eam, et modo tactus non sit adeo turpis, ut judicetur inchoata pollutio (prout esset digitum morose admovere intra vas femineum); ac præterea adsit aliqua gravis causa talem tactum adhibendi, nempe ad se præparandum ad copulam, vel ad fovendum mutuum amorem. Ratio, quia tunc justa illa causa tales actus cohonestat, qui alioquin non sunt illiciti inter conjuges; et si pollutio obvenit, hoc erit per accidens. Dicitur si adsit gravis causa; nam, si non adsit, prædicti actus non excusantur a mortali. Secunda sententia, quam tenent Pal. p. 4. §. 2. n. 2. Boss. cap. 7. n. 213. et Salm. cap. 15. num. 86. cum Šoto, Cajet. Dec. Led. Hurt. Aversa, et communi, ut asserunt, distinguit et dicit esse mortalia tactus impudicos, si prævideatur pollutio ex eis proventura; quia, cum hi proxime influant ad pollutionem, et non sint per se instituti ad fovendum affectum conjugalem, censentur voluntarii in causa: secus, si sint pudici, ut oscula et amplexus, quia actus isti per se inter conjuges sunt liciti, cum per se apti sint ad fovendum conjugalem amorem. Tertia sententia, quam tenet Diana p. 6. tr. 7. r. 65. cum Præpos. et Vill. dicit tactus tam impudicos quam pudicos esse mortalia, si prævideatur periculum pollutionis. Ratio, quia ideo tactus licent inter conjuges, in quantum quæruntur intra limites matrimonii, in quantum nihil sequitur repugnans fini et institutioni seminis: cum autem prævidetur seminis dispersio, licet non intendatur, qualescumque tactus sunt illiciti.

"His sententiis positis, puto probabilius dicendum, quod tactus turpes into conjuges cum periculo pollutionis, tam in petente quam in reddente sint mortalia, nisi habeantur ut conjuges se excitent ad copulam proxime secuturam; quia, cum ipsi ad copulam jus habeant, habent etiam jus ad tales actus, tametsi pollutio per accidens copulam præveniat. Tactus vero pudicos etiam censeo esse mortalia, si fiant cum periculo pollutionis in se vel in altero, casu quo habeantur ob solam volup tatem, vel etiam ob levem causam: secus, si ob causam gravem, puta, si aliquando adsit urgens causa ostendendi indicia affectus ad fovendum mutuum amorem, vel ut conjux avertat suspicionem ab altero, quod ipse sit erga aliam personam_propensus. Probabiliter dicunt Sanchez d. d. 45. num. 34. Boss. d. n. 203. et Escob. n. 207. in reddente tactus etiam impudicos, nisi sint tales ut videantur inchoata pollutio, esse licitos, quamvis adsit periculum pollutionis in alterutro; quia tunc reddens dat operam rei licitæ, ad quam obligatur propter jus petentis, qui, tametsi peccet, non tamen jus amittit, cum culpa se teneat ex parte personæ, juxta dicenda ex n. 944.

“935.—An autem sit semper mortale, si vir immittat pudenda in os uxoris ? Negant Sanch. lib. 9. d. 17. n. 5. et Boss. cap. 7. n. 175. et 193. cum Fill. ac Perez, modo absit periculum pollutionis. Sed verius affirmant Spor. de Matrim. n. 498.

Tamb. lib. 7. c. 3. §. 5. n. 33. et Diana p. 6. tract. 7. r. 7. cum Fagund. tum quia in hoc actu ob calorem oris adest proximum periculum pollutionis, tum quia hæc per se videtur nova species luxuriæ contra naturam (dicta ab aliquibus irrumnatio): semper enim ac quæritur a viro aliud vas, præter vas naturale ad copulam institutum, videtur nova species luxuriæ. Excipit tamen Sporer 1. c. cum Fill. et Marchant. si id obiter fiat; et hoc revera sentire videtur etiam Sanch. dum excusat actum illum a mortali, si cesset omne periculum pollutionis. Excipit etiam Pal. p. 4. §. 2. num. 6. si vir hoc faceret, ut se excitet ad copulam naturalem. Sed ex prædictis neutrum admittendum puto. Eodem autem modo Sanchez loc. cit. n. 32. in fin. damnat virum de mortali, qui in actu copulæ immitteret digitum in vas præposterum uxoris, quia (ut ait) in hoc actu adest affectus ad sodomiam. Ego autem censeo posse quidem reperiri talem effectum in actu; sed per se loquendo hunc effectum non agnosco in tali actu insitum. Ceterum, graviter semper increpandos dico conjuges hujusmodi fœdum actum exercentes.

"936.-"Quær. III. an sint mortalia tactus turpes, quos conjux habet cum seipso, altero absente, et secluso periculo pollutionis. Prima sententia negat, quam tenent Pal. p. 4. §. 2. n. 5. Escob. n. 201. Boss. c. 7. n. 205. et 297. cum Per. Hurt. et Ochag. apud Sanch. 1. 9. d. 44. n. 15. cum Palud et Lopez, et pro hac sententia Salm. c. 15. n. 87. citant etiam D. Thom. q. 6. de Bon. Matr. dub. 26. num. 188. Ratio, quia hujusmodi tactus ab ipso statu conjugali cohonestantur, cum de natura sua ordinentur ad copulam; et ideo, secluso periculo pollutionis non possunt esse in conjuge graviter illiciti, etsi copulam de præsenti ipse non posset consummare. Secunda vero sententia probabilior, et in praxi omnino suadenda, affirmat; et hanc tenent Laym. tr. 3. c. 6. n. 12. in fine, Diana p. 3. tr. 4. r. 215. (quamvis hic auctor sit valde benignus) Sporer n. 503. cum Arm. et Vasq. ac Salm. cum Avers. Sancio, Salas, Mont. Dic. et Ant. a Sp. S. Ratio, tum quia conjux non habet jus per se in proprium corpus, sed tantum per accidens, nempe tantum, ut possit se disponere ad copulam; unde, cum copula tunc non sit possibilis, tactus cum seipso omnino ei sunt illiciti ; tum quia tactus pudendorum, quando fiunt morose, et cum commotione spirituum, per se tendunt ad pollutionem, suntque proxime connexi cum ejus periculo.

"937.-Quær. IV. an sit mortalis delectatio morosa in conjuge de copula habita vel habenda, quæ tamen non possit haberi de præsenti. Adsunt tres sententiæ. Prima sententia affirmat; et hanc tenent Pont. lib. 10. c. 16. n. 21. Wigandt tr. 4. n. 59. Sylv. ac. Vega, Rodriq. et Dic. apud Salm. c: 15. n. 88. qui probabilem vocant. Ratio, quia talis delectatio est quasi in

choata pollutio, quæ, cum eo tempore non possit haberi modo debito, omnino fit illicita. Secunda vero sententia communior negat; eamque tenent Pont. p. 4. q. 8. n. 12. Escob. num 204. Spor. n. 505. Croix num. 337. cum Suar. et Gers. Boss. c. I. n. 215. cum Fill. et Perez, et Sanch. 1. 9. d. 44. num. 3. cum S. Anton. Palud. Arm. Cajet. Met. Viguer. Tab. et communi, ut asserit, utque fatetur etiam Pontius, item Coninck. Avers. Gabr. et Dian. apud Salm. c. 15. n. 89. qui etiam probabilem putant. Hæc sententia dicit talem delectationem non esse mortalem, si abșit periculum pollutionis, sed tantum venialem. Est venialis, quia ipsa caret debito fine, cum non possit ordinari ad copulam præsentem. Non est autem mortalis, quia delectatio sumit suam bonitatem vel malitiam ab objecto; et cum copula sit licita conjugatis, non potest esse eis graviter illicita illius delectatio. Et huic expresse favet id quod ait D. Thom. de Malo, q. 15. art. 2. ad 17. ubi: Sicut carnalis commixtio non est peccatum mortale conjugato, non potest esse gravius peccatum consensus in delectationem, quam consensus in actum. Idque admittit Spor. etiamsi habeatur delectatio venerea orta ex commotione spirituum. Tertia demum sententia, quam tenent Salm. d. c. 15. num. 90. distinguit et dicit, quod, si delectatio sit absque commotione spirituum, non erit mortalis; secus, si cum commotione et titillatione partium.

"Ego meum judicium proferam. Si delectatio habeatur non solum cum commotione spirituum, sed etiam cum titillatione seu voluptate venerea, sentio cum Conc. p. 408. num. 10. (contra Sporer ut supra) eam non posse excusari a mortali, quia talis delectatio est proxime conjuncta cum periculo pollutionis. Secus vero puto dicendum, si absit illa voluptuosa titillatio, quia tunc non est delectationi proxime adnexum periculum pollutionis, etiamsi adsit commotio spirituum; et sic revera sentit Sanch. 1. c. n. 4. cum Vasq. cum ibi non excuset delectationem cum voluptate venerea, sed tantum, ut ait, cum commotione et alteratione partium absque pollutionis periculo. At, quia talis commotio propinqua est illi titillationi voluptuosæ, ideo maxime hortandi sunt conjuges, ut abstineant ab hujnsmodi delectatione morosa. Item advertendum eam esse omnino illicitam in conjuge, qui esset obstrictus voto castitatis, ut dicunt communiter Sanch. d. d. 44. num. 26. et Boss. c. 7 n. 201. cum Vasq. Fill. et aliis."

I think it is indisputable, after the mass of evidence which I have given, that the most obscene subjects are debated in the confessional, between the Priest and the Penitent.

Y

III. We will consider the tendency and direct influence of the confessional.

1st. It enslaves the mind and lays the people prostrate at the feet of the Priest. The confessor knows the state, the circumstances, and the future intentions of the penitent, and it is his duty to withhold absolution and visit him with the penalties of the Church, if he be not prepared to act according to the admonitions given. All must confess—from the monarch to the lowest subject— all must kneel at the feet of the confessor, who is considered as "God in the confessional," and place themselves under his controul; the will of princes must yield to that of the Priest, and the awful consequences of non-absolution await those who would be their own masters. Here is despotism of the worst kind; Rome lays claim to absolute power, and to the world as her kingdom.

2ndly. It demoralizes the mind. I have proved largely and indisputably, that the Priest is instructed in the nature of sin with all its varieties, preparatory to his examination of the penitent in the confessional-he is bound by the unnatural law of celibacy under the most fearful obligations. Let us suppose the case of a young Bachelor Priest placed in a large parish—at a time when he was unable to form a decided opinion whether he possessed the gift of celibacy or not, he was led to vow eternal dedication to that state: he is instructed in such treatises as that on "the use of matrimony" to which we have directed attention, and of which Liguori himself says, that it is sufficient to "disturb pure minds." He is conscientious-he struggles under the yoke which was imposed upon him, and sighs beneath the corruptions of the heart, which is described by the inspired men as being" deceitful above all things and desperately wicked" -the carnal propensities of which are drawn out and in

flamed by the foul and obscene treatises in which he is instructed; he groans beneath the wickedness of his nature and exclaims, " Oh wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?" He is at length convinced that the way to avoid unholy thoughts is to avoid those things which suggest them; he determines that henceforth he will not think or speak of the things that are done of them in secret, but obey the apostolic injunction, Finally, Brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things." With righteous indignation he casts the unholy book from him, he feels that impurity is in its contents. Wretched man! the remembrance of his eternal vow seizes upon him—he must either approve of the duties of the confessor's office, or become in his estimation a wretched, perjured, sacrilegious heretic. He must go forward-penitents of every grade and condition present themselves; his time is for the most part occupied in hearing confessions. Now in private, he is brought into personal contact with sinners of every kind-the sins of which before he had only read, are now poured out by human lips into a human heart-all secrets are made known; unchastity, in all its varieties and with all its circumstances, is minutely detailed-the young, the lovely, pour into his yet tender heart every emotion. -the debauched, the profligate, the unchaste are there to make known their guilty state. Thus he listens to and is bound to elicit the most unholy thoughts; he is brought into private personal contact with all his parishioners, and that constantly. The wife tells the secrets of her husband-aye, secrets peradventure which the hus