besar, concubinarius, concupiscentia, copula carnal, corrumpere, deleyto, fornicación, fornicar, fornicarius, osculum, tactus, tocar

adulterium, irregularitas, ius naturale, luxuria, matrimonium, mulier, scandalum

Fornication is against natural law (Vitoria 1934, q. 57 art. 2 no. 4, p. 9; Vitoria 1952, q. 94 art. 2 no. 2, p. 146; Solórzano Pereira 1629, lib. 2 cap. 14 no. 31, p. 418; Albornoz 1573, lib. 4 prol., fol. 137v; ius naturale) but is “far from its first principles”. The restriction may thus be lost from sight among barbarian peoples as reported from the Americas (Soto 1553, lib. 1 q. 4 art. 5, p. 37, lib. 3 q. 1 art. 2, p. 195) or generally in the “mental fog” of mankind (“nebula mentium”: Soto 1553, lib. 2 q. 2 art. 2, p. 99; “caligo mentis”: Soto 1533, lib. 2 q. q. art. 3, p. 166).

The sexual union of man and woman is established by nature to beget children (Vitoria 1934, q. 57 art. 2 no. 4, p. 9), who then have to be raised in a way fitting for an “animal rationale”. This requires the father’s involvement in the upbringing of his children (Vitoria 1934, q. 57 art. 2 no. 4, p. 9), which is presumed impossible without a stable union between man and wife (Báñez 1594, comm. ad q. 78 art. 1, p. 583; Báñez 1594, comm. ad q. 57 art. 3, p. 18; Vitoria 1952, q. 100 art. 3, p. 455). So fornication is a “nefarious crime” against the “fundament of procreation” (Soto 1553, lib. 2 q. 4 art. 3, p. 34). Moreover, unchecked fornication would disturb the internal peace of any republic (Báñez 1594, comm. ad q. 78 art. 1, p. 583).

With this classification, the Salamancans follow Aquinas and rebut medieval and modern authors like Durandus, Martinus de Magistris or Juan Caramuel Lobkowitz. The latter argue that simple fornication is neither against natural law nor inherently evil; therefore, it is not prohibited by its nature and can be considered evil only because of its prohibition in the Old and New Testament (Deut. 23:17, Ephes. 5:3-4: Caramuel 1652, no. 1171, pp. 565 sqq.; Caramuel 1645, no. 1598, p. 409; Durandus 1569, lib. 4 dist. 33 q. 2 no. 10, fol. 325v; Martinus de Magistris 1511; cf. Dedek 1980, 652 sqq.; Armogathe 2008, p. 124). The Salamancans vehemently reject these views (Vitoria 1952, q. 94 art. 2. no. 2, p. 147) as dangerous and close to heresy (Báñez 1594, comm. ad. q. 78 art. 1, p. 584; Covarrubias 1571, vol. 1, In Quart. Libr. Decret., cap. 4 no. 8, p. 8; for Albornoz 1573, lib. 4 prol., fol. 137v the presumed licitness of fornication is the characteristic error of heathens and Muslims). Avendaño also rejects the licitness of fornicatio but deems the discussion too abstract to be of interest for the practical purpose of guiding consciences (Avendaño 1675, vol. 3, p. 1 add. 4 § 3 no. 556, p. 140).

Natural law and piety oblige a man to raise a child born out of fornication; if he tricked the woman into sex, e.g. by falsely promising marriage, paying alimony is also demanded by iustitia commutativa: pregnancy, birth, and the sustenance of the child were considered damage unjustly suffered by the deceived woman (Báñez 1594, comm. ad q. 62 art. 2, p. 191).

Fornication is also prohibited by divine law (Vitoria 1952, q. 94 art. 2 no. 2, pp. 145 sq.; Avendaño 1675, vol. 3, p. 1 add. 4 § 3 no. 556, p. 140) even though not explicitly mentioned in the Ten Commandments (Soto 1553, lib. 2 q. 5 art. 3, p. 166): the latter prohibit only sins directly detrimental to other persons (e.g. adultery), leaving the basic moral education to figures of authority such as secular rulers and fathers (Soto 1553, lib. 2 q. 3 art. 11, pp. 128 sq.). Under no circumstances can fornication be licit, not even when recommended by a doctor for health reasons (Solórzano Pereira 1629, lib. 3 cap. 6 no. 74, p. 719).

Positive human law does not forbid simple fornication but only its aggravated forms like incest, rape or adultery (Soto 1553, lib. 1 q. 6 art. 3, p. 49). Even though all fornication is a mortal sin (see 2.3) and an ugly misdemeanour, the respublica allows simple fornication for the sake of avoiding greater sins like adultery (Mercado 1569, Opusculo de Cambios, cap. 11, fol. 113r), thus illustrating the rule that between two inevitable evils that are similar in nature, the lesser one has to be chosen (Albornoz 1573, lib. 2 tit. 16 Adnot. Estancos, fol. 73v).

Capital punishment would be considered excessive for simple fornication (Vitoria 1952, fragm. 2 concl. 13, p. 509), but could be regarded as appropriate for qualified cases like incest or rape (Carrasco del Saz, tract. 4 no. 5, fol. 56r).

Fornication is considered almost inevitable: “among all the battles of the Christians, the hardest are those of chastity where the fight is a daily one, and victory very rare” (Granada 1792, lib. 2 cap. 6, p. 311). It is thus regarded as one of the most common sins: “few can be found free from the vice of incontinence” (Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 73, p. 148; see Soto 1553, lib. 2 q. 3 art. 11, p. 129 sq.). Nevertheless, any kind of fornication is a mortal sin, including the fornicatio simplex (Victoria 1952, q. 94 art. 2 no. 2, pp. 145 sqq.; Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 1, p. 158, cap. 16 preg. no. 4, p. 162). The authors are perfectly aware that for laypersons, this is difficult to understand or accept (Vitoria 1932, q. 2 art. 10 no. 3, p. 83; Albornoz 1573, lib. 4 prol., fol. 138r), but the laity cannot be expected to know how to measure the relative gravity of different sins (Vitoria 1561, Sacr. Poen., q. An de maiori, fols. 88v sq.). To convey this gravity to them is a challenging task for missionaries and confessors (see Schwartz 1997).

Fornication relates to the deadly sin of luxuria (Granada 1792, lib. 2 cap. 6, p. 311). Soto sees it not only as a sin against temperance but also against justice: fornication is committed against a person, viz. the child conceived in the extra-marital intercourse even if it only exists in potentiality (Soto 1553, lib. 5 q. 3 art. 3, p. 421), “for, generally speaking, a child born of uncertain parentage cannot be easily brought up properly” (Soto 1553, lib. 5 q. 10 art. 3, p. 491).

Fornication is committed when a person engages in a sexual act with a non-marital partner willingly. Only continuous objection against the act can excuse from the sin. This can take the form of silent internal protest; verbal or physical resistance is not required (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 1, pp. 158 sq.). Also, experiencing sexual arousal does not constitute agreement: as a natural function of the body, physical pleasure is not under rational control and thus cannot cancel out the opposing will (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 1, p. 158). The best safeguard against the sin of fornication is lifelong chastity (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 23 no. 112 , pp. 489 sq.) and watchfulness against any kind of temptation (Granada 1792, lib. 2 cap. 6, par. 1, pp. 314-318).

Because of its ubiquity, fornication is often used as an example in theological discussions of sin (e.g. Solórzano Pereira 1629, lib. 3 cap. 6 no. 74, p. 719; Vitoria 2019, q. 71 art. 5 no. 8, p. 100, q. 73 art. 4 no. 2, p. 142; Vitoria 1932, q. 19 ar. 8 no. 4, p. 329; Soto 1553, lib. 1 q. 3 art. 3, p. 25; Soto 1553, lib. 3 q. 2 art. 5, p. 207; Soto1553, lib. 6 q. 1 art. 5, p. 534; Cano 1558, pars 4, fols. 61r sq. and fol. 69r; Albornoz 1573, lib. 2 tit. 16 Adnot. Estancos, fol. 73v) or as a benchmark to measure the gravity of other sins, like murder and theft (e.g. Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 3 no. 2, p. 165, q. 10 art. 3 no. 4, p. 167; Soto 1553, lib. 5 q. 1 art. 8, p. 401; Vázquez de Menchaca 1572, lib. 1 cap. 18 no. 11, fol. 50r; homicidium, furtum). The medieval discussion of determining a hierarchy of sins according to their gravity, however, is not taken up. Although Vitoria leans towards the opinion of Aquinas (that fornication is less grave than theft, homicide, or murder: Vitoria 1934, q. 66 art. 6 no. 3, pp. 336 sq.), he explicitly leaves the question open (Vitoria 1952, q. 94 art. 3, p. 149), while Soto warns against simplistic comparisons (Soto 1553, lib. 5 q. 3 art. 3, p. 421).

Sexual sins were considered especially difficult to treat in confession because of the reticence of the confessants (Arcuri 2018, 83). The confessor should strive to build trust, advises Baltasar de Rienda, a parish priest in the province of Granada: without a complete confession, the spiritual medicine of absolution cannot be administered (Rienda 1662, fol. 33v). However, the confessor should only pose the questions necessary to assess the type of fornication, simplex or other (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 4, p. 161). The precise number of occurrences is not required (Vitoria 1561, Sacr. Poen. q. Numerus, fol. 135v). Azpilcueta warns against inquiring in too much detail, as this endangers the confessor himself as well as the penitent (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 4, p. 161). Taking communion after an unconfessed fornication is highly irreverent, but no mortal sin in itself (Vitoria 1561, Sacr. Euch. q. An pollutio, fol. 56r).

According to the majority of canonists, all clerics can commit simple fornication (see Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 72, p. 144 for details of authors and arguments). The opinion that bishops and prelates are “married” to their titular churches and therefore invariably commit adultery when engaging in sexual intercourse is deemed probable, but rejected (Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 72, p. 144). Soto, however, points out that fornicating clerics violate their vow of chastity and thus commit a twofold sin (Soto 1553, lib. 8 q. 4 art. 2, p.).

Clerics are to be punished when their sexual relationship with a woman causes a scandalum. The severity of the sanction is at the discretion of the ecclesiastical judge, who should take all circumstances into account (Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 73, p. 148). Notoriety, such as caused by the cleric living together with a woman as man and wife and publicly raising his children (Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 73, p. 146), leads to the cleric’s irregularity (Báñez 1594, comm. ad q. 64 art. 8, p. 375). For more discreet cases, a mild punishment is deemed sufficient because of the ubiquity of the sin (Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 73, p. 148). However, fornication with a nun is considered sacrilege, adultery and incest; the sanctions for the cleric include deposition and banishment to a monastery (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 16 no. 3, p. 160; Díaz de Luco 1554, cap. 75, p. 157).