Doubt IX: On lust between spouses

I presuppose that the use of marriage for the sake of offspring is lawful. Likewise, to avoid the danger of incontinence, as D. Bonaventure teaches in 4 d. 31, art. 2. The reason for the first is that this is the first end of the institution of marriage. The institution, moreover, is from God, as is said in Genesis 1 and 8, Matthew 19, John 2.

The other, however, is conceded in 1 Cor. 7: Again return together into the same, lest Satan tempt you because of your incontinence. So teach Rebello, 2 part. de oblig. iust. lib. 3 de imped. matrim. quaest. 19; Cajetan, sum. verb. usus matrimonii; Soto, 4 d. 32, art. 4; Fagundez, lib. 6, cap. 3; Diana, p. 2, Tract. 4, resol. 115, with others; or at most it is venial, as D. Bonaventure asserts, quaest. 2, with others cited by Sanchez, Tom. 3 de matrim. lib. 9, d. 11. One may also licitly use marriage for health's sake. So Rebello, sect. 1; Cajetan, tom. 1, opusc. tract. 12, quaest. 3; Henriquez, lib. 11 de matrim. cap. 17, num. 7; and others cited in Diana, resol. 218.

I presuppose also that the union of spouses from mere delight is venial. So D. Bonaventure, quaest. 3, from D. Augustine, lib. 1 de nupt. cap. 15, and de bono coniug. cap. 6 and 7; Rebello, loc. cit.; Fagundez, num. 5; Cajetan, verb. usus matrimonii; and this the Saintly Doctor calls a disordination with respect to the final cause. The reason is that marriage makes honorable the union, yet it still retains some disordination. Many, however, with Diana, p. 2, Tract. 4, resol. 116, excuse it even from venial sin.

The Saintly Doctor adds there, and in the Speculum animae, cap. 3, whom others follow: if from such concupiscence one is carried toward the spouse with a meretricious affection, so that he would wish, even if she were not his wife, or in the act should imagine another, it is mortal, and he is held to declare the condition of her whom he imagines, whether she is sacred, or married, or betrothed, or a virgin. But of these we must treat in the Tractate on Marriage.

The Saintly Doctor adds in the Speculum animae that a disordination of manner, of time, etc. may accompany the conjugal act.

With respect to manner, it is certain that it is a most grave sin if one defiles one's wife Sodomitically, as D. Bonaventure notes.

D. Bonaventure here; D. Thomas, quaest. 154, art. 11; either between the thighs, or in any other way by spilling the seed outside the natural vessel, as D. Bonaventure says and as is commonly held, with Sanchez, lib. 9 de debito coniugali, d. 17. The reason is that it is opposed not only to the general but to the special order of nature, as the Saintly Doctor argues in Compend. Theol. verit. lib. 3, cap. 21, and with him Fagundez, lib. 6, cap. 3, num. 17. Understand, however, that this is so if it is done advertently, as Fagundez notes, num. 20.

They ask, however, whether a man who begins the conjugal act Sodomitically with his wife, in order to complete it in the proper vessel, sins mortally.

The first opinion is that it is not mortal, provided the danger of pollution is absent. So Navarrus, lib. 5 consil. tit. de paen. et remiss. num. 7; Ovando, 4 d. 31, quaest. unic.; Angelus, V. debitum 25; Zerola, in praxi paen. cap. 12, quaest. 25; Graffius, tom. 1, lib. 5 de adulterio, conf. 3; Gambacurta, de casibus reser. casu 2; Zancharda, in direct. part. 1, Tract. de matrimonio, cap. 4, § 10.

But that it is not lawful teaches Bonacina, de matrimonio, quaest. 4, punct. 11, num. 12; Sanchez, lib. 9, d. 17; Rodriguez, sum. tom. 3, cap. 88; Basil Pontius, de matrimonio, lib. 10, cap. 11 — whom Diana reports, p. p. Tract. 17, resol. 37. I add Fagundez, in 6 praec. lib. 6, cap. 3, num. 18, who calls it an absurdity to concede this. And I subscribe: for that act is not ordered by nature to that vessel, but is initiatory of an execrable abomination, and is accordingly reduced to it. If, however, he inserts his fingers into the woman's vessel, or his member into her mouth, they deny that it is a mortal sin — Sanchez, de matrim. tom. 3, lib. 9, d. 17, num. 5; Diana, loc. cit.; but Fagundez, loc. cit. num. 19, says it is mortal, as also to rub the member about the unnatural vessel. Diana, part. 3, Tract. 4, resol. 204, condemns this with Pontius, and deservedly, for they can have no order, but are brutish.

They ask further: when the man is sowing and withdrawing his member, may the wife, gravely aroused, excite herself with touches.

They say it is lawful: Sanchez, num. 12; Fagundez, num. 21; and very many others cited in Diana, p. p. tract. 17, resol. 38 — who nevertheless, with Rodriguez, summ. part. 3, cap. 88, condemns such an act.

To me the prior opinion seems more probable. The reason is that it is the consummation of the conjugal union, ordered to generation. For the seed of the woman, though not necessary, nevertheless according to many contributes greatly to generation, as Sanchez proves, num. 8.

As for variation of position — for instance, if the woman is on top — it is more probably not deadly; for the womb of the woman has a power of attracting and retaining the man's seed, as the stomach has for food. So Sanchez, lib. 9 de matrim. d. 16; Navarrus, man. cap. 16, num. 42; Rodriguez, tom. 1, sum. cap. 143; Fagundez, in 6 praec. lib. 6, cap. 3; Diana, p. p. Tract. de circumstantia aggravante, resol. 35; and others cited by these. The same they say if the union is had unnaturally, or sitting, or from the side — provided, however, there is no danger of spilling seed outside the proper vessel.

But if in an extraordinary manner of union he emits some quantity of seed outside the vessel, and, weary of children, at the end of the act pours out all the seed outside the vessel.

It is answered that the effusion of all the seed outside is deadly, nor can the wife, knowing this, render the debt — whatever Basil Pontius may say, de matrim. lib. 19, cap. 11, as reported by Diana, p. p. Tract. 15, resol. 54.

Thus as often as the husband wishes to exercise the act mortally, the wife is not bound, nor can she render it, as Sanchez notes, lib. 9, d. 16, num. 8; but when it is venial, it is probable that she is bound to render it. So Sanchez, loc. cit.; Peter Soto, de matrim. lect. 16; Cajetan, 2. 2, quaest. 154, art. 1; Fagundez, num. 27; Henriquez, lib. 11, cap. 16, num. 6, in gloss. litt. O; Diana, p. p. Tract. de circumstantia aggravante, resol. 35; and others with D. Bonaventure, in 4, d. 32, dub. 4.

But whether to approach a menstruating woman is deadly.

The first opinion is that it is mortal, and of old it was punished by the penalty of death, Leviticus 18, as S. Bonaventure notes, loc. cit., where he observes that the penalty enjoined was upon the husband asking, or even upon the wife, if she herself be the one asking; yet he must render to the one asking, if he cannot otherwise, because he is bound to render his due to his husband.

He concludes, however, from what has been said, art. 3, quaest. 1, that if the time of the menses is, according to nature, customarily once a month, he ought not to ask, because he has a time to attend to generation, so that offspring may be born without danger of monstrosity or of elephantiasis, as D. Jerome admonishes, cited by the Saintly Doctor.

But if he violently renders, the wife is excused; if, however, he knowingly asks, and renders willingly, he sins; for at that time the man has no power over the body of the woman. But if it is a continuous disease, all concede with the Saintly Doctor that it is lawful to ask; otherwise they would be compelled to be long without their right, nor would a monstrous offspring then be born; even if there were danger of this, it would be better that she be, than not to be. So Navarrus, man. cap. 16, num. 32, and others cited by Fagundez, num. 18.

Some, however, say that to ask during the ordinary time of the menses is only venial. Fagundez says this is the common opinion, num. 29. But these things I shall defer to the Tractate on Marriage. So it is said likewise of the sin of one who approaches a pregnant woman, with danger of abortion.

There remains to be considered whether, on account of sacred time, unions are illicit.

First, when the most holy Eucharist is to be received: it is commonly asserted to be venial, as in Sanchez, lib. 9 de matrimonio, d. 13; Fagundez, cap. 4, num. 51, with D. Bonaventure, in speculo animae, cap. 5.

But others say it is not even venial; Fagundez reports them, loc. cit.

On the more solemn principal feasts, the Saintly Doctor judges it venial, loc. cit.; but in compend. Theol. verit. lib. 3, cap. 21 he teaches that it is a sin if it is done from a mere impulse of lust.

In the Confessional, cap. 2, particula 14, he reports the words of Alexander of Hales, who says that the conjugal act is deadly in five ways from mere impetuousness. The first is the cause of satisfying lust through meretricious blandishments; the second, when it is done against the natural use; the third, when it is at a prohibited time; the fourth, in a prohibited place; the fifth, when one approaches a menstruating woman. But in the other passages adduced, and there also before these words, he understands these circumstances of place and time to be mortal if the impulse of lust is grave, preferring delight to God.

For the rest, he judges it not mortal, as I have reported; and it is the common opinion with respect to time; with respect to place, however, I have said enough when the sacrilege was treated.

There are also certain preliminaries to the act. And indeed they ask: whether spouses sin mortally by touching one another and kissing the privy parts for the sake of mere pleasure.

Many assert so. So Paludanus, 4 d. 31, quaest. 3, art. 2; Sylvester, V. debit. coniug. quaest. 7; Rodriguez, tom. 1, cap. 129. But I shall say with Diana, 3 part. tract. 4, resol. 125: woe, woe to the married, if this opinion were true. Therefore he upholds the contrary opinion with Zancharda, de Sacram. matrimonio, cap. 41; Sylvius, 2. 2, quaest. 154, art. 4, concl. 61; Filliucius, tomo 2, tract. 30, cap. 10, num. 195. Diana adds that these men are to be gravely rebuked. Fagundez subscribes, in 6 praec. lib. VI, cap. 3, num. 37, who says they are venial — yet with this condition, that there be no danger of pollution; for then those acts would be deadly.