§ II. On the Liceity of the Conjugal Act as Regards Circumstances

The principal circumstances regard person, position, and time.

1643. - A fourfold circumstance, or impediment annexed to the person, can stand in the way of petitioning the debt, namely: 1° a vow of chastity (n. 1568-1571); 2° affinity from incest (n. 1589. III.; n. 1590. 6a. 7a. 8a; n. 1144. II. 2°); 3° spiritual cognation (n. 1585. 6°); 4° impotence, which also forbids rendering (n. 1618. III.; n. 1619).

Note. - 1° According to the more common and more probable sentence, a spouse bound by a vow, or by the impediment of affinity or spiritual cognation, can ask the debt, indeed is bound to ask it, when he or she notices that the consort, not daring to ask, is placed in danger of incontinence. He or she can also ask as often as the other asks interpretatively, for example, when the woman is held back by modesty, and the man perceives, as St. Thomas says, her will of asking; because then it is rather to render than to ask.¹

2° Yet a spouse impeded by the bond cannot exact the debt, not even for avoiding incontinence; for the danger of incontinence is indeed a cause for obtaining a dispensation or suspension of a vow, but not for asking the debt. - Thus Sanchez, and others. Except, not improbably, if there is question of impediments imposed by the Church, and a dispensation cannot be obtained shortly, and great danger of incontinence is in the delay.²

1644. - First Rule. That position is altogether licit which nature herself teaches, namely that the woman be beneath and the man above. - Thus St. Thomas, and others commonly. The reason is that other positions are somewhat opposed to the order of nature, and consequently bring in some violation of order.

Second Rule. No position, however unnatural, is per se gravely illicit, provided the conjugal act can be sufficiently completed; the reason is that any inversion whatever of position, provided union can be completed, does not impede generation.³

Third Rule. Any unnatural position, a just cause acceding, is free from all fault; but sometimes an unnatural position is easier, or even the only possible one; and indeed some greater facility or necessity can remove an inordinateness of this kind, which per se is slight.¹

1645. Resolves. - 1° Spouses who invert the position do not sin in the least because of danger of abortion in the time of pregnancy; because of the fatness or curvature of the man; because of excessive weariness of the woman; or even because of frigidity, when they are more aroused by an unnatural position, etc.

2° A position which alone is possible, whatever it finally is, is in no way condemned, although a not moderate loss of seed follows; because that part of the seed is not necessary for generation, and is lost per accidens, while the spouses are unwilling.

These circumstances chiefly regard the time of pregnancy, lactation, menses, sickness, Feast days, and Sacred Communion.

1646. - 1° At no time is the conjugal act, per se, forbidden under grave sin, because no law is found by which the work of marriage is ever prohibited by reason of time. I said: per se; because perhaps sometimes, by reason of circumstances, a proximate danger of abortion or of health could be induced. But this is very rare, and cannot easily be foreseen in some cases.

2° Indeed, according to very many Theologians, the conjugal act is never forbidden even lightly by reason of time; the reason is that no law can be assigned by which it is ever prohibited even under light sin. Yet to St. Alphonsus² the opinion is more pleasing which does not excuse from venial fault if copula is had in the time of pregnancy, unless danger of incontinence is present, or another honorable cause, which otherwise can scarcely ever be absent.

3° The more common sentence teaches that coitus had at the time of menses is not excused from venial sin because of the indecency which it seems to bear before itself, unless some co-honestating cause is present, namely for avoiding disagreements, or for forestalling incontinence, etc.³ - But a prudent confessor will abstain from every interrogation in this matter, since there is nothing that must necessarily be declared by the penitent. The same, by parity of reason, they commonly hold concerning copula had by spouses at the time of purgation, or on the days following birth. Yet this could be mortal per accidens, namely if from it grave illness or notable aggravation of illness were imminent for the wife.¹

4° The act of marriage is not illicit during the time of lactation, because there is no prohibiting law, nor, experience being witness, any danger, at least proximate, of infecting the milk. Hence there is no reason why spouses should be held to abstain from the use of Matrimony for so long a time with continual danger of sinning. Thus most commonly, says St. Alphonsus.²

5° The conjugal act in time of sickness, at least for the most part, is illicit neither under grave nor under light sin, because no harm from it happens to the brain for spouses; and the labor which accompanies the act cannot, at least commonly speaking, influence sickness very much.

But generally and wisely as regards all things which precede, the anonymous annotator of Gury³ warns: "Theological opinions concerning the liceity of the conjugal act, as regards circumstances, rest on a twofold principle, of which the first regards law or the dictate of natural law, the other regards fact. That, namely, in the use of marriage it is not lawful to place an impediment to generation, or to bring grave harm to oneself, or to the consort, or to offspring, these are so many principles of natural law, to which Theologians deservedly adhere firmly; but whether such a circumstance ordinarily produces grave evils of this kind, this is a question of another order, and is to be resolved only from arguments of physiology and medicine. Wherefore the diverse sentences of Theologians concerning controversies of this kind, not certainly defined, are to be held as hypothetical conclusions."

6° According to the more common sentence, it is not illicit on Sundays and Feast days, even the more solemn ones; both because no law is opposed, and also because marital intercourse does not remove spouses from observing the Feasts of the Church. Most of the Holy Fathers who are objected on the opposite side seem to speak of counsel rather than of precept. Hence you will also deduce that there is no reason why a use of this kind should be prohibited in the time of Advent or Lent. - Thus commonly.⁴ See p. XCI. C). 2°.

7° Finally, per se, it is not prohibited on the day of Sacred Communion, although spouses approach it from piety only, provided they act from an honorable end. - Thus commonly St. Alphonsus,¹ Lugo, Sanchez, and others, who teach that it is of mere counsel to abstain from copula on the day of Communion, whether before or after Communion, provided it is not had immediately after Communion has been received, nor from the mere cause of pleasure. Cf. n. 1311. 2°.