Fornication

FORNICATION. - From Latin fornix, which designated a vaulted chamber or corridor, usually resulting from supporting construction for stairways (stadiums, theaters, amphitheaters) and which was adapted for public use and also for the gathering of prostitutes. Christianity forged from it the terms fornicari, fornicatio, which became customary for indicating any carnal commerce outside of legitimate marriage. With this meaning they recur often in the Vulgate as equivalents of the Hebrew term zēnūnîm, which in its proper sense means sexual impurity, especially adulterous, and in a metaphorical sense idolatry, as a violation of the spousal bond between Israel and God.

An example of the first sense is found in the Gospel of Matthew (5:32; 19:9) where the term fornicatio in the phrase excepta fornicationis causa means adultery; an example of the second sense is found in the Gospel of John (8:41). The word acquired a technical meaning, whereby among the medieval scholastics the term fornicatio designates that particular species of lust which consists in the sexual union between two persons free from conjugal bonds or from other ties that would confer upon their sin the character of sacrilege or incest. And this meaning has remained in the technical vocabulary of Catholic moral theology.

The principal question raised concerning f. in the moral sphere regards its illicit nature. Greco-Roman civilization, while condemning adultery and incest, was not concerned with simple f. as a moral fault, except when it involved shameless license. Christianity immediately considered f. as illicit; the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem expressly forbids it to Christians newly converted from paganism (Acts 15:20); St. Paul declares excluded from the Kingdom of God, together with adulterers, also fornicators (1 Cor. 6:9). On the line of apostolic thought, the patristic tradition remained unanimous. Medieval theological speculation sought to determine the intrinsic reason and the degree of immorality of f.: with very rare exceptions (Durandus, Caramuel and a few others) theologians agree in holding f. to be intrinsically and gravely illicit, basing themselves both on revealed data and on reasons deduced from the analysis of the objective content of f.

Such reasons, several times set forth by St. Thomas in his works (Sum. Theol., 2a-2ae, q. 154, a. 2; C. Gent., l. III, ch. 122; De Malo, q. 15, aa. 1-2), place the intrinsic illicit nature of f. in its being deprived of the legal stability required by the purpose of human conjugal commerce, which includes not only procreation but also the education of offspring. The very words of the Aquinate are cited: «It is already evident in the animal kingdom that, where the rearing of offspring requires the cooperation of male and female, the two unite in a determinate and stable manner, as, for example, is observed in birds... Now it is evident that for the education of a human being there is required not only the work of the mother who nourishes him, but much more the work of the father who instructs and defends him, and furthermore develops him both spiritually and materially. It is therefore against nature that the conjugal copula be performed independently of any bond, but it is necessary that this take place between determinate persons and stably bound. Moreover, the natural need which, in the human species, the male feels to know with certainty which are his children is intimately connected with the duty incumbent upon him to educate them. Now this certainty would not be possible if the conjugal copula were free from any bond. Therefore nature itself postulates that the conjugal copula take place between two determinate and identifiable persons, that is, the conjugal act requires the married state. And since the married state, having procreation as its purpose, concerns the common good most highly, it is subject to law. F. therefore, as an extramarital copula outside the law, is intrinsically sinful. Nor does it avail to object that someone would be disposed to assume the education of offspring conceived fornicationally; because the natural necessity of binding the conjugal copula to the legally established conjugal state, arising from reasons of a universal character, precedes and encompasses all particular cases» (Sum. Theol., loc. cit.). St. Thomas and with him concordantly all Catholic moralists declare f. to be a grave sin from the objective point of view, while recognizing how widespread and easy the contrary erroneous subjective evaluation is in environments ignorant of and hostile to Christianity. The intrinsic reason adduced is derived from the grave harm proceeding, on the universal plane, even if not always in all particular cases, to the offspring born of the fornicatory union. The ecclesiastical magisterium has expressly pronounced on the intrinsic illicit nature of f. by condemning through the mouth of Pope Innocent XI the following proposition: Tam clarum videtur fornicationem secundum se nullam involvere malitiam et solum esse malum quia interdicta, ut contrarium omnino rationi dissonum videatur (Denz-U, 1198). The encyclicals of Leo XIII (Arcanum) and of Pius XI (Casti connubii) on Christian marriage authoritatively reaffirm the traditional doctrine set forth above on the illicit nature of any extramarital sexual commerce (v. FREE LOVE; CONCUBINAGE; MARRIAGE; PROSTITUTION).

Gaetano Corti