|
Objection 1: It would seem that seduction should not be reckoned a
species of lust. For seduction denotes the unlawful violation of a
virgin, according to the Decretals (XXXVI, qu. 1)
[Append. Grat. ad can. Lex illa]. But this may occur between
an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, which pertains to
fornication. Therefore seduction should not be reckoned a species of
lust, distinct from fornication.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Patriarch. [De
Abraham i, 4]): "Let no man be deluded by human laws: all
seduction is adultery." Now a species is not contained under another
that is differentiated in opposition to it. Therefore since adultery
is a species of lust, it seems that seduction should not be reckoned a
species of lust.
Objection 3: Further, to do a person an injury would seem to
pertain to injustice rather than to lust. Now the seducer does an
injury to another, namely the violated maiden's father, who "can
take the injury as personal to himself" [Gratian, ad can. Lex
illa], and sue the seducer for damages. Therefore seduction should
not be reckoned a species of lust.
On the contrary, Seduction consists properly in the venereal act
whereby a virgin is violated. Therefore, since lust is properly about
venereal actions, it would seem that seduction is a species of lust.
I answer that, When the matter of a vice has a special deformity, we
must reckon it to be a determinate species of that vice. Now lust is a
sin concerned with venereal matter, as stated above (Question
153, Article 1). And a special deformity attaches to the
violation of a virgin who is under her father's care: both on the part
of the maid, who through being violated without any previous compact of
marriage is both hindered from contracting a lawful marriage and is put
on the road to a wanton life from which she was withheld lest she should
lose the seal of virginity: and on the part of the father, who is her
guardian, according to Ecclus. 42:11, "Keep a sure watch over
a shameless daughter, lest at any time she make thee become a
laughing-stock to thy enemies." Therefore it is evident that
seduction which denotes the unlawful violation of a virgin, while still
under the guardianship of her parents, is a determinate species of
lust.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a virgin is free from the bond of
marriage, she is not free from her father's power. Moreover, the
seal of virginity is a special obstacle to the intercourse of
fornication, in that it should be removed by marriage only. Hence
seduction is not simple fornication, since the latter is intercourse
with harlots, women, namely, who are no longer virgins, as a gloss
observes on 2 Cor. 12:, "And have not done penance for the
uncleanness and fornication," etc.
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose here takes seduction in another
sense, as applicable in a general way to any sin of lust. Wherefore
seduction, in the words quoted, signifies the intercourse between a
married man and any woman other than his wife. This is clear from his
adding: "Nor is it lawful for the husband to do what the wife may
not." In this sense, too, we are to understand the words of Num.
5:13: "If the adultery is secret, and cannot be provided by
witnesses, because she was not found in adultery [stupro]."
Reply to Objection 3: Nothing prevents a sin from having a greater
deformity through being united to another sin. Now the sin of lust
obtains a greater deformity from the sin of injustice, because the
concupiscence would seem to be more inordinate, seeing that it refrains
not from the pleasurable object so that it may avoid an injustice. In
fact a twofold injustice attaches to it. One is on the part of the
virgin, who, though not violated by force, is nevertheless seduced,
and thus the seducer is bound to compensation. Hence it is written
(Ex. 22:16,17): "If a man seduce a virgin not yet
espoused, and lie with her, he shall endow her and have her to wife.
If the maid's father will not give her to him, he shall give money
according to the dowry, which virgins are wont to receive." The
other injury is done to the maid's father: wherefore the seducer is
bound by the Law to a penalty in his regard. For it is written
(Dt. 22:28,29): "If a man find a damsel that is a
virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the
matter come to judgment: he that lay with her shall give to the father
of the maid fifty sicles of silver, and shall have her to wife, and
because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all the days of
his life": and this, lest he should prove to have married her in
mockery, as Augustine observes. [Questions. in Dt., qu.
xxxiv.]
|
|