|
Objection 1: It would seem that the unnatural vice is not a species
of lust. For no mention of the vice against nature is made in the
enumeration given above (Article 1, Objection 1). Therefore it
is not a species of lust.
Objection 2: Further, lust is contrary to virtue; and so it is
comprised under vice. But the unnatural vice is comprised not under
vice, but under bestiality, according to the Philosopher (Ethic.
vii, 5). Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.
Objection 3: Further, lust regards acts directed to human
generation, as stated above (Question 153, Article 2):
Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot
follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.
On the contrary, It is reckoned together with the other species of
lust (2 Cor. 12:21) where we read: "And have not done
penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,"
where a gloss says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust."
I answer that, As stated above (Articles 6,9) wherever there
occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered
unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in
two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is
common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is
contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the
human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may
happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any
copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the
sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by
copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called
"bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with
male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm.
1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by
not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue
means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.
Reply to Objection 1: There we enumerated the species of lust that
are not contrary to human nature: wherefore the unnatural vice was
omitted.
Reply to Objection 2: Bestiality differs from vice, for the latter
is opposed to human virtue by a certain excess in the same matter as the
virtue, and therefore is reducible to the same genus.
Reply to Objection 3: The lustful man intends not human generation
but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts
from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in
the unnatural vice.
|
|