem see _Proceedings of

the Catholic Theological Society of America_, 1957).

2582. Is it lawful without necessity to hire the servile work of

non-Catholics on Sunday, if these persons are not thereby impeded from

the natural duty of worshipping God and no scandal is given? (a) If the

non-Catholics are infidels and not bound by church laws, this is

lawful. The same would be true of those who lack the use of reason (see

427 sqq.). (b) If the non-Catholics are heretics, it is not lawful in

the case given to make them work on Sunday.

2583. Obligation of First Precept.--The first precept of the Church

obliges under pain of grave sin, because it determines a necessary act

of religion (2148), and experience shows that where the Sabbath is

neglected the social, spiritual and physical interests of man are

seriously harmed (see Denzinger, n. 1202). There is always hope for

Catholics who attend Mass, whereas those who miss Mass soon become

Catholics only in name. But since neglect of worship may be only

slightly disrespectful, and since the end of the precept may be

substantially obtained without complete fulfillment, a transgression

may be only venial by reason of lightness of matter.

(a) Preceptive Part.--Grave matter is a part of the Mass that is

notable on account of dignity (i.e., the essential and integral parts

of the Mass, for example, the Consecration and Communion), or on

account of its duration (i.e., a third of the whole Mass, e.g., from

the beginning to the Offertory inclusively, from the beginning to the

Gospel and from the Communion to the end, from the Preface to the

Consecration, from the Consecration to the Agnus Dei, etc.). Hence, he

who is culpably absent or asleep during a notable part of the Mass sins

gravely, but he who is absent or asleep during an inconsiderable part

of the Mass (e.g., one who arrives just at the Offertory or who leaves

after the Communion) sins venially, unless he is so disposed that he

does not care how much he misses.

(b) Prohibitive Part.--Grave matter is labor that is notable on account

of its quality (e.g., forensic proceedings even for a brief space on

Sunday would be a serious distraction and scandal), or its quantity

(e.g., two and a half hours given to very exhausting manual work, such

as digging a ditch, three hours given to less arduous labor, such as

sowing). He who commands ten laborers to work an hour each on Sunday

cooperates in ten venial sins (see 219), but he may be guilty of mortal

sin on account of scandal.

2584. Excuses from Observance of First Precept.--These reasons may be

reduced to two classes, namely, external reasons (i.e., a dispensation

or a lawful custom) and internal reasons (i.e., one’s own inability or

necessity).

(a) External Reasons.--Dispensations may be given under certain

conditions by local Ordinaries, by parish-priests, and by superiors of

exempt clerical institutes (Canon 1245). Custom in certain places

excuses from Mass for a month women who have just given birth to a

child or who have lost their husband by death, and also--from the Mass

in which their banns are to be proclaimed--those women who are about to

marry. Custom further permits necessary labors, such as cooking,

ordinary housecleaning, barbering, the work of railroad and garage men,

etc.

(b) Internal Reasons.--Impossibility or serious inconvenience excuses

from hearing Mass (e.g., those who have to walk an hour’s journey to

church or ride a two hours’ journey, regarding which, in terms of

distance travelled, it has been suggested that the figures should be

more than three miles each way if one must walk, more than thirty miles

if a car is available and the roads are good; those who will suffer

great detriment to health, honor, fortune, etc., if they go; those who

are kept away by duties of charity or employment or office that cannot

be omitted). Necessity or duty to others permits one to work on Sunday

at least to some extent (e.g., those who must labor on a Sunday in

order to live, or to keep out of serious trouble, or to perform

services or works of charity that cannot easily be done at another

time). To avoid self-deception the faithful should consult their pastor

or other prudent person if there is doubt about the sufficiency of the

excuse.

2585. Though the Church does not impose excessive Sabbatarianism,

neither does she admit laxity in the important matter of the Lord’s Day.

(a) Hence, not every reason excuses from the church precept. Thus,

those are guilty who unnecessarily place themselves in the

impossibility of observing the law (e.g., by moving to a place where

there is no church, by taking a position that requires work all Sunday

morning, by starting on a vacation or auto trip to a churchless

region), or whose excuses are frivolous (e.g., those who stay away from

Mass because they dislike the priest, or who work on Sunday merely to

keep busy).

(b) Reasons that excuse from part of the ecclesiastical precept do not

excuse from all of it. Thus, those who are unable to hear Mass are not

thereby justified in doing servile work, those who can hear the

essential part of Mass (Consecration and Communion), but not the other

parts, should hear the essential part; those who can hear Mass only on

one Sunday a year are not excused on that Sunday.

from the divine precept (see 2575) of worshipping God. Hence, those who

are really obliged to work every Sunday should sanctify the Lord’s Day

by whatever private prayer or devotion they can substitute. Some

authors very rightly believe that those who can never go to Mass on

Sunday are held by divine law to hear Mass on weekdays three or four

times a year at least, when this is possible (see 2148, 2180).

2586. The Second Precept of the Church.--This precept commands that on

all Fridays of the year and certain other specified days (unless they

fall on a holyday outside of Lent) every baptized person who has

completed the age of seven and has attained the use of reason shall

abstain from eating flesh meat and from drinking the broth or soup made

from flesh meat (Canons 1250-1254).

(a) Under the name flesh are included all land and warm-blooded animals

(i.e., mammals and birds). The law does not include aquatic animals

(i.e., fishes, clams, oysters and other shellfish, lobsters, shrimps,

crabs and other crustaceans), nor cold-blooded animals (i.e., reptiles,

snails and amphibians, such as frogs, tortoises). Some authors include

under aquatic animals otters, beavers, seals, walruses, loons, and

coots, though generally the birds are regarded as flesh. In doubt

whether a food is fish or flesh, it may be judged to be fish, for in

doubts laws are to be interpreted benignly.

(b) Under the name meat are included all the parts of an animal (i.e.,

its flesh, blood, marrow, brains, lard, meat extracts, mince-pie,

pepsin) but not its fruit (e.g., eggs, milk, and things made from milk,

such as butter, cheese).

meat, such as beef tea, chicken broth, mutton soup, gravy, etc. But the

law does not forbid condiments made from animal fats (e.g., margarin).

2587. Obligation of the Second Precept of the Church.--(a) Origin of

the Obligation.--In substance this precept is of the natural law, but

in details (time, manner, etc.) it is of ecclesiastical law (2468 b)

and has come down from customs that began in the first ages of

Christianity. The church regulation on abstinence is most wise and

moderate: the foods forbidden are those whose deprivation is a

mortification to most persons, and at the same time a great benefit to

spiritual and bodily health; the times appointed are few but

appropriate (viz., days of sorrow, special prayer, penance,

preparation, such as Fridays, Ember Days, Lent, vigils), and they are

so distributed as to sanctify by mortification each week and each

season of the year. True, no food is evil in itself (Matt., xv. 11; I

Cor., viii, 8; I Tim., iv. 3; Col., ii. 16), but just as the physician

can forbid certain foods to his patient for the sake of temporal good,

so for the sake of spiritual good God forbade to Adam the fruit of one

tree and to the Jews the flesh of certain animals; and the Church from

the days of the Apostles (Acts, xv. 29) has exercised the same right.

(b) Gravity of the Obligation.--The abstinence required by the Second

Precept is a grave duty, because the Church makes it the necessary act

of the necessary virtue of abstemiousness and a serious duty of

obedience. But not every transgression is a serious injury to the

spirit of this law, and hence some sins against it are venial. Grave

matter is such a quantity of forbidden food as gives considerable

nourishment, and hence for practical purposes the rule may be given

that flesh meat which weighs two ounces (or, according to others, what

would be the size of a walnut or of a small hen’s egg) is grave matter.

Some hold for a more liberal interpretation when the food is not

strictly flesh meat, and believe that liquid from meat is not grave

matter at any time, or at least when it weighs less than four ounces.

Vegetables cooked or seasoned with meat or meat juice are also

considered light matter. He who eats meat twice on a Friday or other

abstinence day commits two sins, just as he who works twice on a Sunday

or holyday commits two sins. It is commonly held that many venial sins

against abstinence committed on the same day coalesce to form grave

matter, but on account of the separation between the eatings a larger

amount is necessary for grave matter.

of abstinence who have been exempted by indult (Canon 1253), who have

been dispensed by the Ordinary, pastor or superior (Canon 1245), or who

are excused on account of real impossibility (e.g., the poor, the sick,

those obliged to perform very hard work, those who are morally forced

to eat meat but not as a sign of contempt of the law). Persons

dispensed from abstinence may not eat meat oftener than once a day on

fast days, unless they have a special grant. The faithful should be

guided by the Lenten regulations of their dioceses, and in doubt they

should consult their pastors.

2588. The Obligation of Fasting.--The Second Precept also commands that

on the weekdays of Lent and certain other specified days (holydays

outside Lent excepted) every baptized person between the ages of

twenty-one years completed and sixty years begun shall eat not more

than one full meal a day (Canon 1251).

(a) The law speaks of eating, that is, of solid food, and hence the

Lenten and other similar fasts are not broken by liquids which are

beverages rather than foods, or which are used to allay thirst, or

carry food or assist digestion, and not chiefly to nourish (e.g.,

water, teas, coffee, light cocoa, wine, beer, lemonade, fruit juice).

Likewise, sirups taken as medicines are not considered foods, even

though they contain nourishment, unless one drinks a large quantity for

its food content. Light ices may be considered drink, but ice-cream is

food. On the contrary, liquids that are chiefly nourishing are regarded

as food (e.g., soup, oil, honey). Finally, some liquors vary between

food and drink, according to their richness or weakness, their great or

small quantity. Thus, hot chocolate as made in the United States

contains only a small amount of solid and may be considered as a drink,

but as made in Europe it is stronger and rather food than drink.

(b) The law admits as an indulgence on fast days, in addition to the

one meal, a small breakfast in the morning and a light collation to be

taken either around noon (lunch) or in the evening (supper). The

quality and quantity of these two repasts are left to local custom. The

Uniform Norm for Fast and Abstinence in the United States adopted by

the Hierarchy, Nov. 14, 1951, establishes the following norm for these

two meatless meals. They are to be “sufficient to maintain strength,

may be taken according to each one’s needs; but together they should

not equal another full meal.” This norm, called the relative standard,

was adopted by many Bishops of the United States, beginning with Lent

of 1952. Thus, the amount of food is dependent to some degree on a

person’s own needs and appetite. The relative standard is distinguished

from the absolute norm which allows about two ounces for the morning

collation and eight ounces for the evening.

made for breakfast and collation), but it places no limits as to the

quality of the food at the principal meal (unless the day be also a day

of abstinence, when meat is forbidden), or as to its quantity, though

temperance bids one to eat at all times in moderation. On fast days,

therefore, one may not eat between meals, nor so divide or prolong the

dinner that it really becomes several meals. A notable interruption

(two or three hours) made without good reason divides a dinner into two

meals, and over two hours of uninterrupted eating, under ordinary

circumstances, seems to be more than the one full meal which the law

allows.

2589. The Obligation of the Precept of Fasting.--(a) Origin.--The

natural law commands fasting in general, since without some kind of

austerity above common temperance certain desirable ends (such as

atonement for past transgressions, conquest of unruly passions, and

elevation of the soul) cannot be attained; and as these ends are

necessary it is also necessary to use the means as far as one needs

them. The particularization of this natural law has been made by the

positive law of the Church, and with such wisdom as to promote the good

of both soul and body. The times appointed are most appropriate (e.g.,

the season when the Passion is commemorated, Luke, v. 35); the duration

of the long fast is modelled on that of Christ (Matt., iv. 1); the

curtailment of food required is not only beneficial (as an exercise of

self-control and a rest and change to the metabolism), but is moderate,

since it permits sufficient food for the day, and even in the fast of

Lent the Sundays occur to give a respite.

(b) Gravity.--The precept of fasting is grave, both from the purpose of

the law (see 2469), and from the express declaration of the lawgiver

(Denzinger, n. 1123). But the spirit of the precept is not notably

deviated from by every transgression, and hence even in reference to

matter there are minor or venial violations; and moreover the precept

is probably (unlike that of abstinence) an indivisible one, since it

consists in the limitation to one meal, and hence it cannot be violated

more than once a day. Grave matter, when the absolute norm is used,

seems to be about four ounces added to the collations or taken between

meals, either all at once or at different times during the day

(Denzinger, n.1129), But if the relative norm is used, a greater

quantity is needed to establish grave matter, e.g., one fourth of a

full meal. But he who has broken his fast (e.g., by a second full meal)

does not break it again by a third or fourth full meal on the same day,

for after the second full meal the fast has become impossible for that

day. He who accidentally takes too much at breakfast can still keep the

fast by proportionately diminishing his evening repast.

and gives the right to eat meat as often as moderation allows on days

that are not meatless days. The chief persons who labor under

impossibility are those who are too weak to fast (e.g., the sick, the

convalescent, pregnant and nursing mothers, the nervous), those who are

too poor to get one square meal a day (e.g., street beggars who have

nothing may eat as often as they are given an alms, if it does not buy

them a dinner), and those who cannot do their necessary or customary

hard work if they fast. Hard work is such as is exercised for many

hours continuously, or for a less time if it is very intense, and which

is greatly fatiguing to the mind (e.g., daily teaching, lecturing,

studying, hearing confessions, preaching, etc.) or to the body (e.g.,

heavy manual labor, the difficult jobs in offices or stores, work that

requires one to be on one’s feet for hours at a time, necessary

journeys made under hardship). The confessor or physician can decide

about cases of impossibility that are not manifest, but dispensation

should be had from the pastor (Canon 1245). Those who are dispensed

from the ecclesiastical fast or abstinence should remember that they

are not dispensed from the natural law of temperance, and they should

practise some abstemiousness according to their ability (e.g., by

self-denial in alcoholic beverages, tobacco, sweets, etc., or

mortification in the quantity or quality of food).

2590. The Third Precept of the Church.--This precept commands that all

the faithful, male and female, who have reached the age of discretion

go to confession at least once a year (Canon 906).

(a) The subject of this precept is every baptized person who has

entered the Church through valid Baptism and who has the use of reason,

which begins usually at the age of seven. Infants are incapable of

committing sin, and the unbaptized are incapable of receiving the

Sacrament of Penance.

(b) The matter of the precept is a good sacramental confession of the

grave sins not yet confessed, made with the purpose of obtaining

absolution to any duly authorized priest. Hence, those who have only

venial sins on their conscience are not bound according to the common

opinion by this precept, and, on the other hand, those who make a

sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession do not fulfill the law

(Denzinger, n. 1114; Code, Canon 907). It seems that one who, after a

confession of venial sins at Easter, falls into grave sin is not bound

from this precept to confess again before the end of the year.

The law leaves one free to confess on any day during the twelvemonth,

and to count the year either civilly (i.e., from January 1 to December

31), or ecclesiastically (e.g., from Easter time to Easter time, as is

commonly done), or from the date of the last confession. The limit is

set, however, not to terminate but to insist upon obligation, and hence

it seems that he who has not made his 1957 confession must make it as

soon as possible in 1958, but the 1957 confession made in 1958 will

satisfy for the 1958 obligation also (see 468 sqq.).

2591. The Obligation of the Third Precept.--(a) Origin.--From divine

law sacramental confession is necessary for all who have fallen into

serious sin after Baptism, since Christ has given His Church the keys

of heaven and appointed His bishops and priests the physicians and

judges to cure and pardon (Matt., xviii. 18; John, xx. 23). But Our

Lord did not fix the frequency of confession, and it is this which the

present precept determines. The law of annual confession goes back to

the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).

(b) Gravity.--The precept of annual confession obliges under pain of

mortal sin, for its purpose is of vital importance and the Church has

always regarded it as a grave obligation. The purpose of the law is to

ensure the use of the Sacrament instituted by Christ for forgiveness

and to keep sinners from delaying their repentance too long. If a good

business man takes stock of his assets and liabilities at least once a

year, and those who are careful of their health have medical attention

or examination at least yearly, it is most reasonable that the faithful

should settle their spiritual accounts and attend to the well-being of

their souls within an equal period of time. In the early centuries when

fervor was greater and conditions different, no general church law on

the frequency of confession was needed; but there is no doubt that the

Lateran Decree met well the need that began after the change from the

early penitential discipline, The penalties for violation of this

precept were excommunication and exclusion from ecclesiastical burial,

and, though they are not enforced today, they show the intention of the

Church to impose a grave duty.

2592. The Fourth Precept of the Church.--This precept commands that all

the faithful, male and female, who have attained the use of reason, go

to Holy Communion at least once a year, and that during Easter time

(Canon 859).

(a) The subjects of this precept are the same as those of the previous

precept, and consequently children of seven years or thereabout, who

are able to understand, must make the Easter duty.

(b) The matter of the precept is a worthy Communion (Viaticum or

ordinary Communion) received in any parish, but preferably in one’s own

parish. Persons living in community (e.g., religious, soldiers, college

boarders) may make the Easter duty in their own chapels, strangers and

vagi in any church or chapel, and priests in the place where they say

Mass.

Sunday to Low Sunday, but in the United States, by privilege, from the

First Sunday of Lent to Trinity Sunday). The Easter time may be

prolonged for an individual by his pastor or confessor for a just

reason. The year within which the Easter duty is to be made begins, it

seems, with the opening of one Paschal Season and ends with the opening

of the Paschal Season of the following calendar year. Since the law

requires that the Easter duty be made, not only within the Paschal

Season, but also once a year, it follows that he who neglects Communion

during the Easter period is still bound by the law to go to Communion

before the opening of the next Paschal Season, but probably he is not

bound to go at the first opportunity. As a rule, we believe those who

do not make their Easter duty during a year are guilty of but one sin,

since they do not think of distinct violations.

2593. The Obligation of the Fourth Precept.--(a) Origin.--There is a

divine precept of receiving Communion some time during life, since Our

Lord willed the Eucharist to be the necessary nourishment of the soul’s

journey (John, vi. 54) and the perpetual memorial of Himself (I Cor.,

xi. 24). The Church in the present precept has prescribed both the

frequency and the time for complying with the will of Christ. Since the

Eucharist is a daily bread, the law does not permit it to be abstained

from by anyone beyond a year; and, since the Paschal Season brings the

anniversary of Christ’s sacrifice and of the institution of the Blessed

Sacrament, it is the time most fitly chosen for the obligatory

Communion.

(b) Gravity.--The precept obliges under pain of grave sin, for it

determines a law given by Our Lord Himself and regulates the minimum in

the use of the Eucharist, the greatest of the Sacraments and the end of

all the others. The doctrine of theologians is that it is a grave sin

to delay culpably the Easter Communion for even a day beyond the

Paschal Season as prescribed.

2594. The Fifth and Sixth Precepts of the Church.--The Fifth Precept

commands the proper maintenance of the clergy by the laity. The manner

of giving the support is left to the special statutes and customs of

each country (Canons 1496, 1502). This ecclesiastical law is but a

determination of the natural law of justice and religion, and also of

the divine law; for even in the Old Testament the Levites were

supported by the people. The duty is, therefore, grave (see 2185 sqq.).

Respect and obedience in spiritual matters are owed the clergy, and it

is sinful to usurp their functions (see 2351, 2355 sqq., and Canons

119, 683, 1931, 166).

The Sixth Precept commands the proper solemnization of marriage and

prohibits the solemn blessing of marriages at stated times. Canon 1108,

Sec.2 specifies these times as “from the first Sunday of Advent until

the day of the Nativity of Our Lord inclusive, and from Ash Wednesday

until Easter Sunday inclusive.” It is to be noted that the forbidden

time excludes only the solemn blessing, and even this may be permitted

by the Ordinary for just cause, subject to liturgical laws (Canon 1108,

Sec.3).

2595. Two Other Important General Laws of the Church.--(a) The

prohibition of wicked and dangerous writings (Canons 1384 sqq.)

is based on the natural law, which requires one to avoid what is

proximately dangerous to faith or morals. This subject is treated above

in 1456, 849 sqq., 1529.

(b) The prohibition of the cremation of corpses (Canon 1203) is not

based on natural law or on any dogma, as though the burning of dead

bodies were intrinsically evil or repugnant to our faith in immortality

and resurrection. On the contrary, in exceptional cases (e.g., in time

of war or epidemic) cremation is permitted, if a real public necessity

requires it. The reasons for the anti-cremation law are: the tradition

of the Old and New Testaments (Gen., iii, 19; I Cor., xv. 42), and

especially the example of Christ whose body was consigned to the tomb;

the association of burial throughout the history of the Church with

sacred rites and the doctrine of the future life, and the contrary

association of cremation both in times past and today with paganism and

despair; the sacred dignity of the human body (Gen., i. 25; I Cor.,

iii. 16, vi. 5), and the feeling of affection for parents, relatives,

friends, which is outraged when their bodies are consigned to the

furnace. The practical arguments offered for cremation are chiefly

hygienic and economic; but it is certain that proper burial at sea or

in the grave is no menace to public health, and is not more expensive

or difficult than cremation. A most serious objection to cremation is

that it makes exhumation impossible, and is therefore a means of

concealing murder by poison. It is not lawful for a Catholic to

cooperate (except materially in case of necessity) with cremation, or

to belong to any society that promotes the incineration of corpses; it

is not lawful for a priest to give the last Sacraments or funeral rites

to those who ordered the cremation of their bodies.

2596. The Special Duties of Clerics.--From the duties of Catholics in

general we pass now to the special duties of clerics; for the clergy,

on account of their position as the salt of the earth and the light of

the world (Matt., v. 16), are bound to a greater internal and external

holiness and edification than the laity. The word “cleric” is

understood in a wide or in a strict sense. In the wide sense, a cleric

is any Christian specially set apart for the service of God, whether by

ordination or religious profession (e.g., lay brothers, nuns); in the

strict sense, a cleric (clergyman) is one who has been admitted to

Orders, or at least to their preparation through tonsure (Canon 108).

(a) Duties Before Entering the Clerical State.--The person who would

enter the clerical state must have a vocation and a right intention. As

to the latter, since the clerical state has for its ends the glory of

God and the salvation of souls, it would be a serious sin to choose it

principally for temporal ends, such as wealth, dignity or pleasure; but

it is not a sin to desire secondarily and moderately the necessary

support of the clerical state (I Cor., ix, 3).

(b) Duties After Entering the Clerical State.--The privileges of

clerics are treated in canonical works. Here we speak only of duties.

The obligations of a cleric are of two kinds--the positive, such as

celibacy, and the negative, such as the avoidance of unbecoming

amusements or occupations.

(d) Touches.--Kisses are seriously dangerous to purity when warmly or