Aquinas and the unnatural vices

[jdnation]

Hi all,

I’m writing a Term paper about St. Thomas Aquinas and his arguments concerning Lust from his work ‘Summa Theologica.’

He lists 6 types of Lust:

1. Simple Fornication
2. Adultery
3. Incest
4. Seduction
5. Rape
6. The Unnatural

Of the sixth, ‘Unnatural vices’, he divides them further into 4 types:

1. Beastiality
2. Homosexuality (Sodomy)
3. Improper Intercourse (I’d say contraception fits in here)
4. Masturbation

St. Aquinas argues that the 6th type of lust is the worst because it is a sin against nature, and therefore against the natural order God has established, and therefore against God Himself.

Some people find it hard to imagine that these unnatural lusts are worse than rape. So my thesis is attempting to support Aquinas’ conclusion that it is worse than rape. I would appreciate some help or links or insights into this issue. Here are some of my thoughts on vital points:

I feel it’s obvious to the faithful that a sin directly against God Himself is worse than harm towards a fellow human being as it’s directly detrimental to the salvation of he who has committed the sin (This is not to make light of the crime but more a focus on the larger extent of things). Whereas sins committed with or against other people can be forgiven by each other or easier to recover and turn from than outright rebellion against God and the natural order that is imposed.

Also it’s shown from the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 20 that for all the lusts God issued clear punishments that resulted in death (the few exceptions are for some cases of incest that results in banishment or forbidden from having children). Whereas there is no punishment given for the other two unnatural vices that involve wasting the seed (unnatural sex and masturbation). This is because practically everyone was prone to committing those sins frequently, so it would be impractical. But as the story of Onan reveals God is clearly so displeased by it that He personally kills Onan to set an example.

Rape of a married or engaged woman also results in death in Deuteronomy 22:25. However, if the girl is unengaged, the rapist is forced to take her as a wife and pay for her dowry. This is practical because since she would cease to be a virgin she would be unmarriagable and given the situation of life in ancient times, marriage was necessary for survival, both for the woman who needed to rely on a man and vice versa, and for her parents who relied on their daughter’s support but can be taken care of in exchange for a dowry.

As Aquinas argues, the natural establishment by God and the natural method of sex is so obvious there is little excuse to believe otherwise and commit the unnatural vices, whereas in the other 5 types of lust, they are still ordered towards heterosexual and naturally ordered inclinations but are unethical for reasons that are different but still involve the natural act of sexual intercourse.

However are there any other substantial reasons as to why the unnatural vices are worse that do not involve rejection of God’s natural order? I’m theorizing that the continued practice and justification of the unnatural vices leads one to disregard the sanctity of life, and therefore they are only having sex for pleasure and going to lengths to prevent the conception of life, whether consciously through contraception, or unconsciously (for example, not being aware of Christian morality and the importance of sexual intercourse for procreation as a necessary command from God). Homosexuality and beastiality will only help to further the idea that sex is simply for pleasure and independant to precreation. If the seed can be wasted in such a manner then what difference would it make even with the right sex and species? But what is to happen if procreation should occur between heterosexuals who do not wish for it?

Could the continued reinforcement of the ideal that procreation is unnecessary overtime lead to fostering society’s justification for abortion in the event that conception does occur? Is it too big a leap to make, or is it the inevitable road that justifying and celebrating unnatural sex would naturally lead to? Thus the murder of millions of unborn children is an enivitable result originating from humanity’s continued practice of, and attempts to justify, the unnatural vices? Of course no one would argue that murder is less serious than rape… In fact rape is often used as a justification for abortion.

So what points should I concentrate on? Do any of the things I say make sense or are there some problems? If not, how could I strengthen these points? Does anyone happen to know any other arguments that I can make to strengthen Aquinas’ position, even ones that are practical and non-religious? Could anyone shed mroe light on what Aquinas is saying? Or could Aquinas even be wrong for some reason?

I would greatly appreciate any insight or help.

BTW, my paper is due Wednesday morning.

 

[Benedictus]

Some people find it hard to imagine that these unnatural lusts are worse than rape. So my thesis is attempting to support Aquinas’ conclusion that it is worse than rape.

I’ve been trying to figure you the best way of saying this. I hope I don’t come off as rude, but here it is: I’d be embarrassed for you if you did write a paper defending that thesis. Rape is a horrific, violent crime that all too often scars victims emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives.

 

[jdnation]

I’ve been trying to figure you the best way of saying this. I hope I don’t come off as rude, but here it is: I’d be embarrassed for you if you did write a paper defending that thesis. Rape is a horrific, violent crime that all too often scars victims emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives.

I understand, but this is indeed Aquinas’ conclusion. And I also do realize how horrible an experience it is and how it might feel to hear that it is not as grave as the unnatural vices, but I want to see it in the focus of the larger sphere that deals with whether offenses directly against God and His natural order are greater than offenses against human beings, as I say further down: "I feel it’s obvious to the faithful that a sin directly against God Himself is worse than harm towards a fellow human being as it’s directly detrimental to the salvation of he who has committed the sin (This is not to make light of the crime but more a focus on the larger extent of things). "

If it can be shown that Aquinas is wrong in arguing this, I will change my thesis to show that he is wrong.

Aquinas also realizes how you feel when he brings up the objection:

Summa Theologica II-II, 154, 12 Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

Objection 1. It would seem that the unnatural vice is not the greatest sin among the species of lust. For the more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it is. Now adultery, seduction and rape which are injurious to our neighbor are seemingly more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore the unnatural sin is not the greatest among the species of lust.

However he argues:

On the contrary, Augustine says (De adult. conjug. [The quotation is from Cap. Adulterii xxxii, qu. 7. Cf. Augustine, De Bono Conjugali, viii.]) that “of all these,” namely the sins belonging to lust, “that which is against nature is the worst.”

I answer that, In every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (09), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another’s authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above (10, ad 2).

Reply to Objection 1. Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature. Hence Augustine says (Confess. iii, 8): “Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is polluted by the perversity of lust.”

 

[jdnation]

^ I suppose that according to what he argues, one could say that when one directly offends God through the unnatural vices and thinks nothing of it, it might then leave the door open for one to further go out and freely rape if he can get away with it. Therefore it is a process of undermining morality that can eventually lead to temptation to commit ‘greater’ offences such as rape. Just as it might be argued that undermining the importance of procreation for sex, can lead to the practice of abortion when procreation does result from sexual intercourse.

 

[RichP]

I am going to try to answer this as best I can… The first five types may result in a child (i.e. procreation). This child is a child of God, made in his image and likeness just like everyone else. They are no less worthy because of the circumstances of their procreation (which they had no control over). There CAN be good that comes as the result of a horrible evil. Abortion because of rape or incest is often okay for many pro-life advocates… which, to me, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

All the sub-types for #6 cannot be procreative at all in their action. There is no way goodness can be a result of those actions.

I hope this helps a little!

Rich P.

 

[jdnation]

I am going to try to answer this as best I can… The first five types may result in a child (i.e. procreation). This child is a child of God, made in his image and likeness just like everyone else. They are no less worthy because of the circumstances of their procreation (which they had no control over). There CAN be good that comes as the result of a horrible evil. Abortion because of rape or incest is often okay for many pro-life advocates… which, to me, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

All the sub-types for #6 cannot be procreative at all in their action. There is no way goodness can be a result of those actions.

I hope this helps a little!

Rich P.

Hmmm, yes, that’s a good point. Thanks!

And I’m sure you meant ‘pro-choice advocates’

 

[puzzleannie]

a more modern writer might classify rape under crimes of violence, against the 5th commandment, and ‘rank’ them that way in which case rape and in some cases incest when it proceeds from rape would be worse than other violent crimes. depends on the starting point.

 

[jdnation]

a more modern writer might classify rape under crimes of violence, against the 5th commandment, and ‘rank’ them that way in which case rape and in some cases incest when it proceeds from rape would be worse than other violent crimes. depends on the starting point.

So if violence is added to the equation then depending on its severity it might be a worse crime? Would rape of a girl who is drugged or say, in a coma necessarily be violent? Perhaps not… and it is less worse than a forcibly violent rape, whereas the other stems from an inability to consent. But it can be included in a heirarchy of morals… Would Aquinas have consiered that? I’ll try and read more into what he says concerning rape.

An interesting article here:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_38_37/ai_78728668