Case LXXI: Prevention of Offspring

This unnatural sin which so greatly desecrates the sacredness of wedlock, unfortunately is becoming more frequent, and is propagating itself by word and print even among those circles where hitherto these vices were unknown. Hence the necessity of discussing this matter. We desire to restrict ourselves to a brief statement of principles without going into the matter too closely.

^* By W. Stentrup, S.J.

1. All moralists are unanimous in condemning this sin as one of the most grievous which can be committed in married life; and this applies to every attempt to prevent conception in the cohabitation, be it with or without the use of contrivances. There is the difference to be kept in mind that in the first instance the wife after earnest remonstrance with the husband suppositis supponendis may be permissive; in the second instance, with contrivances, this is forbidden absolutely. The use of contrivances rendering any conceptio impossible causes the act to be unlawful from the beginning, and therefore intrinsecus malus. Co-operation with the same, even if only material, is so intimately allied and so necessary to the sinful act, that it can never be permitted, except in the most extreme case, as some theologians even allow the maiden in the extreme case to escape by purely passive sufferance a threatened death. When, therefore, the Roman Penitentiary decided that a wife be allowed for weighty reasons, and after previous exhortation of the husband, to render the conjugal duty under such conditions, it is always to be understood only in the first sense, as then the act in the beginning is legitimate and becomes an abuse of marriage only through the husband's fault. Indeed, for important reasons, under the same conditions the wife may even claim her conjugal rights; her right is incontestable, and with regard to her husband's sin she remains disapproving and purely permissive.

2. We shall now view the matter in its direct relation to the confessor. There are these three possibilities:

(a) A penitent either does not mention the sin at all, or (b) he inquires about its nature and gravity, or (c) he confesses the same as a grievous sin.

(a) If the penitent says nothing in regard to this sin and the confessor has no reason to suspect it, he must not put any questions. If, however, he has reason to believe the penitent enmeshed in this sin, and at that without bona fides, it is evident that he is bound in conscience to clear up the case by prudent questioning; otherwise he would seriously fail in his office as judge in the tribunal of Penance. Should he, however, judge the penitent to be in bona fide, then the answer of the Sacred Penitentiary of the 10th of March, 1886, may serve as his guide. The question in this instance was asked in order to remove a doubt remaining after a previous answer, and to bring about among confessors a uniformity of procedure. The question was originally put as follows: When there is a well-founded suspicion that a penitent who says absolutely nothing about onanism is addicted to this crime, may the confessor refrain from prudent and discreet questioning because he foresees that many will be disturbed in their good faith and that many will abandon the Sacraments? Or is the confessor not rather bound to question prudently and discreetly? The Sacred Penitentiary, considering that the unspeakable vice in question has become widespread, judged that the proposed doubts should be answered, as it answers: As a rule, negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second part.

The Sacred Penitentiary prescribes therewith plainly the proper procedure, and states the reason: considering that the unspeakable vice has become widespread.

But we must not overlook the word "regulariter." Ordinarily we must follow the given instructions; an exception is however not excluded, and is really bona fides present, if the warning promises no result and if the omission of the warning is not likely to have evil consequences, then there applies to this matter what moralists teach in relation to other matters.

(b) If the confessor is consulted about the sin and about its gravity he must give a truthful and clear answer, otherwise he will become accessory to another's sin.

(c) What if the sin is properly confessed? In this connection the following case is brought to our attention: A woman has confessed this sin and to the remonstrance of the confessor she replies: "My husband and I confessed the sin to a missionary and he said nothing about it. My husband's regular confessor likewise never said anything about it, hence we concluded that the matter was not so very serious " What is to be said about the action of these confessors?

In answering this question we return to the above-mentioned reply of the Penitentiary. The matter was again submitted in the following form:

Whether a confessor who learns, either from a spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, that the penitent is an onanist is bound to admonish him about the gravity of this sin just as about other mortal sins, and, as the Roman Ritual says, to reprove him with paternal charity and to impart absolution only when it is established by sufficient signs that he is sorry for the past and has the purpose of no longer acting onanistically. The answer is: Affirmative, according to the teachings of approved authors.

Our authorities, it is true, do not demand that the confessor must exhort the penitent in the case of each individual sin properly confessed, and that He assure himself expressly about contrition and resolution in the case of each of them; but they do demand unanimously the truly probable (morally certain) determination of the penitent's disposition. For this reason they require a special treatment of habitual sinners and of relapsers. If in our matter the penitent belongs to one of these classes, which is generally the case, then the confessor must satisfy himself concerning contrition and resolutions in regard to this particular offense. We will not deny that there may be individual cases, in which the confessor is morally certain as to the disposition of the penitent, and fears by citing this special sin, not fully realized by the penitent to be a grievous sin, to shake his good resolution present, and make it doubtful. Prudence will then counsel him to avoid the temptation which a specification of this sin would be for the frail sinner. As a matter of course the penitent must by no means be given the false impression, through the confessor, that his action be no sin, or not a grievous sin.

It often seems to us that if we would take a firmer stand for the law of God, with more confidence and greater apostolic candor, it would be also of great benefit in this matter. Of course we must not impose what is not an actual obligation; but, in an evident violation of the divine commandments, to beat about the bush will give the impression as if it were man's law and not God's law, which paralyzes the authority of God's representatives, and disturbs in the penitent the supernatural idea.

Unfortunately physicians only too often are our opponents in this matter, and by their professional advice they make things exceedingly difficult for us. Then let us tell the penitent: "It is God's commandment; the observing of the same in this case may be hard and a great sacrifice, but God promises grace and heaven 'to those who obey.' " In short: Suaviter in modo, fortiter in re.