64. On the Use of Marriage

1. Marina, after marriage had been entered, was able to complete intercourse the first time not without grave difficulty. For it could not be completed otherwise than by exciting herself, in the very approach of the husband, even to seminal emission, namely before intercourse was in reality completed. The same difficulty always persevered because of narrowness of the organ, whence unless she does that, conjugal intercourse is impossible for her, or not possible without grave pain. She often explained the matter to her confessors. Some told her that it is permitted to her to excite herself thus even to seminal emission, immediately before the intercourse itself, just as it would be permitted to excite herself in the same way immediately after intercourse. But others said that it is by no means permitted thus to excite herself immediately before the intercourse itself, and added that the marriage, in the case, is null on account of impotence, since intercourse is not possible except by a means altogether illicit.

Q. What as to the case?

R. That a marriage of this sort was null on account of the impotence of the woman can indeed in no way be admitted. For in fact intercourse was completed, as appears from the case; and accordingly this marriage cannot be null from impotence, which impotence is for coition simply, and not for coition easily or with difficulty, with pain or without pain. And that impotence which is present in the case, whatever it is, can rightly be removed, and in fact is removed, without bodily danger and by a remedy otherwise licit, as will soon be explained. For nullity by reason of impotence in the case could not reasonably have been affirmed otherwise by those confessors, except insofar as they thought that that manner of congress was illicit, and accordingly that the impotence in the case is not removed except by an illicit means.

But as to the discord of the confessors concerning that excitation immediately before intercourse, perhaps they would be brought to concord if some explained their mind rightly to others. For if that immediately before is taken in a certain gross way and broad meaning, so that namely the woman, before the coition itself, indeed before the very approach of the husband, excites herself even to perfect seminal emission or pollution, this indeed appears altogether illicit. For that act, in reality, as a whole and entire thing, is in itself fully perfect independently of intercourse, and accordingly truly has the nature of pollution. And if afterward intercourse in fact follows, as far as concerns the very nature of such an act, this following intercourse is not related per se to that prior excitation as its natural perfection and natural complement, but that intercourse is related merely per accidens. But in such a case it is not really had that that excitation is done immediately before the intercourse itself, since in reality other actions intervene between this and that, and accordingly that immediately before is taken in a broad and gross way.

But if that immediately before the intercourse itself is taken properly and strictly, so that the aforesaid excitation has place in the very approach of the husband to the wife, and not before it - which approach alone is that which can truly and properly be understood immediately before the intercourse itself - then the grave illicitness of that excitation does not appear, so that it cannot be permitted without a grave and proportionate cause. The brief and urgent reason seems to be that that excitation is then related to the intercourse itself not at all per accidens, but on the contrary per se, and is related only to the intercourse, since it is in reality the beginning and commencement of the intercourse itself. And only this beginning and commencement of intercourse immediately precedes the intercourse itself, not another. The same assertion is confirmed from the authority of theologians. For there is truly no one who denies the illicitness of an excitation of this sort on the part of the wife in the intercourse itself now begun.

For 1. although theologians commonly do not teach this explicitly, because they do not treat this question, supposing that the woman is always of a colder nature, nevertheless they seem at least to intimate this implicitly, when they permit the wife before the act "to prepare herself for intercourse by touches." St. Alphonsus, n. 919. Indeed, such preparation by its nature progresses even to seminal emission, which can be confirmed from the very comparison which the Holy Doctor makes in l. c., which otherwise would prove nothing at all: "just as the wife can prepare herself for intercourse by touches, so also she can complete the act of intercourse," namely after the husband has withdrawn himself. And the same is also evinced from the other reason which the Holy Doctor adds: namely, that the wife can, after the husband has withdrawn himself, immediately excite herself by touches to seminal emission, because that seminal emission of the woman contributes much to generation. Now, from physiology and the opinion of physicians, that excitation contributes still more both to the marital act and to generation itself, if it is done immediately beforehand, namely in the very approach of the husband and in the commencement of intercourse. Pont., de Matr., l. 10, c. 11, n. 5; Giribaldi, tr. 10, de Sacr. Matr., c. 19, d. 7, n. 41, 47.

2. The principle commonly admitted by theologians is: "It is not necessary that each spouse have seminal emission at the same time." Sanchez, de Matr., l. 9, d. 17, n. 9. The husband can have emission first and then the wife; the wife can have emission first and then the husband, in the conjugal act. Cf. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 918, 919. Hence it is commonly deduced that immediately after the conjugal act also the wife can have emission, because that emission of the wife is had, the emission of the husband being supposed, as the complement of the conjugal act. Now from this it also follows, by logical deduction, that immediately before, in the very approach of the husband, the wife can have emission, since then the commencement of intercourse is had, which, the intercourse having been carried out, is completed and perfected by the emission of the husband. But attending to physiological doctrines concerning this matter, that improper emission of the woman pertains rather to the proximate and immediate preparation and disposition of the conjugal act and its commencement than to its complement. Moreover, it is more related to intercourse, and is more a preparation and commencement of intercourse, if it is done immediately before, while namely the husband is in that which completes coition and is already at the mouth of the woman's vagina, than if it is done immediately after, namely, as theologians commonly say, after the husband has withdrawn himself; for intercourse then is no longer had in any way, and nevertheless the emission of the woman is regarded by theologians as the complement of intercourse.

3. Besides, the conjugal act consists in this: that by marital congress the husband and wife become one flesh through the mingling of seeds. This indeed does not prevent the woman who did not have seminal emission in the marital congress, after that congress has now ceased, from having emission immediately afterward, because the mingling of seeds is still had by force of the same marital congress. But the same is verified altogether, and much more, if immediately before that congress, the woman, preparing and disposing herself proximately for it, namely in its very beginning and commencement, has emission; for, the congress itself immediately following after from this proximate preparation and beginning of the congress, the mingling of seeds is now had by force of the same conjugal congress.

It is added that, according to the opinion now commonly admitted, it is permitted to the husband to institute imperfect intercourse, that is, only to begin intercourse, and by this beginning of intercourse, from some reasonable and sufficient cause, also to pour out seed at the external surface of the female organ, or at the mouth of the vagina. Cf. Ballerini, note to n. 855; Fr. Gury, vol. 2, p. 830 seq.; D'Annib., p. 3, a. 431, 3rd ed. Therefore a fortiori the woman can, without doing anything repugnant to nature, excite herself even to seminal emission in the beginning of the same intercourse. Sometimes indeed natural intercourse on the part of the woman is possible in no other way, nor can it be done in another way without grave pain and inconvenience to the woman; for the fibers are then naturally relaxed and dilated.

4. The same follows from another commonly admitted principle, that in order that there be mortal sin between spouses, something must be done against the good of marriage. But that act immediately before intercourse, in the very commencement of intercourse, according to the teachings of physiology, harms human generation in no way; indeed it is commonly regarded by physiologists as useful, and very useful, both to the conjugal act itself and to the generation of offspring itself. From the aforesaid principle theologians gather that, the crime of voluntary pollution outside the vessel and of sodomy being set aside, scarcely anything else can be condemned with certainty as grave fault in spouses. It is not a question here, as is clear, of sodomy, nor can there be question of pollution outside the vessel, since female emission naturally and commonly is not done outside the vessel, unless from purpose and from lasciviousness the woman procures in herself that outpouring of humor outside the vessel, and this is not the present case. Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 1, n. 778. Nor indeed can there be question of pollution, simply such, for this is an outpouring of seed without congress with another, so that a futile outpouring of seed is had against the order of nature. In the case at issue, the beginning of intercourse is had, and accordingly it cannot be said that that without congress with another is verified; and much more it is not verified in this case than in the other already indicated, in that aforesaid complement of intercourse. But most certainly a futile outpouring of seed is not had, since, with intercourse soon perfected, the mingling of seeds is had, the conjugal act being completed on each side. Cf. Verricelli, de Apost. Miss., tit. 18, q. 303 seqq.; Quaest. Mor. leg., tr. 4, q. 27, s. 7; Mendo, Statera, etc., d. 5, q. 18, at the end.

And from these things which precede, that also is clear which was declared by the Holy Office on 24 March 1897, namely that artificial fecundation of the woman is not licit. From which illicitness those things also which precede are in turn confirmed.

2. Candidus, a confessor, although he has a prudent suspicion that spouses use marriage onanistically, always omits interrogating those same spouses, who do not accuse themselves of that sin. For first, he considers all as constituted in good faith. Besides, he himself acts thus lest he offend the spouses.

3. Pius, a confessor, asks: 1. Whether a woman can be absolved who indeed would suffer the husband if he acted rightly in conjugal intercourse, but vehemently desires that the husband withdraw himself, because that woman fears to have offspring. 2. Whether a woman can be absolved who, in conjugal intercourse, could by her blandishments obtain from the husband that he not withdraw himself, and does not do it, because that intercourse displeases her.

4. Bertha has a husband whom she has known by constant experience to be an onanist. In vain she has tried every means to draw him back from so unspeakable a crime. Indeed, most grave, or at least grave, evils now probably threaten her, so that she must either incur these evils, or flee from the house of her husband, unless she permits at least sometimes the abuse of marriage.

5. Flavia has an onanist husband, whom she can in no way resist. After the withdrawal of the husband, since she herself is greatly aroused, she is accustomed still to excite herself by touches so that she herself may at length complete the act. Since she was doubtful concerning this matter, she questioned Doctor C. C., who responded to her that this is licit to her, since what of itself is licit to her cannot be made illicit to her by the sin of the husband alone.

Q. 1. What concerning onanism? 2. What as to the various cases?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. V. 2, n. 1066, 1067. - To the second. The practice of Candidus cannot be approved, in always omitting to interrogate spouses, even when the abuse of marriage is prudently established. But it is altogether false that all spouses of this sort, acting badly, are in good faith. And for omitting the interrogation which otherwise must be made, the fact that the aforesaid spouses may be offended is not a sufficient reason. Sacred Penitentiary, 21 May 1851; 10 March 1886; Enchir. Moral. 1058. But the interrogation, when it ought to be made, must be made discreetly and prudently. Let the aforesaid confessor recall to mind that adage: holy things must be treated holily. And lest he exceed in interrogations, let him also weigh the words of St. Alphonsus, who in Praxis Confessariorum, § 4, n. 41, says: "But concerning the sins of spouses, with respect to the conjugal debt, ordinarily speaking, the confessor is neither held nor is it fitting to interrogate except wives, whether they have rendered it, in the more modest way in which he can. Let him be silent about the others, unless he has been questioned." Sacred Penitentiary, 8 June 1842.

To each question of Pius one must respond negatively. Sacred Penitentiary, 27 May 1847. For in the first case that woman desires a thing intrinsically evil, since the thing is contrary to the natural right of marriage. Sacred Penitentiary, 21 May 1851. But in the other case, the woman is consenting in the abuse of marriage on the part of the husband.

As regards Bertha, "since in the proposed case the woman indeed on her own part does nothing against nature, and gives work to a licit thing, but the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the husband, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and pours out outside the vessel; and therefore, if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, but the husband insists, threatening beatings or death or other most grave evils, she herself will be able, as approved theologians teach, to conduct herself permissively without sin, since in these circumstances of things she simply permits the sin of her husband, and that from a grave cause which excuses her; because charity, by which she is held to impede it, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience." Sacred Penitentiary, 1 Feb. 1832. - Gury, Comp., vol. 2, n. 927 seqq.; Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 3, n. 921, 922.

As to Flavia, the response of Doctor C. C. cannot be approved. For, given the withdrawal of the onanist husband, that act now has the true character of pollution. Hence in circumstances of this sort that act is not licit to her of itself, nor is it in any way made illicit to her by the sin of the husband. Wherefore, although the husband were not an onanist and withdrew himself from a reasonable cause, because, for example, he could not consummate the act, nevertheless the wife, thus aroused, could not for this reason then complete the act herself by her own touches. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 918, 919; I. M. 810, 811, 813.

6. Moevia, fearing to have several children, is accustomed immediately after the conjugal act to wash herself with cold water. But at the same time fearing lest this be a sin, she questions four confessors. The first responds that this is altogether illicit. The other asserts that it is simply licit. The third affirms that it is indeed illicit if it is done immediately after marital congress, or a little afterward, but by no means if it is done at least after three or four days. The fourth says that it is illicit if it is done with cold water, but by no means if it is done with hot water. Hence Moevia, after so many diverse resolutions, approaches a fifth confessor, that she may know whether she can continue in that practice, candidly asserting that she in reality has had no further child after she began to apply that washing.

Q. What as to the case?

R. First, there can be no doubt concerning the grave sin of Moevia in the aforesaid practice, from the depraved intention which she has of impeding generation, even prescinding from the very nature and force of that washing. It appears sufficiently and more than sufficiently that Moevia persists in it from the fear by which she is affected of having several children; consequently she applies it to impede conception.

But what must be thought concerning the aforesaid practice, sufficiently common? If it is considered in itself and the depraved intention is absent, since by prescription of a physician it is applied on account of infirmity, namely on account of a flux of humor which women not rarely experience.

From the opinion of physicians and physiologists, cold water either kills the germ, or certainly diminishes its fecundative power, which needs a certain determined degree of heat. For the fecundating activity of the spermatozoa is preserved by heat exceeding 30 degrees; but when the heat decreases below 20 degrees, although it is still preserved, nevertheless its energy is less. Hence washings or interior irrigations made with cold water are illicit of themselves, because they either impede generation or at least contain a sufficiently proximate danger of generation to be impeded.

Likewise, if the water, although sufficiently warm, nevertheless is not simple water but medicated water, then the case must be examined in particular; for there are certain drugs which have the same force of killing the germ or impeding generation, but others which are altogether innocuous.

Moreover, if the washing is done not only immediately, but even a little after the conjugal act, the seed is wasted and generation is impeded. It is necessary that at least a half hour, or at most three quarters, or even a whole hour have elapsed, lest generation be impeded. If besides the washing or irrigation is done not only in the vagina but also in the womb, so that water is sent by some greater pressure into the womb itself and penetrates it, the aforesaid washing and irrigation is altogether illicit, since either the germ is carried away by it or, if conception has already been made, abortion is procured. Wherefore the washing must be done only with light pressure of water, lest it pass beyond the vagina and seed be carried away from the womb or the fetus be expelled; and because, if seed still remained in the vagina, the more easily is the seed then carried away from the vagina, the greater will be the pressure of the water by which it is introduced within. But in the beginning of pregnancy it is at least prudent to abstain from washings or irrigations of this sort, since some danger of abortion can be present in them.

Hence, if due precautions are applied, both lest seed be ejected, and lest conception be impeded, and also lest abortion be procured, the aforesaid washing does not seem illicit, so that the wife must abstain from it under grave obligation, although otherwise it is altogether necessary for her on account of the infirmity which she suffers, of a flux of acrid and harmful humor. But if she could abstain from it, or at least defer it longer after the conjugal act and wait an entire day, or two or three days, it would certainly be better. Nor indeed does there appear, at least ordinarily, so urgent a reason why it is not deferred thus. Cf. Debreyne, Essai sur la Theol. Mor., p. 3, c. 1; Legrand du Saulle, Médecine Légale, Paris, 1886, pp. 265, 266, etc.

Those things which precede can be confirmed by the doctrine and authority of St. Alphonsus as to other cases very practical in this matter. 1. "Spouses indeed can from a grave cause do something from which, per accidens, an outpouring of seed follows; nevertheless they sin if in the use of marriage, or after the use, they do something by which conception is impeded or the seed conceived is rejected. The reason of the former is that generation is not impeded, not even indirectly, but it is only permitted not to take place, which is licit from a reasonable cause. The reason of the latter is that they act against the faith and principal end of marriage. Hence poverty threatening or danger from childbirth does not excuse such persons." Lig. 954.

2. Hence it is grave if a woman in the use of marriage diverts her mind to other things in order to impede conception. Lig. 918, 954. Likewise a wife will sin mortally if immediately after intercourse she urinates, or rises, or does something else, with the intention that she expel the received seed, because she frustrates the end for which seed is instituted by nature.... But it was said if the woman does this immediately and with the intention of expelling the seed; for if she did this from some necessity, for example, to avoid danger of death or the scandal of others, all say that she does not sin, just as they also agree that there is no need that the wife, after intercourse, remain long unmoved and supine, because in a short time the womb draws the seed and is closed most tightly." Lig. 954, 918.

"It seems to me indeed," says Capellmann, "to be preferable that this sin be removed from the midst by this reason: that to a woman accusing this in confession it should be answered that that manner of acting in no way helps the woman's depraved counsel. For it is certain that seed which has now penetrated into the female vessel does not flow out so easily. The walls of the vagina, after the withdrawal of the husband, are immediately composed hermetically, and therefore on account of the capillary sucking force of the touching walls it cannot happen that the seed flows out." Medicina Pastoralis, 11th ed., Aachen, 1896, p. 139.

3. Speaking of the natural position, the Holy Doctor adds these things at the end: "But Sanchez, Pontius, Palaus, and Bossius say, with Perez, Hurtado, and Aversa, that it is not mortal if, on account of a variation of position, only part of the seed falls out, the rest being retained within the vessel, sufficient for generation; which Sanchez and Bossius say sometimes happens; indeed Palaus and Pontius say that it happens almost always, and Pontius testifies that physicians assert this. But the Salamanticenses call this opinion too lax, because, as they say, to waste human seed without reasonable cause cannot be excused from mortal sin. Moreover, the Salamanticenses themselves, and Sanchez and Sporer with Aversa, say that the confessor is not held to interrogate a spouse accusing himself of this whether seed was poured out or not, because rarely, as they say, does it happen that seed is poured out; and thus I also have heard several times from those who accused themselves to me in confession of having had intercourse in an inverted manner. But those who have intercourse standing, or sitting, or with the woman above, I think to be in greater danger of pouring out the seed. But by this I do not dare to condemn the opinion of Sanchez, Pontius, Palaus, and others, as above; for they could respond to the Salamanticenses that to waste seed without a just cause, or, as the Salamanticenses ought better to have said, to permit that seed be wasted, is never licit when the seed is poured out outside the vessel of the wife, but not when it is sent within and, per accidens and not from the act itself, is wasted; because then the womb, as the aforesaid authors say, already draws what is sufficient for generation and expels the rest as superfluous." Lig. 917.

The same Capellmann, l. c., p. 151, says: "Every position, even if unnatural in intercourse,... of itself does not exceed venial fault, provided that the conjugal act can be sufficiently completed... that is, provided that introduction into the vessel and emission of seed into the vessel can take place. Infusion into the vagina is plainly sufficient. From anatomical causes direct infusion into the womb will very rarely have place; descent

(according to the law of gravity) will never happen. Reception of seed into the womb is effected partly by motions of the muscles and of the ciliated epithelium of the mucous membrane, and partly certainly by motions which are present in the spermatozoa themselves. Wherefore, in order that seed be introduced into the womb, position in intercourse is of no importance. Partial loss of seed after infusion into the vessel can indeed happen in some positions, nevertheless not so that conception is impeded by it. For it is established that the least amount of seed suffices for generation." And St. Alphonsus also says in l. c.: "Change of position does not impede generation, since the seed of the man is not received into the womb of the woman by infusion or descent, but by attraction, while the womb of itself naturally draws the virile seed."

4. "One taking or giving a potion, or effecting anything else by which conception of offspring is impeded and the spouse becomes sterile, sins mortally, whatever end this is done for, for instance, because the wife is accustomed to give birth with danger of death. The reason is that by deliberate work the seed is impeded from its natural end of generation, and it is against nature. Thus Cajetan, in 2. 2, q. 154, a. 1, ad 2; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 9, d. 20, n. 2. And it is established from C. Aliquando, 32, q. 2. V. Lig., l. 6, n. 954." Scav., 12th ed., Milan, 1874, l. 3, n. 839.

Hence consequently it must be said that it is altogether illicit to wet the mouth of the womb with alum, by whose force it is tightened and closed, enough to impede the ascent of seed into the womb, by which the ovule may be fecundated.