Chapter IV — On the sins which spouses can perpetrate in the exercise of the conjugal office against the end, the time, the place, and the good of offspring

I. QUESTION I. How can spouses sin against the end of matrimony? ANSWER. They sin: 1. If they be mingled for the sake of pleasure alone. Formerly some taught the opposite, whose opinion Innocent XI condemned: The work of marriage exercised for pleasure alone is utterly free from all fault and venial defect. Brutes, not men endowed with reason, operate for the sake of pleasure alone.

II. QUESTION II. What is the end on account of which the conjugal act is lawful and meritorious? ANSWER. It is the procreation of offspring, or the rendering of the debt. Some teach that the conjugal act is lawful and good when exercised for the recovering or confirming of bodily health. The Doctors of the Church openly teach the opposite. Let it suffice to allege one, St. Thomas, who in the Suppl., q. 49, art. 5, reply 4, has this: Although to intend the preservation of health be not of itself evil, nevertheless this intention is made evil if health be intended from something which is not of itself ordained to this; as if a man should seek from the sacrament of Baptism only bodily health; and similarly also in the case proposed in the act of matrimony. The same teach Augustine, Jerome, and all the Doctors of the Church. The reason is clear. Matrimony was not instituted for the recovering or preserving of the health of the body. Therefore he abuses matrimony who exercises it as a means by which he may seek bodily health. Spouses also vitiate the conjugal office if they act too shamelessly and intemperately, says St. Augustine, Book On the Good of Marriage, chapter 16.

III. QUESTION III. Are those free from venial fault who use matrimony against their own incontinence and against other graver outrages? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 3, no. 291, candidly confesses that Sts. Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas, and Gregory the Great, reported in chapter Nervi, distinction 13, teach that the conjugal act exercised for the avoiding of one's own incontinence is a venial sin; but he subjoins: Very many other theologians and jurists, with Durandus, Cajetan, Medina, Navarrus, Almain, Gaspar, Layman, Coninck, Rebello, Hurtado, Henríquez, Pontius, Mastrius, Aversa, say most probably that there will be no sin. Behold in what place the first lights of the Catholic Church are held by very many Probabilists.

IV. But we, this new manner of opining being dismissed, bring into the midst the doctrine of the holy Fathers. St. Augustine, expounding the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7, Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency; but I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment, teaches these things in the Enchiridion, chapter 78: It could be thought to be no sin to be mingled with a spouse, not for the sake of procreating children, which is the good of nuptials, but even of carnal pleasure, so that fornication or adultery or any other uncleanness — a deadly evil which it is base even to speak of — be avoided by an infirmity which can be dragged along by Satan tempting. It could therefore, as I have said, be thought to be no sin, had he not added: But I say this according to pardon, not according to command. Who now would deny it to be a sin, when apostolic authority is granted as pardon to those doing it?

V. St. Thomas in the Suppl., q. 49, art. 5, reply 7, confirms the doctrine of Augustine, Gregory, and all the other Fathers with these words: But if a man intend by the act of matrimony to avoid fornication in his spouse, it is not any sin, because this is a certain rendering of the debt which pertains to the good of fidelity. But if he intend to avoid fornication in himself, then there is there a certain superfluity; and according to this it is a venial sin: nor for this was matrimony instituted, save according to indulgence, which is of venial sins. This same doctrine St. Thomas repeats on 1 Corinthians 7, lecture 1, where he says: It is to be considered that the conjugal act is sometimes meritorious and without all fault, mortal or venial; for instance when it is ordained to the good of offspring to be procreated or educated for the worship of God, for thus it is an act of religion; or when it is done for the cause of rendering the debt, for thus it is an act of justice. But every act of virtue is meritorious, if it be with charity. Sometimes indeed it is with venial fault, namely when someone is excited to the matrimonial act from concupiscence, which nevertheless stands within the limits of matrimony, namely that he be content with his wife alone. Sometimes indeed it is a mortal fault, namely when concupiscence is borne beyond the limits of matrimony, namely when someone approaches his wife as willingly, or more willingly, as he would approach another. In the first way therefore the act of matrimony does not require indulgence; in the second way it has indulgence, inasmuch as one who trusts in concupiscence toward his wife is not guilty of mortal sin; in the third way it has no indulgence at all. Like things teach Gregory, Anselm, Bonaventure, and the rest of the Fathers, and among the more recent the graver theologians commonly.

VI. Let parish priests and confessors nevertheless be prudent in admonishing and instructing spouses in the holy end of matrimony, of procreating and educating offspring for the worship of God. Let them inculcate this end and no other: of capturing carnal pleasure, of saturating concupiscence. Let them most cautiously and most chastely remember. For since that office is scarcely wont to be exercised without pleasure and concupiscence, if they should wish to look into such things more subtly than is fitting, they will offend ears and expose themselves to danger.

VII. QUESTION IV. Do spouses sin who exercise the matrimonial act on days of fasting and on the day on which they have received the Eucharist? ANSWER. Very many deny it; but the Fathers and Councils affirm it. It pleases me to transcribe a few things from cause 33, question 4, chapter 3, where these things are had concerning the time of fasts: Brethren, you ought not only to abstain from all uncleanness, but also most studiously to contain yourselves from your own wives. Let no one on the days of fasts be joined to his own wife. Again there, chapter 4, it is subjoined concerning feast days: If a wife is taken for the cause of procreating children, much time seems to be granted for that use; and since the feast days themselves show that on these times one ought to cease from the reason of conception, and to keep it more purely according to the law. Again there, chapter 1, it is inculcated out of St. Augustine: It is sometimes lawful for a Christian to come together with his wife, sometimes indeed it is not lawful. For on account of the procession of prayer it is sometimes not lawful to come together; nay, even from lawful things one must abstain, that what is sought may more easily be obtained. Whence the Apostle says that one must abstain by consent for a time, that one may be free for prayer. Read there several things.

VIII. La Croix, Book 6, part 3, no. 311, says: “That of itself, speaking, it is lawful to have the use of matrimony on the day of communion, has been said in Book 6,” and so forth. To the canons and the holy Fathers he answers with Sánchez, Coninck, Aversa, and others, that they suggest a counsel.

IX. That it may be always more evidently discovered by confessors how far the doctrine of very many casuists differs from the doctrine of the holy canons and of the Fathers, I transcribe a few things out of many. In cause 33, chapter 4, these things are had: If the loaves of proposition could not be eaten by those who had touched their own wives, how much more can that bread which came down from Heaven not be violated and touched by those who a little before have clung to conjugal embraces? Not that we condemn nuptials (for this we do not say), but because at that time in which we are about to eat the flesh of the Lamb, we ought not to be free for the works of the flesh. If Christians ought to approach the Eucharist fasting from all food, how much more must they needs be fasting from the conjugal office? Concerning feast days, in the same place, chapter 2, these things are prescribed out of St. Augustine: As often as either the day of the Lord's Nativity or the other festivities draw near, as I have frequently admonished, for several days before we ought to abstain not only from the company of unbelieving concubines, but even from our own wives. Frequently then did the Fathers of the Church admonish spouses.

X. After the sacred canons and the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas in the Suppl., q. 64, art. 5, assigns the reason: Just as certain places are sacred because they are deputed to sacred things, so certain times are sacred for the same reason. But in a sacred place it is not lawful to ask the debt. Therefore neither in a sacred time. What to these things say the Probabilists? The Angelic in the same place dissolves all the sophisms which can be opposed.

XI. But that those may be touched with some shame who on feast days and on the very day of sacred communion defend the conjugal office lawful, it pleases me to transcribe what the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which excels six hundred casuists, prescribes, part 2, chapter 8, § 34. This is the title of the cited paragraph: That spouses must sometimes abstain from the conjugal office. Then these things are had: But since all good things are to be obtained from God by holy prayers, this is another thing which it behoves to teach the faithful, that they abstain sometimes from the office of matrimony for the cause of praying and beseeching God: and above all let them know that this is to be observed by them for at least three days before they receive the sacred Eucharist, and more often when the solemn fasts of Lent are celebrated, as OUR fathers rightly and holily PRESCRIBED. For thus it will come about that they themselves feel the goods of matrimony increased daily with a greater accumulation of divine grace; and, spreading the studies of piety, they not only pass this life tranquilly and placidly, but also lean upon the true and stable hope, which confoundeth not, of obtaining eternal life by God's benignity.

XII. QUESTION V. Whether the conjugal office be vicious by reason of a place either public or sacred? ANSWER. If copulation be exercised in the presence of others, it is a mortal sin, no one denying it, on account of the scandal. Touches themselves between spouses in the presence of others are vicious. The conjugal office in a sacred place, urgent necessity being taken away, is sacrilegious. In the time of the menstrual flux the conjugal office is unlawful. For in Leviticus 20 these things are prescribed by God: He that lieth with a woman in her flowers … both shall be destroyed out of the midst of their people. Again chapter 18: Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers. The testimonies of Augustine, Jerome, and the other Fathers I pass over.

XIII. Nevertheless Fr. Dominic Viva writes these things, question 7, article 1, no. 3: “It is asked secondly, at what time the conjugal act is unlawful? I answer that it is not unlawful on feast days, or on days of fasting, nor on the day of communion, nor at the time when the wife is pregnant, or suckles offspring, or suffers menstruation, nor before the nuptial blessings; although it is a counsel to abstain at those times.”

XIV. Holy Scripture commands that those approaching a menstruous woman be destroyed out of the midst of the people. Viva and others will reply that Christ lightened the law, and did not aggravate it. But all the Fathers, the canons, and the Councils maintain that at such a time this office is unlawful. Ought one not rather to stand by these than by modern authors?

XV. That those who approach a pregnant wife are defiled with venial fault all the Fathers to a man teach. The most distinguished D. Eusebius Amort in his Dissertation on Conjugal Intercourse with Pregnant Wives brings into the midst all the most clear testimonies of the Fathers, and utterly routs the contrary opinion of adversaries. Even the nurses themselves disapprove the same doctrine: for these, while they suckle, abstain from the conjugal office; and mistresses who are mothers most severely guard the nurses of their own sons that they be not known by their husbands, on account of the harm to the offspring. A hard law, you say. Hard to the hard, to the carnal, and to the intemperate who would wish to wallow like swine in the bitumen of lust. But it is a sweet law to Christians temperate and well-mannered, who are joined not for the fulfilling of venery, but for the cause of procreating offspring. Demented spouses are forthwith to be separated. To a drunken man asking a wife is not bound to render, save for the avoiding of greater evils.

XVI. QUESTION VI. How can spouses sin against the mode of exercising the conjugal office? ANSWER. There is no need to look into such things, since nature itself, endowed with the light of reason, is the mistress. Christian spouses ought always to have before their eyes the rules of their own profession, which is holy and immaculate. But the chief rule of married persons is that which Tobias, chapter 8, assigns: And now, Lord, thou knowest that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed. Nature itself teaches that in the conjugal office the woman be beneath and the man above. Spouses therefore sin if they invert this order prescribed by nature, by exercising that office standing, sitting, the man beneath and the woman above, or if after the manner of cattle they come together preposterously, though the vessel be preserved. Excessive corpulence of the man, and tenderness of the spouse, can sometimes excuse, so that they may know one another in a manner nearer to honesty.

XVII. QUESTION VII. If a husband be accustomed, while he performs the office, to withdraw himself, that he may hinder generation, does a wife sin by rendering the debt? ANSWER. John Pontas proposes this case, under the word Conjugal Debt, case 39. He contends that the woman is obnoxious to no fault, provided she herself dissent, resist, and oppose as far as she can. And he strives to prove this by the example of Onan, who on account of the effusion of seed in intercourse with Thamar was struck by God. But Thamar was not punished. What thence? Therefore Thamar did not sin, because she is not read to have been struck? Inept is that consequence. Does God always punish all sinners in this world? Onan sinned more gravely: therefore God punished him. Thamar sinned less, therefore perhaps he did not strike her. But to search out the divine secrets is not permitted us. This is certain, that a wife sins mortally who has certainly learned by experiment that her beastly husband of set purpose squanders the seed destined for generation, if she does not deny the debt, because she gives her labour to a thing by its own nature unlawful and gravely criminal.

XVIII. Fr. Sánchez, Diana, Sporer, and others have devised shameful opinions, and have undertaken to make honourable modes of coming together carried into execution by the filthiest husbands, such as can scarcely be reported without detriment to natural modesty. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 3, from no. 328 to no. 350, after his manner stuffs in a census of all the opinions which modern doctors have devised in this matter, chiefly Sánchez, Diana, Gobat, Mendo, Dicastillo, and others. These things, if wives read them, will learn what perhaps they are ignorant of.

XIX. Some formerly taught lax opinions even concerning the procuring of abortion, two of which Innocent XI proscribed, namely no. 34: It is lawful to procure abortion before the animation of the foetus, lest a girl be found pregnant. Sánchez teaches that a woman oppressed by force can forthwith expel the seed, as an unjust assailant of chastity, for the avoiding of infamy: which opinion I repute false. Pregnant women procuring abortion, and the rest who give their labour to it, are obnoxious to the excommunication passed by Sixtus V. The other thesis the same Innocent XI proscribed, no. 35: It seems probable that every foetus, so long as it is in the womb, lacks a rational soul, and then first begins to have one when it is brought forth; and consequently it will have to be said that homicide is committed in no abortion.