§ I. On the Sins of Spouses by Excess

Acts which, besides copula, but on its occasion or pretext, can be exercised by spouses are distinguished into three kinds. 1° Some are harmful to generation, such as sodomy and pollution, and are against nature. 2° Others are useful, such as touches exciting nature and fostering love. 3° Others are neither harmful nor useful, and are called besides nature.

1650. Principles. - I. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for exercising it more easily, more quickly, or more perfectly, is altogether licit for spouses. The reason is that he who has a right to a thing also has a right to the necessary or useful means, and means not prohibited from another source; and for those for whom the principal thing is licit, the accessory also is licit, and the means ordered to it.

II. Whatever in the conjugal act is an obstacle to generation, or per se induces pollution outside the natural conjunction, is gravely illicit. The reason is that voluntary effusion of seed is not licit except in order to generation; and therefore Matrimony does not give spouses faculty except for an effusion of seed which can per se serve generation. But otherwise, if men could enjoy pleasure itself without the consequent burden of offspring to be nourished and educated, the generation of children would easily be postponed, indeed would be avoided by set purpose, and thus society itself would incline toward destruction.¹

III. Whatever indeed is not an obstacle, yet per se is less necessary or less useful for the act of generating, cannot be turned to fault except light fault; yet from this other ends intrinsic to acts of this kind excuse, namely that conjugal affection may be preserved and fostered, or at least that concupiscence may be calmed. See n. 1641. II.

1651. Resolves. - 1° Modest touches and looks between spouses, with danger of pollution in oneself and in the other excluded, are free from every fault, although sometimes involuntary pollution may follow per accidens. But they are venial if they are done for pleasure alone; and mortal if they are done with the aforesaid danger and for pleasure alone or for a light cause. It is otherwise if they are done for a grave cause, say if there is an urgent cause of showing affection for fostering mutual love, or for removing a depraved suspicion from the other.¹

2° Touches and looks which are less honorable are also free from fault per se, if they are referred immediately to copula. Indeed the same must be held even if they were simply dishonorable, because since they have a right to copula, they also have a right to acts per se necessary or useful for copula. But if the acts by which a spouse disposes himself or herself for the conjugal act are such that they easily provoke pollution per se, they can be culpable, if diligence is lacking for avoiding pollution outside intercourse, or if such an act is such that the proximate danger of pollution cannot be guarded against by any diligence, say if the man inserts the shameful parts into the mouth of the wife. Hold the same if in preliminaries of this kind to copula there is present a sodomitic intention.² But if, due diligence having been employed, pollution follows beyond intention, there will be no fault.

3° Spouses do not sin gravely by touches, even immodest ones, although had for pleasure alone and without intention of copula, yet with danger of pollution, even involuntary, and the crime of sodomy excluded. But the one rendering seems always to be excused, although there is danger of pollution in either one (unless the touches are such that pollution seems to have been begun), since then the fault holds itself on the part of the person. - Thus commonly.³ But light fault, which can be present in acts of this kind, is easily excused because of ends intrinsic to Matrimony itself, or other extrinsic ones, for example, because they are suitable for fostering affection or for calming concupiscence.

But what if spouses, after copula has been begun, restrain semination? St. Alphonsus responds:¹ "If both spouses consent in this, and there is no danger of seminating outside the vessel, that, speaking per se, is not mortal; for that penetration of the female vessel is then reputed after the manner of a touch of the shameful parts, which is permitted between spouses, or at least is not mortal, with danger of pollution excluded. St. Antoninus, etc. I said: 1) if both consent; for if one withdraws without the consent of the other, he certainly sins gravely, as all the aforesaid authors say. I said: 2) speaking per se; for Sanchez wisely warns with Veracruz that this ordinarily is mortal, because ordinarily there is danger from such withdrawal of pouring out seed, unless the spouses have experienced the opposite; in which case nevertheless I think that they can in no way be excused from venial sin, whatever Sanchez may say with others."

Likewise what if the husband wishes directly either to pollute the woman, or to pollute himself around the body of the woman without matrimonial copula, as happens too often in practice? - Berardi responds² (yet with a certain trembling, as he admits, because he has not found Theologians teaching his opinion in a clear and firm manner): "If the woman can in no way avoid these touches if she sleeps with her own husband, so that to avoid them she would have to leave the bedchamber altogether, provoking the greatest discord and procuring for herself and her children very grave detriments; I would think that she is not held to undergo such and so great inconveniences, and can limit herself to resistance morally possible for her, provided that by positive acts she never accommodates herself to the shameful touches of the man, but only permits them because of the aforesaid grave causes, bearing herself passively. For then the woman on her part does nothing evil, and simply sleeps in her bed with her own husband. The whole malice is on the part of the husband himself, whose illicit touches indeed the woman ought to impede, if she could; but not if very grave inconveniences stand in the way of her impeding them."

Leaving the matter to the wiser, I cannot fail to observe that it is certainly not licit for the woman to bear herself passively if, unless she positively resists, she is in proximate danger of consent (cf. n. 20).

4° A wife does not sin gravely, indeed, according to the more common and more probable sentence, not even lightly, if by touches she excites herself to semination immediately after copula, in which the man alone has seminated; 1° because semination of the woman pertains to completing the conjugal act, so that the spouses may properly be one flesh; and, just as the wife can prepare herself for copula by touches, so also she can perfect it; 2° because, if women after such irritation were held to restrain the natural motions, they would be continually exposed to great danger of sinning gravely.¹

5° Touches with oneself from venereal delight, the other spouse being absent, cannot be excused from grave sin. The reason is both because a spouse does not have the right of using his or her own body in order to fulfilling pleasure with oneself, but only in order to copula, and because touches of the shameful parts, when they are done lingeringly and with movement of the spirits, tend per se to pollution and are proximately connected with its danger. And St. Alphonsus² calls this opinion the more probable and altogether to be urged in practice, no broad judgment concerning the probability of the opposite sentence being made.

6° Morose delectation concerning copula had, or remotely to be had, with danger of pollution excluded (which nevertheless will be proximately present if titillation of the parts is joined with movement of the spirits), although according to the common sentence it is only venial, nevertheless is to be dissuaded. 1) It is some sin; because in this pleasure, not referred to proximate copula, an inordinateness is found, since an honorable end is lacking and the genital spirits are moved in vain, at least inchoatively. 2) It does not exceed venial sin; because, since copula is per se licit for spouses, it cannot be gravely illicit to be delighted concerning it. Nor, however, is simple thought concerning these things to be had or already had illicit.³ Indeed neither is desire concerning future copula, nor (except in a widower or widow) joy concerning past copula, per se illicit; because desire or joy concerning a licit thing cannot be illicit.