§ II. On Onanism in Particular

921. • Onanism consists in this: that a man, after intercourse has begun, withdraws himself before seminal emission and sheds the semen outside, in order to impede generation. Everyone sees of himself that this is to indulge lust and at the same time to be unwilling to assume the burdens of matrimony.

It takes its name from Onan, the second son of the patriarch Judah, who, after the death of his brother Her, was compelled according to custom to marry his widow Tamar, that he might raise up seed for his brother; but going in to his brother's wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. And therefore the Lord struck him, because he did a detestable thing. Genesis 38:9, 10.

922. Statements. - I say I. Voluntary onanism is always a mortal sin, as being against nature, and therefore it can never be licit for spouses. The reason is: 1. because it plainly fights against the primary end of matrimony, and of itself tends toward the extinction of society, and therefore overturns the natural order; 2. because it was strictly prohibited by the Supreme Legislator and Author of nature, as is gathered from the text of Genesis just related; 3. it is moreover established from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI, which reads thus: Mollities is not prohibited by natural law.... Hence thus: Onanism is true and properly so-called mollities, or pollution outside the licit use of matrimony; therefore, etc. This is confirmed by several Decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary and the Holy Office, to be reported below under nos. 927, 928, and 929.

I say II. An onanistic husband can never be excused from grave sin, and therefore is never to be absolved unless he sincerely grieves for his sin and proposes to avoid it in the future. The reason is apparent from what has been said.

I say III. A wife can be excused from sin if, for a grave cause, she renders the debt to an onanistic husband, provided that she does not inwardly assent to his sin and outwardly shows her repugnance by serious admonitions or other signs of displeasure. The reason is: 1. because she attends to a licit thing and uses her right, of which she cannot be deprived on account of the malice of the husband; nor does she properly cooperate in the sin of another, since she conducts herself only passively, and the intrinsically evil action consists only in the act of the husband then withdrawing against the order of nature; 2. because she is not bound by charity to impede the sin of her husband with grave inconvenience to herself; 3. because it is apparent from the responses by which the Sacred Penitentiary declared that a woman of this kind is not to be disturbed. - See the decisions to be reported below under no. 931.

923. Resolutions. - 1. A woman sins gravely who induces a man to abuse matrimony even indirectly or tacitly, for example, by complaining about the number of children, the labors of childbirth, or the education of the children, or by repeatedly saying that she will die in the next childbirth, etc. A fortiori, she sins gravely if, against the will of her husband, she withdraws herself from intercourse begun before seminal emission.

2. Likewise, a woman sins gravely by inwardly consenting to the detestable action of her husband ¹, even if outwardly she shows repugnance. For sin must always be held in hatred.

¹ Understand this if she approves the evil work itself and rejoices in it as such in itself. For an inefficacious complacency not concerning the evil work in itself, but only concerning an effect which follows from it, does not of itself contain guilt, as all the Doctors establish in the Treatise On Sins. See vol. 1, no. 173, resolution 4. And this must be carefully observed, lest a wife be vexed without cause who, while she efficaciously detests the crime of her husband (and the efficacy of this detestation is proved from the fact that, if the option were given her, she would never will this abuse), could otherwise rejoice in immunity from the inconveniences and dangers which accompany gestation, childbirth, etc.

3. A wife is bound, at least ordinarily, to admonish an onanistic husband concerning the obligation of acting rightly, and, insofar as lies in her, to turn him away from a perverse manner of acting. Nor is it sufficient that she has admonished him once, but she ought sometimes to repeat the admonitions, unless she is certain that a new admonition will profit nothing. Nevertheless, even then she ought in some manner to manifest her repugnance, lest she appear willingly to consent to the sin of her husband. - Thus commonly, and the Sacred Penitentiary, when consulted, replied in this manner.

4. It will also be the duty of the wife to move her husband by caresses, various signs of love, entreaties, and exhortations either to complete the act rightly or to abstain from it altogether ². Experience establishes that very many onanistic husbands, thus drawn by their wives, have returned to better conduct.

² ** This abstinence will be all the less grave and troublesome to the husband, and therefore the wife will be able to obtain it from her husband all the more easily, when the spouses know that it is not necessary that abstinence of this kind be perpetual, and when, on the contrary, they have ascertained that not even prolonged abstinence is finally demanded of them. And certainly it is usually almost this cause which impels to this unspeakable abuse: that parents bear it ill if they must be burdened with more numerous offspring. But after more accurate studies of physiology, it is now established that there are fixed times in which the effect of generation can or cannot be hoped for from conjugal intercourse; and it is now held as ascertained that this effect cannot be hoped for from the fourteenth day after menstruation has begun until the end of the following period, that is, until the next recurrence of menstruation. Therefore, since it is clear that, in comparison with the most grave evil which is evident in continual abuse of matrimony against nature, and therefore in that perpetual state of sin in which the husband lies immersed, the inconvenience of that moderate abstinence which suffices for averting so great an evil and at the same time provides both for the infirmity of the flesh and for a just fear of more numerous offspring can and ought to appear lighter even to the husband himself, one certainly must not despair or doubt that the solicitous care of a pious wife will lead her husband to sounder counsels. Moreover, if it is licit for spouses by the common consent of both to observe perpetual continence; if it is licit for spouses to observe continence and defer the consummation of matrimony for twenty or thirty years, or even until that age at which no hope of offspring now remains; and again, if for another legitimate end of matrimony, although every hope of offspring is absent, it is nevertheless licit for a just cause and with the order of nature preserved to use conjugal rights, both when the wife labors under certain sterility and when on account of advanced age she has become altogether incapable of conceiving; what, finally, prevents spouses from observing continence for the end stated above according to the aforesaid norm and limits? Or by what law, finally, shall we say that they are bound to have intercourse at another time?

924. Questions. - QUESTION 1. How ought the Confessor to conduct himself with spouses who are entirely silent concerning the use of matrimony?

Reply. This difficulty of daily practice is not so easily resolved, especially in our times, in which the plague of onanism rages everywhere. Hence the manner of acting among Confessors varies. Some judge that spouses ought generally to be questioned concerning the use of matrimony, because the abuse of matrimony is most common, nor in a matter so opposed to the law of nature can good faith ordinarily be presumed. Others, on the contrary, think that all questions are entirely to be omitted, because spouses, although in reality guilty of onanism, are perhaps in good faith, and when this has been expelled they will nevertheless continue in the depraved habit of sinning; and therefore they will no longer be capable of absolution and will be excluded from receiving the Sacraments. We judge that one must recede from both these extremes and follow a middle way. For, on the one hand, in a matter so difficult and dangerous it is by no means fitting that the Confessor propose numerous and minute questions to married persons. Indeed, unless there is grave probability that the penitent is stained by a sin of this kind, he ought to preserve profound silence. On the other hand, the Confessor cannot always abstain from every question, since by reason of his office as judge he ought of himself to procure the integrity of the confession whenever he gravely suspects that the penitent is not satisfying his obligation ³. Nor should you say that the Confessor is excused from the obligation of questioning by reason of the most grave inconvenience which occurs in the present case; for penitents can generally be questioned without so great an inconvenience if he proceeds cautiously and prudently, for example, by inquiring in a general manner whether anything stings the conscience concerning the sanctity of matrimony. But if they deny it, generally they are not to be pressed by further questioning. This doctrine is confirmed by a recent Decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition on May 21, 1851. For it had been asked what theological note the following proposition merited: It is never expedient to question spouses of either sex concerning this matter (onanism), even if it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether the husband or the wife, abuse matrimony. The reply was: The proposition, as it stands, is false, too lax, and dangerous in practice. - See below, no. 930.

³ This reason is of little efficacy in this place. For either the Confessor supposes that the penitent is in good faith, and according to the things premised by the Author himself the reason of procuring the integrity of Confession does not require that the penitent be disturbed from good faith; or he doubts the good faith of the penitent, and then, since the question does not concern sins whose omission can be attributed to forgetfulness, the questioning will easily turn out either harmful, if the penitent was in good faith, or useless, if in bad faith the penitent preserves silence concerning that matter. On this argument see Frassinetti in Dissertation X, cited elsewhere, Dell'integrita della Confessione.

925. • QUESTION 2. Can a wife seek the debt from an onanistic husband?

Reply. More probably, affirmatively, for a grave cause, for example, if she herself is exposed to danger of incontinence; because she has a right to intercourse and is excused from the sin of cooperation. Thus St. Ligorius, no. 947 ⁴. The Major Penitentiary, Cardinal de Gregorio, likewise declared this in an admonition concerning the aforesaid responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, although he adds that the Sacred Penitentiary refused to give a decision concerning this matter.

⁴ Behold the opinion of St. Alphonsus: The wife will have a just cause for seeking if she herself were in danger of incontinence, or if she would otherwise have to be deprived of her right of seeking more than once or twice, with a perpetual scruple whether it is a sufficiently grave inconvenience for her to contain herself then or not. See the things said in a similar case, book 2, no. 53, at "But if." This other passage of St. Alphonsus explains his mind even more clearly. And the Confessor ought to observe these things well, so that he may know when there is occasion for declaring the obligation and when occasion is given him only for employing counsels and exhortations.

926. • QUESTION 3. Does a wife sin by furnishing internal consent to the pleasure when she can permit the conjugal act to an onanistic husband?

Reply. Negatively, provided that she does not furnish assent to the sin of her husband. The reason is that, since she does not sin at all by permitting an act of this kind, neither does she sin by admitting the pleasure arising from it, although she foreknows that the husband will not complete intercourse; for that act is honorable and licit in itself for the woman, and it is not owing to her that it is not completed in the due manner. - See Cases, no. 1104.

927. FIRST CONSULTATION. - The Bishop of N. most humbly petitions for the solution of this doubt:

1. Can a woman be absolved who indeed would suffer her husband if he acted rightly in conjugal intercourse, but vehemently desires that the husband withdraw himself because that woman fears having offspring?

2. Can a woman be absolved who, in conjugal intercourse, could by her caresses obtain from her husband that he not withdraw himself, and does not do so because that intercourse displeases her?

RESPONSE. - The Sacred Penitentiary, having weighed the doubts proposed by the Venerable Father in Christ, the Bishop of N., replied: Negatively. Given at Rome in the Sacred Penitentiary on May 27, 1847.

928. SECOND CONSULTATION. - It is asked of the Apostolic See what theological note the following three propositions merit, namely: 1. For honorable reasons it is licit for spouses to use matrimony in the manner in which Onan used it. 2. It is probable that this use of matrimony is not prohibited by natural law. 3. It is never expedient to question spouses of either sex concerning this matter, even if it is prudently feared that the spouses, whether the husband or the wife, abuse matrimony.

RESPONSE. - The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, May 21, 1851. To the first: The proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of matrimony. To the second: The proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and otherwise implicitly condemned by Innocent XI in proposition 49 (see this proposition above, no. 922). To the third: The proposition, as it stands, is false, too lax, and dangerous in practice.

929. THIRD CONSULTATION. - The petition of the Most Illustrious Lord Bouvier, Bishop of Le Mans, concerning the manner of acting of Confessors with spouses in relation to onanism.

Most Blessed Father, the Bishop of Le Mans in France, prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness with the greatest reverence, humbly represents the things which follow.

Almost all younger married couples do not wish to have more numerous offspring, and nevertheless are morally unable to abstain from the conjugal act.

When questioned by the Confessor concerning the manner in which they use the rights of matrimony, they commonly tend to be gravely offended; and when admonished, they neither abstain from the conjugal act nor can they be determined to an excessive multiplication of offspring.

Then, murmuring against the Confessors, they abandon the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, give bad example to their children, servants, and other faithful of Christ; hence a lamentable detriment to Religion arises.

The number of those who approach the sacred Tribunal of Penance in many places decreases from year to year, especially on account of this cause, as most parish priests more conspicuous for piety, learning, and experience acknowledge.

Therefore, many say: How, then, did Confessors act formerly? No more children than today were commonly born from individual marriages, spouses were not more chaste, and nevertheless they did not fail in the precepts of annual Confession and Paschal Communion.

All freely admit that infidelity toward the other spouse and an attempt at abortion are a very great sin. But they can scarcely, indeed scarcely at all, be persuaded that they are bound under mortal sin either to observe perfect chastity in matrimony ⁵ or to incur the danger of generating innumerable offspring.

⁵ This is not to be understood as though there were not many things which certainly are not licit for those who are bound to observe perfect chastity and yet are licit for spouses, even if for some cause they abstain from perfect intercourse, as is apparent from the things said above (see article III, On the Sins of Spouses). Compare also St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 933).

The aforesaid Bishop of Le Mans, foreseeing that enormous evils will arise from this and disturbed by anxiety, solicitously asks of Your Blessedness:

1. Do spouses who so use matrimony as to prevent conception exercise an act morally evil of itself?

2. If the act is to be held as morally evil, can spouses who do not accuse themselves of it be considered as constituted in that good faith which excuses them from grave fault?

3. Is the manner of acting of Confessors to be approved who, lest they offend married persons, do not question them concerning the manner in which they use the rights of matrimony?

930. RESPONSE. - The Sacred Penitentiary, having maturely weighed the proposed questions, replies to the first: Since the whole inordination of the act proceeds from the malice of the husband, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and sheds outside the vessel, therefore, if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, while the husband insists by threatening blows or death, she will be able, as approved Theologians teach, simply to permit it without sin, and this for a grave cause which excuses her; because charity, by which she is bound to impede it, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

But to the second and third it replies: Let the aforesaid Confessor recall to mind that adage, holy things are to be treated holily; and let him also weigh the words of St. Alphonsus de Liguori, a man learned and most skilled in these matters, who in The Practice of Confessors, section 4, no. 41, says: But concerning the sins of spouses with respect to the conjugal debt, ordinarily speaking, the Confessor is not bound, nor is it fitting, to question anyone except wives, whether they have rendered it, in the most modest manner possible.... Concerning other matters let him be silent unless he has been questioned. Nor should he omit to consult other approved authors. Given at Rome by the Sacred Penitentiary on June 8, 1842.

931. FOURTH CONSULTATION. - Question. Bertha has a husband whom she knows by constant experience to be an onanist. In vain has she tried every means to withdraw him 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 her husband's house unless she permits the abuse of matrimony at least sometimes, etc.

RESPONSE. - Since in the proposed case the woman indeed does nothing against nature on her own part and attends to a licit thing, while the whole inordination of the act proceeds from the malice of the husband, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and sheds outside the vessel; therefore, if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, while the husband insists, threatening blows or death or other most grave evils, she will be able (as approved Theologians teach) to conduct herself permissively without sin; since in these circumstances she simply permits the sin of her husband, and this for a grave cause which excuses her, because charity, by which she is bound to impede it, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience. Given at Rome in the Sacred Penitentiary on February 1, 1823.

There also exist other responses of the Sacred Penitentiary which are entirely consonant with the preceding; Gousset reports them in the work Justification de Saint Liguori, page 272.

End of the Treatise on Matrimony.