§ II. On the Liceity of the Conjugal Act with Respect to Circumstances

2. affinity from incest; 3. spiritual relationship; 4. bodily impotence.

909. Principles. - I. Any spouse bound by a vow of chastity, or impeded by affinity contracted through his or her own act, is forbidden under grave sin to seek the debt; nevertheless, he or she can, and indeed is bound to, render it to the other spouse who seeks it, since the other party cannot be deprived of his or her right. There are several who extend this same thing to the spouse who, outside necessity, baptized his or her own offspring. Nevertheless, the opinion which denies this is sufficiently probable, and several grave Doctors hold it, as St. Alphonsus says, book 6, no. 150.

II. Neither spouse can seek or render the debt if both are bound by a vow of chastity, or if both have contracted affinity or spiritual relationship through their own act; for each is impeded on account of the vow or sin. Some, however, as was said, deny that this latter impediment on account of spiritual relationship is incurred.

910. Resolutions. - 1. Not only can, but indeed is bound to, render the debt one who made a vow opposed to the right of the other after marriage had been entered; and even one who made it before marriage. For although he sinned gravely by contracting marriage, he nevertheless validly handed over to the spouse that which he had promised to God; otherwise the other spouse, ignorant of the vow, acquired a right to the thing by force of the valid contract.

2. One who, after marriage has been entered, vows to enter religion or to receive sacred Orders after the death of his wife can seek and render the debt, and does not need a dispensation; for vows of this kind do not oblige except after the dissolution of the marriage.

3. According to the more common and more probable opinion, a spouse bound by a vow or by the impediment of affinity (contracted after marriage had been entered) can seek the debt when he notices that the other spouse, not daring to seek it, is in danger of incontinence. He can also seek whenever the other seeks interpretatively; for example, when the woman is restrained by modesty and the man perceives, as St. Thomas says, her will to seek; because then it is rendering rather than seeking. - St. Ligorius, no. 931.

4. A spouse impeded by a bond, however, cannot seek the debt even to avoid incontinence; for the danger of incontinence is indeed a cause for obtaining a dispensation or suspension of the vow, but not for seeking the debt. - Thus Sanchez and others. - Nevertheless, it does not appear illicit to him to warn the other spouse of his own danger and to ask that spouse to seek on this account thereafter. Likewise, probably make an exception if it is a question of impediments imposed by the Church, a dispensation cannot be obtained quickly, and great danger of incontinence lies in delay. - St. Ligorius, no. 930. Compare what we have said both concerning the impedient impediment of a vow and concerning the diriment impediments of spiritual relationship and affinity.

911. • I. Rule. That position is entirely licit which nature itself primarily teaches, namely, that the woman be beneath and the man above. - Thus St. Thomas and others commonly. The reason is that the other positions are somewhat opposed to the order of nature, and consequently introduce some violation of order.

II. Rule. No position, however unnatural, is gravely illicit of itself, provided the conjugal act can be sufficiently completed. The reason is that any inversion of position, provided union can be completed, does not impede generation. - St. Ligorius, no. 917.

III. Rule. Every unnatural position, when a just cause is present, is free from all fault; but sometimes an unnatural position is easier, or even the only one possible; and indeed some greater facility or necessity can remove an inordination of this kind, which of itself is slight. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

912. Resolutions. - 1. Spouses do not sin at all who invert the position on account of danger of miscarriage during pregnancy, on account of the corpulence or curvature of the man, on account of the excessive fatigue of the woman, or even on account of frigidity, when they are more aroused in an unnatural position, etc.

2. Whatever the position which alone is possible may be, it is in no way condemned, although a not inconsiderable loss of semen should follow; because this part of the semen is not necessary for generation and is lost accidentally, against the will of the spouses.

3. A prudent Confessor must take care not to ask questions about the various manners of intercourse, which are not only useless but also full of scandal. Hence, if the penitent raises a doubt about these matters, it will be sufficient for the Confessor to know whether complete pollution occurred outside the due vessel. I said, if he raises doubts, or if the penitent furnishes even an occasion for doubting; for no one fails to see that questions of this kind, in a matter so slippery, are never to be asked unless a manifest necessity is present ¹. - St. Ligorius, no. 917.

¹ It is the very common opinion of the Doctors that both the danger of scandal which the Confessor can occasion to himself and to the penitent, and even to others (for penitents not rarely speak with others about the statements and questions of Confessors), and also the reverence due to the Sacrament, ought to cause him to abstain from further inquiry by questions in a matter so shameful of itself, even if perhaps he fears that the confession will not be sufficiently integral on account of some unmentioned circumstance which perhaps even appears to change the species; but in necessary matters he should use those forms of words which are held to be as becoming as possible. Moreover, let the Confessor remember that an imprudent, importunate, and shameless manner of speaking about this matter has not rarely given just occasion not only for suspecting evil of him, but also for denouncing him before the Ordinaries as though, in the act of confession, as Gregory XV says (in the Constitution Contra sollicitantes), he had uttered shameful discourse; and indeed the judges have been accustomed to proceed both against those who have so offended from malice and also against those who have so offended from mere imprudence. On this argument see Joseph Frassinetti in Dissertation X, entitled On the Integrity Necessary for Confession (Compendium of Moral Theology, vol. 2).

These circumstances principally concern the time of pregnancy, nursing, menstruation, illness, feast days, and Holy Communion.

913. • 1. At no time is the conjugal act of itself forbidden under grave sin, because no law is found by which the work of marriage is ever prohibited by reason of time. I said of itself, because perhaps at times, by reason of circumstances, proximate danger of miscarriage or of health could be induced. But this is exceedingly rare and cannot easily be foreseen in certain cases.

2. Indeed, according to most Theologians, the conjugal act is never forbidden even under light sin by reason of time; the reason is that no law can be assigned by which it is ever prohibited even under light sin. Nevertheless, St. Ligorius, no. 924, is more pleased by the opinion ² which does not excuse from venial fault if intercourse takes place during pregnancy, unless danger of incontinence or another honorable cause is present, which otherwise can scarcely ever be absent.

² These things and other things of this kind are recalled for mere erudition; for as regards practice, the common doctrine, which St. Alphonsus also most keenly defends, is that the uncertain opinion of certain persons is insufficient in a case for establishing either a grave or a light obligation. Therefore the Confessor neither ought nor can urge plainly uncertain obligations of this kind; all the more because in this question St. Alphonsus himself, no. 882 (to which place he refers), refutes the reason upon which this opinion rests; and moreover, in order that the Confessor might know whether occasion for this obligation is given by the circumstances, he would have to mingle lengthy discourses and questions concerning a matter which, according to the opinion of all, he must take the greatest care not to touch unless grave necessity is present.

3. The more common opinion teaches that intercourse had during menstruation is not excused from venial sin on account of the indecency which it appears to present, unless some cohonesting cause is present, namely, to avoid dissensions or to guard against incontinence, etc. - St. Ligorius, no. 925. But a prudent Confessor will abstain from every question in this matter, since there is nothing which must necessarily be declared by the penitent ³. They commonly hold the same, by parity of reason, concerning intercourse had by spouses at the time of purgation, or in the days following childbirth.

³ The question would concern a light fault; but light faults are not necessary matter of Confession, and this even when the light fault is certainly established. But here too there is question of a mere opinion, and there are those who think equally probable the opinion which denies that there is fault in this, especially after it has now been shown that the physiological reasons upon which the opinion of the ancients rested lack foundation, as the distinguished Lecompte makes evident (De l'ovulation spontanee, part 2, section 2). See, therefore, what was said in the preceding note.

914. • 4. The act of marriage during nursing is not illicit, because there is no prohibiting law, nor, according to the testimony of experience, is there any at least proximate danger of corrupting the milk. Hence there is no reason why spouses should be bound for so long a time to abstain from the use of matrimony with a continual danger of sinning. Thus most commonly says St. Ligorius, no. 911.

5. The conjugal act during illness, at least for the most part, is illicit neither under grave nor under light sin, because frequently no harm thereby befalls the spouses; but the exertion which accompanies the act, at least commonly speaking, cannot greatly influence the illness ⁴.

⁴ This appears to have been said too generally, and in particular cases both the inconvenience or harm of the sick spouse and the danger of incontinence in the other spouse will have to be weighed. See below, no. 915, III, and no. 916, resolution 6.

6. According to the more common opinion, it is not illicit on Sundays and even on more solemn Feast days, both because no law opposes it and because marital intercourse does not remove spouses from observing the Feasts of the Church. Most of the Holy Fathers who are objected to the contrary appear to speak of counsel rather than of precept. Hence you will also deduce that there is no reason why use of this kind should be prohibited during Advent or Lent. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 933.

7. Finally, of itself it is not prohibited on the day of Holy Communion, although the spouses approach it from piety alone, provided that they act for an honorable end ⁵. - Thus commonly. - St. Ligorius, no. 922, and book 6, no. 273. - Lugo. - Sanchez and others, who teach that abstaining from intercourse on the day of Communion, whether before or after Communion, pertains to mere counsel, provided it is not had immediately after Communion has been received nor for the sake of pleasure alone.

⁵ You will scarcely understand what these words mean; for it is never licit to do anything without an honorable end, whether on the day of Communion or on other days. You plainly see scraps of singular opinions concerning the ends of matrimony. I say the same concerning the exception added below, for the sake of pleasure alone; concerning which see the observations at no. 908. And if you finally determine that the act is of itself free from fault, you will conclude that this also pertains to mere counsel and not to a precept, either grave or light.

** Regarding this little Note, the VV. (page 827) write: Thus, in Father B.'s judgment, THE CONJUGAL ACT EXERCISED FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURE ALONE is sufficiently honorable; and to abstain from intercourse on the very day of Communion, when it would be had for the sake of pleasure alone, pertains not to any precept, whether grave or light, but to mere counsel. But what must be thought concerning this doctrine we shall see below. Now the things which the VV. add below concerning this same little Note are contained in these words (page 837): We scarcely understand how, given the condemnation of the aforesaid proposition, Father B.'s opinion can be sustained. For it could be asked what difference there is between these two propositions: To act FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURE ALONE, and to act ON ACCOUNT OF PLEASURE ALONE. Father Ballerini says the former is licit in the Note to no. 914; but, this being posited, by what reason the latter ought to be called illicit and condemned, let others judge.

Reply. I deny the supposition; that is, I deny that acting for the sake of pleasure alone is said to be licit in the little Note; for only these words are read there: Concerning which see the observations at no. 908. But in the Note to no. 908 only this is said: The Author (Gury) wished through these words to signify that even this slight inordination or fault of one acting on account of pleasure alone is scarcely ever present in reality. Therefore, contrary to manifest truth, the VV. say that Father Ballerini hands down as licit that acting for the sake of pleasure alone, or on account of pleasure alone; for Father Ballerini openly supposes, indeed affirms, that fault is present in it.

But the reason why it is said in that Note to no. 908 that fault of this kind is scarcely ever present is this and no other: namely, Father Gury (no. 908) had written: The use of marriage is illicit if it is done for pleasure alone, that is, by expressly excluding other ends. But in the Note it is observed that it can scarcely happen that ends intrinsic to the conjugal work are positively and entirely excluded. Therefore, in the Note it is not denied, but rather supposed, that acting on account of pleasure alone is illicit; only this is added: that it scarcely ever happens that the other ends are positively excluded, and therefore it scarcely ever happens that the work of marriage is done on account of pleasure alone. But this is not to say that acting for the sake of pleasure alone, or acting for the sake of mere pleasure, is licit.

Therefore, also those things which the VV. add, namely, that in Father Ballerini's judgment the conjugal act exercised for the sake of mere pleasure is sufficiently honorable, and that to abstain from intercourse on the very day of Communion, when it would be had for the sake of mere pleasure, pertains not to any precept, whether grave or light, but to mere counsel: all these things, I say, the VV. fasten upon Father Ballerini's Notes contrary to manifest truth.