Article I: On the Intrinsic Nature of the Use of Marriage

138. The use of marriage can be considered in two ways, physically and morally; and, inspected physically and morally, it can still be considered in two ways according to the twofold circumstance physically affecting the aforesaid use, namely outside the case of impotence, and when impotence is present for completing that act.

139. If the use of marriage is considered physically and morally as to its lawfulness, it is had by the coitus of man and woman, with the bond of marriage preceding, and by the emission of the man's semen into the natural vessel of the woman and its retention there, so that generation can follow, whether the woman also seminates or not. The first reason is that the generation of offspring, which is the primary end of marriage, is naturally impossible unless the male semen is inserted and retained within the natural vessel of the woman. Therefore conjugal and lawful copulation must necessarily take place with the insertion and retention of semen within the natural vessel of the woman. The second reason is that generation is also naturally impossible if, although the male semen is inserted and retained within the natural vessel of the woman, that is, within the vagina, nevertheless by the use of some instrument it is impeded from reaching the uterus. Therefore that insertion and retention of semen must be such that from it generation can naturally follow. The third reason is that the semen of the woman is not absolutely necessary for generation. For today it is known that the true germ of offspring is present in the woman; but this consists not in the woman's semination, as it is called, or in the emission of vulvo-vaginal humor, but in the ovule secreted from the ovary, adhering to its surface, which gradually grows until, mature of itself, even without coitus, it is shed. This chiefly happens at the time of menstruation; and when thus shed, if it is still apt and nothing else stands in the way, it is fecundated by the male semen, and then offspring is conceived. Hence a certain sign of aptitude for fecundation in a woman is had from the presence of menstruation, since menstruation perfectly corresponds to ovulation; although the absence of menstruation cannot always be a certain sign of incapacity for fecundation, because several examples show the contrary.

140. Corollaries. 1. If, when copulation has begun, "the woman has already seminated, or is in probable danger of seminating, the man indeed cannot deliberately withdraw himself from semination without grave fault, because then he himself is the cause that the semen of the wife is wasted." L. 918.; Billuart, de Matr. Diss. 4. art. 3. at the beginning. Cf. here n. 136. But if the man has already seminated, whether the woman sins lethally if she withdraws from seminating is disputed among theologians. Some affirm, because the semen of the woman at least contributes much to the certainty and perfection of the offspring, since it was instituted by nature at least for this. But others more commonly and more probably deny, because the semen of the woman is not necessary for generation. Nor is it truly an objection that the semen of the woman contributes to the perfection of the offspring; for spouses are not bound to the more suitable mode of generating, but it is enough if they do not stand in the way of generation. L. ibid.

Concerning the first conclusion, modern authors say that the reason of St. Alphonsus rests on a false supposition, namely that the semen of the woman is frustrated. But the aforesaid reason does not rest on a false supposition. For although that semination of the woman is not necessary for generation, nevertheless, if it exists, it is intrinsically ordered by nature itself to generation. Hence it is that those same authors, with others, agree that it renders generation easier and more certain; and because it is destined by nature itself to generation, when copulation has already been consummated on the part of the man, the woman, if she has not completed the act, can seminate and complete the act. Therefore, if after the semination of the woman the man does not also seminate, the semination of the woman is altogether frustrated against the order of nature, and altogether against generation.

2. It is not necessary that each spouse seminate at the same time. For "since generation follows without that semen of the woman, not only where it is not poured forth at the same time, but afterward, no precept constrains them to pour it forth equally." Sanchez, l. 9. disp. 17. n. 9. Nor again is it an objection that this is more suitable for generation, because, as was just said, "spouses are not bound to choose the more suitable and easier way of generating, but it is enough for them if they do not stand in the way of generation." Sanchez, l. c. Therefore, if the man withdraws himself after his own semination but before the semination of the woman, she can at once excite herself by touches, because that semination of the woman pertains to completing the conjugal act. Likewise, immediately at the very beginning of copulation, the woman can prepare herself by semination itself for completing it, because that semination of the woman then pertains to the beginning of copulation and in reality, as physicians and experience testify, often renders it easier; and although it is not necessary for fecundation, nevertheless it is very useful, rendering fecundation more certain.

141. Note. Generation can take place without any introduction of the penis, but by the presence alone of sperm at the orifice of the vagina. Therefore, if by reason of the narrowness of the woman, or by reason of disease by which the organs of generation are affected, the man cannot penetrate the feminine vessel, it will be enough that he pour forth and apply the semen at the mouth of the vagina, the copulation being only begun. It is said, if by reason of narrowness, or by reason of disease; for this most imperfect mode of congress will be illicit if they can come together in the ordinary and natural mode. For although spouses are not bound to use extraordinary diligence so that offspring may more certainly follow, nevertheless they are bound to abstain from a less natural mode of coming together, by force of which generation can very easily be impeded, if they can come together in the natural mode.

But whether impotence is had and the marriage is null if the man, for example, from excessive heat or frigidity, cannot pour forth semen except above the vulva or near the opening of the vagina, is disputed. Some affirm, because there is truly power to generate. Others deny, because there is not power to generate in the natural mode. And otherwise excessive heat or frigidity would no longer be impediments of marriage, against the common opinion of the doctors and against the laws themselves. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 4. pp. 196. 197. Cf. here n. 152.

142. Is it a mortal sin to pour forth part of the semen outside the vessel?

These are the words of Sanchez, de matr. l. 9. D. 17. n. 12. 13.: "Voluntary effusion of semen outside the vessel, or that mode of coming together from which it follows, is a manifest mortal crime against nature, because it is opposed to the end of natural generation, to which nature itself has destined semen.... And this indeed must be taken whether in the whole conjugal act, or in part, or at its end, the whole semen or a part of it is poured outside the vessel. Thus Cajetan, 2. 2. q. 154. n. 1. Yet this must be tempered. For the man can be excused from fault if, besides his intention, while he is trying to come together legitimately, from a certain hastiness he pours semen outside, even if he approached with some motion of pouring forth in that way. For this must be attributed not to vice, but to the hastiness of nature." Diana, tr. 6. de matr. Res. 181. 185. 186. 187. But in the emission of sperm very many nemasperms or spermatozoa are emitted, of which only one is sufficient for generation. Antonelli, p. 108.

143. Corollary. Hence a woman who would try to cast out the semen, or part of it, after copulation has been had, can sin mortally, although this should be had in those circumstances in which generation perhaps cannot follow, or at least ordinarily does not follow, for example in the time of pregnancy. For then generation would now not follow from the very act of expelling the semen; and therefore that act, as being contrary to generation of itself, is mortal. Sporer, de matr. 490. 514.

144. Because of the sterility of a woman who cannot conceive, can the husband pollute himself outside copulation, so that afterward a physician may introduce the collected semen by means of an instrument into the uterus of the woman, and this in those circumstances in which it is morally certain, as the physician himself asserts, that generation will follow?

Resp. This is illicit, because that pollution outside conjugal copulation of itself in no way tends to generation; indeed, it is against generation. But that generation can be had, this is outside the intrinsic nature of that act, altogether from without and by accident; namely, it happens from without to that act already intrinsically evil. Nor does this principle stand in the way: in marriage there is lawful, at least without grave sin, whatever is not against generation. For this is true only in this sense: that, namely, at least gravely illicit is not whatever from its intrinsic nature does not impede generation. Cf. here n. 146.; Sanchez, l. 2. d. 12. n. 2. de Matr.; L. l. 6. n. 917. par. Dicunt.

Hence, with perfect copulation excluded, artificial fecundation of the woman is illicit. Holy Office, March 24, 1897. Artificial fecundation, namely, by which art is substituted for nature, not by which nature is merely aided by art.

Art is indeed substituted for nature if the man is first polluted and then the semen collected from that pollution is inserted into the vagina by some instrument. But nature is only aided if copulation is first performed in the natural mode, and then, whether by fingers or by a little syringe, the semen already inserted into the vagina is driven farther up to the opening of the uterus for more certainly obtaining fecundation. According to Sanchez, by illicit fecundation marriage is consummated. For he says: "Likewise they agree that marriage is consummated, by whatever art the semen is received within the natural vessel, without its penetration." L. 2. d. 21. n. 2. Sanchez cites several authors. But the contrary seems to have to be said. For that fecundation is not done by natural copulation. For marriage by nature itself is ordered to copulation and to generation through copulation, and through perfect copulation, which cannot exist without that penetration and the effusion of semen on the part of the man and the woman.

And of the woman: for if many ancient theologians denied this, this was because they thought that "feminine semen is not necessary for generation." Sanchez, l. c. n. 10. But, because then the opposite was also probable, the same Sanchez, l. c. n. 11., says: "Therefore I conclude that it is probable that marriage is not consummated unless the woman also seminates, because for the consummation of marriage there is required copulation from which generation can follow." If, therefore, it is certain that for generation on the part of the woman the ovule and the fecundation of the ovule are required, it must consequently be said that marriage cannot be present if the woman perfectly lacks ovaries, or had an impervious vagina, so that the ovules could not be fecundated. Cf. here n. 150.

145. Does a man sin mortally by beginning copulation in the mouth, so that afterward he may consummate it in the due vessel?

Resp. These are the words of St. Alphonsus, 235.: "Sanchez, etc., deny, provided the danger of pollution is absent; but Sporer, etc., more truly affirm, both because in this act, because of the heat of the mouth, there is present the proximate danger of pollution, and because this of itself seems a new species of lust against nature, called by some irrumation; for whenever some other vessel besides the natural vessel instituted for copulation is sought by the man, there seems to be a new species of lust. Yet Sporer with Filliucci and Marchant excepts the case if it is done in passing; and Sanchez also seems really to think this, when he excuses that act from mortal sin if every danger of pollution ceases. Palaus, p. 4. par. 2. n. 6., excepts the case if the man did this so that he might excite himself toward natural copulation; but from what has been said, I think neither is to be admitted." Nevertheless the opinion of Sanchez does not seem altogether improbable; for as to the first reason, it does not seem true that there is always proximate danger of pollution if those parts are received by the mouth only in passing. But as to the second reason, namely that that act is a begun act and of itself tending to a new species of lust, it does not exceed the bounds of probability; and the same St. Alphonsus, l. 3. n. 466. at the end, more probably denies this peculiar species of sin. Cf. here n. 119.

146. Does a man sin mortally by beginning copulation in the preposterous vessel, so that afterward he may consummate it in the due vessel?

Resp. "Navarre, etc., deny, provided the danger of pollution is absent, because otherwise, as they say, all touches even venereal would not be illicit among married persons. But Sanchez, etc., commonly and more truly affirm. The reason is that coitus of this kind itself, even without semination, just as copulation itself in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication although semination is not present." L. 916.

147. Note. 1. "Sanchez condemns as guilty of mortal sin the man who in the act of copulation would insert a finger into the preposterous vessel of his wife, because, as he says, in this act there is affection toward sodomy. But I judge that such an affection can indeed be found in the act, but, speaking of itself, I do not recognize this affection as implanted in such an act. Moreover, I say that spouses exercising such a foul act are always to be gravely rebuked." L. 935.

2. But is it mortal for a man to rub the male parts around the preposterous vessel of his wife? Sanchez and Bossius with Filliucci and Perez deny, because to touch the mouth of the preposterous vessel is not ordered to sodomitical copulation. Pontius, etc., affirm, and also Tamburini, "who testifies that from some codices the opinion of Thomas Sanchez was deleted; indeed Moya asserts that Sanchez himself retracted himself in the Antwerp edition of 1614. The reason is that at least such a touch cannot morally be done without sodomitical affection." L. 916.

148. When a man cannot coit with a virgin, is the wife then bound to suffer the cutting of the virginal enclosure by fingers or by another instrument, if there is need?

Resp. "Pontius, Palaus, Ledesma, Hurtado, and Leander apud Escobar deny. The reason is that that defect is not of the woman but of the man; therefore she herself is not bound to use a remedy so that she may render herself apt, but it is enough that she hand over her body to be opened in the mode instituted by nature, not however in an extraordinary mode. But Sanchez, etc., more probably affirm. The reason is that such an opening, on the one hand, can well be done without shame either by the husband or by the girl herself; on the other hand, the trouble which she would have to suffer in such opening does not seem great, nor extraordinary, indeed it is ordinary for all; hence since the woman has already handed over to the man the right to copulation, she is bound to use this means so that she may render herself apt for him who because of his own weakness otherwise cannot coit." L. lib. VI. n. 1100.; Debreyne, 2. p. ch. 1. Sect. 2.