Chapter 136 — Concerning the error of those who condemn perpetual continence

Men of distorted judgment have spoken against the good of continency, even as they have impugned the perfection of poverty. Some of these endeavor 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. (Nicomachean Ethics 1.2.) 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, as also the faculty of desire that incites to it, 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, he likewise 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 totally, 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: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen 1:28; 9:1). This was never revoked: in fact, rather was it confirmed by our Lord in the Gospel where it is said in reference to the marriage bond: What God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt 19:6). Now those who observe perpetual continence disobey this precept. Therefore, it would seem unlawful to keep perpetual continence.

However, bearing in mind what we have said above, (Ch. 135.) 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: therefore, 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 fulfill 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.

Hence the reply to the third argument is also clear. For, though for each individual it is 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 where there were none but spiritual substances. And though the eye is better than the foot in the animal’s body, 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 from it 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 (Ch. 134.) concerning poverty. For 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 divinity, for which reason virgins are said to be like angels. (Matt 22:30.)

To the fifth objection, we reply that the solicitude and occupation of married people about wife, children and necessaries of life, is continuous, but the disturbance to which a man is subject through resisting concupiscence is transitory. Moreover, the less he consents, the less is he disturbed: for the more a man indulges in pleasure, the greater becomes his desire for pleasure. (Nicomachean Ethics 3.12.) 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 sex, the mind becomes most attached to carnal things, since pleasure causes the appetite to be at rest in the pleasurable object. 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 sex, 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: Not all men can receive this precept. . . but he who is able to receive this, let him receive it (Matt 19:11–12).

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 not all need to fulfill, 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 they had 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.