Accidentally "natural" to a given individual, and therefore vicious

"in man, nature can be taken in two ways. First, inasmuch as intellect and reason is the principal part of man's nature, since in respect thereof he has his own specific nature [(secundum eam homo in specie constituitur)]. And in this sense, those pleasures may be called natural to man, which are derived from things pertaining to man in respect of his reason [(secundum rationem)]. . . .  Secondly, nature in man may be taken as contrasted with reason [(secundum quod condividitur rationi, as distinguished from reason)], and as denoting that which is common to man and other animals, especially that part of man which does not obey reason [(rationi non obedit)]. And in this sense, that which pertains to the preservation of the body, either as regards the individual, as food, drink, sleep, and the like, or as regards the species, as sexual intercourse, are said to afford man natural pleasure. Under each kind of pleasures, we find some that are 'not natural' speaking absolutely [(innaturales, simpliciter loquendo)], and yet 'connatural' in some respect [(connaturales secundum quid)]. For it happens in an individual [(individuo)] that some one of the natural principles of the species [(speciei)] is corrupted, so that something which is contrary to the specific nature [(contra naturam speciei)], becomes accidentally natural to this individual [(per accidens naturale huic individuo)]. . . .  And this corruption may be either on the part of the body—from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa—or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom [(propter consuetudinem)] some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things [(in comedendo homines, vel in coitu bestiarum aut masculorum, aut aliorum huiusmodi, in consuming human beings, or in coitus with beasts or males, or others of this kind)], which are not in accord with human nature [(quae non sunt secundum naturam humanam)]."

     St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I-II.31.7.Resp.  Latin from Corpus Thomisticum.  I have followed the entry on "Homosexualité" in the Dictionnaire de philosophie et de théologie thomistes, by Margelidon and Fluocat (2016), in correcting the FEDP translation of that penultimate Latin phraseology.  For "aut" doesn't, I think, mean "and" (while the Dictionnaire renders the genitive—as in "bestiarum aut masculorum, aut aliorum"—with "avec," "with").  And, indeed, Eric D'Arcy translates this as follows on p. 25 in vol. 20 of the Blackfriars Summa:

He may be ailing physically. . . .  He may be ailing psychologically, as some men by habituation come to take pleasure in cannibalism, or in copulation with beasts or with their own sex, or in other things not in according with human nature.

     Most striking, in my view, though, is that distinction between what may be [2] "accidentally natural" to an individual" "in some respect", though [1] "contrary to the nature of the species" or "unnatural, simply speaking", and therefore vicious.
     12 October 2021:  This, by the way, is said to be the passage upon on which the thesis of Adriano Oliva O.P.'s Amours:  l'église, les divorcés remariés, les couples homosexuels (Paris:  Le Cerf, 2015) is based.  See Thibaud Collin, the five Dominicans (also First things), Carlos A. Casanova, and so forth.