Summa contra Gentiles3.136 Chapter CXXXVI and CXXXVII. Concerning the error of those who condemn perpetual continence

Men of distorted judgement have spoken against the good of continency, even as they have impugned the perfection of poverty. Some of these endeavour to proscribe perpetual continency by the following and like arguments.

The union of man and woman is directed to the good of the species. Now, the good of the species is more godlike than the good of the individual. Therefore it is a greater sin to abstain from an act whereby the species is preserved, than to abstain from an act whereby the individual is maintained, such as eating, drinking, and the like.

Again. By divine ordinance man has received members apt for generation; also the faculty of desire that incites thereto, and other like things directed to the same end. Therefore one who refrains altogether from the act of generation would seem to counteract the divine ordinance.

Also. If it be good for one to be continent, it is better for many, and best that all be continent. But this would result in the extinction of the human race. Therefore it is not good for one man to be continent.

Besides. Chastity like the other virtues takes a middle course. Consequently as a man acts contrary to virtue and is intemperate if he yield altogether to his desires; even so he acts against virtue if he refrain from his desires altogether, and falls into the vice of insensibility.

Furthermore. It is impossible for a man to be without all sexual emotions; since they are natural to him. Now it is more disturbing to the soul to resist concupiscences totahy, and to fight against them unceasingly, than to enjoy them with moderation. Since then disturbance of the mind is most inconsistent with perfection of virtue, it would seem incompatible with perfection of virtue to observe perpetual continence.

These arguments then would seem to militate against perpetual continence. And to them may be added the command of the Lord which, we read, was given to our first parents (Gen. i. 28: ix. 1): Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. This was never revoked, in fact rather was it confirmed by our Lord in the gospel (Matth. xix. 6) where it is said in reference to the marriage bond: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. Now those who observe perpetual continence disobey this precept. Therefore it would seem unlawful to keep perpetual continence.

Hov/ever, bearing in mind what we have said above, we shall easily reply to these objections. For we must observe that in matters regarding the needs of the individual we must not reason in the same way as in matters which regard the needs of the community. For when it is a question of the needs of the individual, each one must be provided for. Such things are meat and drink, and other things that concern the maintenance of the individual: wherefore everyone needs to take meat and drink. But when it is a question of what is necessary to the community, it is not necessary, nor indeed is it possible, that such things should be the concern of each member of the community. For it is plain that many things are needful to the human community, such as meat, drink, clothing, dwelling and the like, which cannot be provided by one man. Hence the necessity of various men having various duties: even as in the body various members are appointed for various acts. Since, then, procreation is connected with the needs, not of the individual, but of the entire species, it is not necessary that all men be employed in procreating; but some, refraining from it, are appointed to fulfil other duties, such as military service, or contemplation.

Hence the reply to the second objection is clear. For divine providence has bestowed on man all things necessary for the whole species: and yet it is not necessary that each man use each one of those things. Thus man has been given the art of building, the strength to fight: yet there is no need for every man to be a builder or a soldier. In like manner, though man has received from God the power and means of procreation, there is no need for every man to attend to the act of procreating.

Wherefore the reply to the third argument is also clear. Since though for each individual it be better to abstain from what is needful for the community, and to occupy himself with better things; it is not good that all so abstain. The same applies to the order of the universe: since, although a spiritual substance is better than a body, yet it would be not a better but a less perfect universe, wherein there were none but spiritual substances. And though, in the animal’s body, the eye is better than the foot, the animal would not be perfect unless it had both eye and foot. So too, neither would the human community be in a perfect state, unless there be some who attend to the act of procreation, and others who abstain therefrom and give themselves to contemplation.

The fourth objection based on the necessity of virtue taking a middle course, may be solved from what has been said above concerning poverty. Because the mean of virtue does not always depend on the quantity of the thing regulated by reason, but on the rule itself of reason, which compasses the due end, and measures the requisite circumstances. And thus, unreasonable abstinence from all sexual emotions is called the vice of insensibility. But if it be done in reason, it is a virtue surpassing man’s usual mode of life: since it gives man a special likeness to the godhead: for which reason virgins are said to be like angels.

To the fifth objection we reply that the solicitude and occupation of married people about wife, children and necessaries of life, is continuous: whereas the disturbance to which a man is subject through resisting concupiscence is transitory. Moreover the less he consents, the less is he disturbed: since the more a man indulges in pleasure, the greater becomes his desire for pleasure. Also, desires are weakened by abstinence, and other bodily exercises suitable for those who propose to be continent.—Again, indulgence in pleasures of the body is more lowering to the mind, and a greater obstacle to the contemplation of spiritual things, than is the disturbance consequent upon the resistance to the desire for these pleasures: because through indulgence in pleasures, especially those of venery, the mind becomes most attached to carnal things: since pleasure causes the appetite to be at rest in the pleasurable obj ect. Consequently for those who would apply themselves to the contemplation of things divine, and of any truth whatsoever, it is most harmful to indulge in venery, and most useful to abstain therefrom.—However, though it may be said in general that for one man it is better to remain continent than enjoy the use of marriage, nothing prevents the latter alternative from being better for a particular individual. Hence, our Lord, speaking of continence, said: All men take not this word.... He that can take it, let him take it.

From what has been said it is clear how to answer the last objection taken from the command given to our first parents. For this precept regards the natural inclination that man has to maintain the species by the act of procreation: which all need not fulfil, but only some, as we have said. And as it is not expedient for everyone to refrain from marriage, so neither is it befitting at all times, when the increase of the species is at stake: either because there are few individuals, as when in the beginning the human race began to multiply; or on account of the small number of the faithful, when it behoved them to increase by carnal generation, as was the case in the Old Testament. Hence the counsel to keep perpetual continence was reserved to the New Testament, when the faithful increase by spiritual generation.

1There were also others who, while not condemning perpetual continence, maintained that the married state is equal to it: which is the heresy of Jovinian. The falsity of this error is plain from what we have said: since continence renders man more able to raise his mind to spiritual and divine things; and lifts him, in a sense, above his state, by likening him to the angels.

Nor does it matter that men of most perfect virtue have embraced the married state, for instance Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: because the stronger the mind is rendered by virtue, the less is it liable to fall from its height through any cause whatsoever. And again, because they enjoyed the use of matrimony, it does not follow that they loved less the contemplation of truth and divine things: but according to the needs of the time, they made use of matrimony to increase the number of the faithful. However, the perfection of a particular individual does not prove the perfection of his state: since a man may apply a more perfect mind in the use of a lesser good, than does another in the use of a greater good. Hence, the fact that Abraham or Moses was more perfect than many who are continent, does not argue that the married state is more perfect than, or even equal to the state of continency.