§ 3. On The Sins Of Spouses

Besides those things which have already been said concerning those who INJUSTLY seek or deny the conjugal act, it remains that we speak of the same act insofar as it is opposed to CHASTITY. - Hence we shall treat: 1. of the sins of spouses generally; 2. specifically of onanism.

2110. Acts which can be exercised in conjugal commerce are distinguished as of THREE kinds: namely some are according to, others besides, others against the end of marriage.¹⁸ Hence a threefold rule:

I. Whatever is ACCORDING TO the end of marriage, or whatever is necessary or useful either for exercising the conjugal act or for fostering mutual love, is licit for spouses. - The reason is, "because for him for whom the end is licit, the means are also licit; and for him for whom the consummation is licit, the beginning is also licit."¹⁹

Hence: 1. Modest touches, kisses, and embraces for fostering mutual love are without fault, although sometimes unforeseen pollution would follow; because this would be by accident, and a just cause is present for applying blandishments of this kind. - But they are gravely culpable "if they are done with danger of pollution in oneself or in the other, in a case in which they are had for pleasure alone, or even for a light cause; otherwise if for a grave cause, for instance if sometimes there is an urgent cause of showing signs of affection for fostering mutual love; or so that a spouse may avert from the other the suspicion that he is inclined toward another person,"²⁰ provided danger of consent is absent.

2. Touches, kisses, embraces, sights, foul conversations, and all immodest acts are without fault if, danger of pollution being excluded, they are referred to intercourse to be consummated here and now. This also is true, although pollution now and then inculpably precedes intercourse.²¹ - Yet spouses ought according to their strength to beware of an effect of this kind, not lingering too long in the aforesaid acts.²²

2111. II. Whatever is BESIDES the end of marriage, or whatever is not of itself necessary or useful for the conjugal act, is customarily a venial fault, from which, nevertheless, an honorable end can excuse. Thus commonly according to the truer opinion. And the reason is that just as the conjugal state cohonestates intercourse, so also it cohonestates immodest acts which do not induce danger of pollution. "For otherwise, since there is so great a companionship between spouses, and they often cannot have intercourse, they would be exposed to continual dangers if such acts were gravely illicit for them. But just as delight sought in intercourse does not exceed venial fault, so also in these touches and sights."²³

Hence: 1. Spouses do indeed sin, but only venially, if for the sake of pleasure and with proximate danger of pollution excluded, they permit to themselves foul acts or sights without order to intercourse. "And this, even if intercourse were then forbidden to them on account of disease, or were impossible on account of impotence which had supervened, as Sanchez and others say; because, since intercourse is licit between spouses, touches between them cannot be gravely illicit. But otherwise one must say if a spouse were bound by a vow of chastity; because such a vow excludes every venereal pleasure voluntarily taken. Thus commonly." - But one impeded from intercourse on account of affinity contracted, although of himself he is not bound under grave obligation to abstain from touches and sights of this kind, since the penal law prohibiting intercourse is not to be extended to touches, nevertheless "in practice, ordinarily he ought to abstain from touches of this kind, especially foul ones, on account of the proximate danger either of pollution, or of seeking intercourse by seeking against the prohibition."²⁴

2. "It is licit, as the truly probable opinion holds, for spouses to take delight, even carnally, concerning intercourse had or future, whenever danger of pollution is absent. The reason is that the matrimonial state itself renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be liable to too many scruples."²⁵ - But indeed, "if delight is had not only with commotion of the spirits, but also with titillation or venereal pleasure, I think it cannot be excused from mortal fault, because such delight is proximately joined with the danger of pollution."²⁶

2112. III. Whatever is AGAINST the end of marriage, or whatever is opposed to the generation of offspring, namely by inducing of itself, outside natural congress, an outpouring of seed, is gravely illicit; indeed, according to the more probable opinion, it has the malice of a double adultery¹ (cf. n. 782, 2). - The reason of the first is that the outpouring of seed is not licit except in order to generation, and therefore matrimony gives spouses no faculty except for an outpouring of seed which can of itself serve generation.² - The reason of the second is that voluntary pollution by a married person violates the right of the coparty; whence it has annexed to itself the malice of adultery, just as pollution by one bound by a vow of chastity has the malice of sacrilege. Since, therefore, in the conjugal act which is done against the end of marriage, each sinner is married, it follows that the aforesaid malice is superadded to the pollution of each.³

Hence: 1. Sodomy between married persons has the guilt of greater malice than between unmarried persons, far from losing anything of its atrocity on account of the matrimonial state.⁴ This also holds concerning a sin not consummated, for instance if the husband were to begin intercourse in the unnatural vessel, with the intention of completing it in the natural vessel; or if he were to rub the private parts around the unnatural vessel of the wife;⁵ or if he were to introduce them into her mouth⁶ (which obscenity is called irrumation); because in these there is either the beginning of sodomy, or an affection toward it, or another sin against nature.

2. Foul touches are gravely illicit which are had without order to the conjugal act, with proximate danger of pollution.⁷ But if acts of this kind are by their nature a kind of disposition toward intercourse, they can be excused in the one rendering, on account of the grave inconvenience otherwise to be undergone by him, as we shall say below concerning onanism, provided they are not such that of themselves they induce an entirely proximate danger of pollution, and therefore seem to be as it were the beginning of it, e.g. lingering handling of the private parts.⁸ For since direct pollution is always illicit, its proximate danger can never be permitted, unless those causes are given and those conditions are observed which sufficiently excuse indirectly voluntary pollution (cf. n. 796).

3. The man sins gravely if, deliberately, he restrains emission, when the wife has already emitted seed or is in probable danger of emitting; because he is the cause why the seed of the wife, the end of generation being frustrated, is wasted. - But otherwise, if he were to interrupt intercourse from a grave cause, for instance to avoid scandal, although with danger of pollution.⁹

4. If the man has already emitted seed, it becomes doubtful whether the WOMAN sins mortally if she withdraws herself from emitting seed, or whether the MAN sins mortally by not awaiting the emission of the wife. The more common and today much more probable opinion denies this; and the reason is that today it has been discovered that in the woman there is not given a true emission of seed which is necessary for generation. The matter which the woman necessarily supplies to generation is the ovum. If the woman has a mature and released ovum, she is apt for fecundation, although she is not moved in the act of intercourse. Certainly, the secretion of humor which theologians call emission, and the concomitant movement of the organ, contribute something to fecundation;¹⁰ but spouses are not held to come together in the more apt manner, and it is enough if they do not impede generation.

Nevertheless, the contrary practice is earnestly to be advised, both because the aforesaid emission of the woman pertains to the complement of intercourse, and lest conjugal love grow cold. - But if either one were so to behave as to impede generation, on the part of intention there would be mortal fault.¹¹

5. It is ordinarily a mortal sin if both spouses, intercourse having begun, restrain emission; and the reason is that although, speaking speculatively, such congress, danger of pollution being excluded, is not gravely illicit, and is reputed like a touch of the private parts, nevertheless practically the danger of pollution can scarcely be absent in both spouses, which would be required. - Except if the spouses have experienced the opposite; yet in that case they would not be excused from venial fault.¹²

6. A wife sins mortally who, immediately after the conjugal act, rises or does something with the intention of expelling the received seed. For such an act, although it is done in vain, nevertheless by reason of the perverse intention has the malice of abortion.¹³

2113. IT IS ASKED. Whether foul touches WITH ONESELF are ever licit for a spouse?

Resp. 1. They are licit if they are ordered to intercourse to be had immediately, as all confess. Indeed, they are licit, more probably, for a WOMAN immediately after intercourse in which the man alone emitted seed, so that she may thus procure her own emission; because although this is not absolutely necessary for generation, nevertheless it can contribute to it and pertains to completing the conjugal act.¹⁴ But before intercourse this is never licit, nor after onanistic congress, because in that case the end of nature would be entirely frustrated.

Resp. 2. The aforesaid necessity or utility being excluded, they are not licit; indeed, according to the more probable opinion, and one wholly to be advised, they are, just as for other unmarried persons, gravely illicit if they are had for pleasure. The reason is both that a spouse does not have a right in his own body of itself, but only by accident, namely in order to intercourse; and that touches of the private parts, when they are done lingeringly and with commotion of the spirits, of themselves tend to pollution and are connected proximately with its danger.¹⁵

2114. Onanism is intercourse begun or completed with an outpouring of male seed outside the vessel (n. 801).

Intercourse is begun when the man indeed penetrates the natural vessel, but as soon as he notices that the outpouring of seed is proximate, withdraws himself; or also when the woman withdraws herself before the man's emission. - Intercourse is completed, namely in the natural vessel, but with greater malice, when the man uses a certain thin covering or instrument to impede the seminal substance from arriving at a place apt for generation.

Moreover, there has been invented a wicked manner of destroying conception immediately after intercourse, namely by means of a certain injection into the uterus. This injection, as is clear, has the guilt of homicide, just as the procuring of abortion.¹⁶

2115. Principles. I. Onanism between spouses is an act against nature, and therefore gravely illicit.¹⁷ - This is clear both from Scripture, which (Gen. 38:10) calls this act a detestable thing, and from reason, which dictates that onanism is true pollution directly defrauding matrimony of its end, and also from the decision of the Church, which, by a Decree of the Holy Office on 21 May 1851, defined that this use of matrimony is prohibited by natural law, and taught that this is elicited from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI, which sounds thus: "Mollities is not prohibited by the law of nature."¹⁸

Hence: 1. Onanism can be cohonestated by no cause, whether of poverty, lest offspring to be nourished be multiplied, or of avoiding infirmity, or of warding off danger of death in childbirth. Yet on account of a cause of this kind it can be perpetrated with good faith; and when this exists, it belongs to the prudent confessor to judge whether admonition is expedient or not.

2. Not only the man exercising onanism, but also the wife formally cooperating with or consenting to him sins mortally, and both are unworthy of absolution unless they sincerely grieve concerning the sin and promise amendment. - The wife formally cooperates if by complaints concerning the pains or dangers of childbirth, concerning more numerous offspring, etc., she supplies to her husband an impulse toward onanism, namely foreseeing this effect or even intending it.¹⁹

2116. II. Onanism can be PERMITTED by the wife if a JUST cause suffragates for her rendering the debt to an onanistic husband. - The reason is that she then cooperates with the husband's sin only materially, by an act honorable in itself, which it is licit to furnish under certain conditions and with a just cause acceding.

The CONDITIONS are the following:

1. That the wife not consent to the husband's sin, and that she always be ready to impede it efficaciously, if she could (cf. n. 518, 519). - We say to the sin; for nothing prevents her from consenting to the carnal delight arising from intercourse, or even to a simple complacency concerning not having offspring, according to the things said in n. 2098.

2. That she not cease prudently to admonish the husband concerning the obligation of desisting from this foulness. Thus the S. Penitentiary, 13 Nov. 1816. For she is held to such admonition both from charity toward the husband, namely that he may recover his senses, and from charity toward herself, namely that she may decline every danger of consent. It was said prudently; for admonitions ought not to be continual, nor unseasonable, but opportune, namely when hope of amendment shines forth, and no grave evil is to be feared, for instance the husband's adultery, indignation, or great dissension.

3. That she permit the inordinate act only from a just and reasonable cause. And to this pertain the words of the Major Penitentiary in the cited Response: "Approved and chastened moral theologians agree in this, that it is licit for a wife to render the debt, if from its denial she is to be treated badly by her husband, and can fear grave inconvenience to herself from it; for, they say, in this case the wife is not judged formally to cooperate with the sin of her husband, but only to permit it from a just and reasonable cause."²⁰ In practice, denial of the debt can scarcely be separated from danger of grave inconvenience.

2117. Therefore, when the aforesaid conditions concur, the WIFE can licitly RENDER the debt, provided the act is rightly begun, and she, as regards the interruption, has herself entirely passively. But if the husband is known to be about to commit onanism by means of an instrument, the wife cannot, by having herself passively, permit the act; but she is bound, not otherwise than a virgin to whom force is brought, firmly to resist according to her strength. The reason is that in such a case intercourse on the part of the act itself, already from the beginning, is entirely illicit and against nature.²¹

2118. Questions. QUESTION 1. Whether a wife can also SEEK the debt from an onanistic husband?

Resp. Affirmatively, but only from a grave cause. It is said only from a grave cause, because she is held from charity not to give the husband an occasion of sinning. - Now a grave cause would be danger of incontinence, a long deprivation of the right of seeking, with perpetual scruple whether the cause of seeking is just or not; wherefore she is not held to abstain except for a few times²² (cf. 2098).

QUESTION 2. Whether the husband commits onanism if he indeed penetrates the wife's vessel, but only slightly, and pours out all the seed at the entrance of the vagina?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. In the work, negatively, because that act indeed renders fecundation less easy, but does not impede it; therefore intercourse so exercised is apt for generation. Yet except if it were done in such a way that all the seed flows away and is lost. - 2. In the mind, subdistinguish: affirmatively, if he intends to impede generation in this way, then from a depraved intention he sins mortally against nature; otherwise, it must be denied. Moreover, if he behaves thus because he wishes to avoid a manner more apt for generation, so that offspring may be less certain, he does not seem to be guilty of lethal fault; because he is not held to choose the more certain manner for conceiving offspring, nor is the desire of lacking offspring a mortal sin. Finally, if he has a legitimate cause of behaving thus, because, e.g., the wife on account of recent birth or infirmity in the private parts does not endure more perfect coition, he sins in no way.²³

QUESTION 3. What is to be judged concerning spouses who, for avoiding more numerous offspring, come together only at that time when fecundation can occur with difficulty?

Preliminary note. It is clear from very many testimonies of physicians that the conception of offspring occurs easily about the time in which the woman is in menstruation, namely three or four days before, and about fifteen days after; but with difficulty at another time, called agenesis, if the flow of blood is certain and constant every month.²⁴ Now then,

Resp. Of themselves, they are not to be accused of sin; for they use their right, since the work of marriage is not prescribed at the time when the probability of conception is greater, nor is it prohibited at the time when the probability is less or none. But whether by accident fault enters, is to be judged from the end and from the other circumstances. To the point is the following response, which, after various doubts had been proposed concerning this manner of acting, the S. PENITENTIARY, on 16 June 1880, judged should be given: "The S. Penitentiary, having diligently weighed the things proposed, responds: Spouses using matrimony in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can cautiously, however, insinuate the opinion in question to those spouses whom he has attempted in vain to draw away in another way from the detestable crime of onanism."²⁵

QUESTION 4. But what concerning ARTIFICIAL fecundation, e.g. between sterile spouses?

Resp. Fecundation of this kind, which is done with seed obtained from the husband's pollution, is intrinsically evil, and therefore wholly illicit.²⁶

2119. Admonition. Concerning the office of the confessor in QUESTIONING about the sins of spouses, besides the things said in n. 1804 sqq., let the following be noted:

1. Concerning those things which look to the use of matrimony, the confessor should question only those whom, on account of a just cause, he suspects to be guilty of lethal fault. And he should do this in the most modest manner he can, by inquiring, e.g. from wives, whether "they have always been obedient in those things which look to the conjugal state." - If from a general question of this kind he detects something of culpability, yet does not sufficiently know the nature of the sin, let him come so cautiously to particular questions that he gives the penitent an occasion rather of opening his conscience than seems to investigate it more curiously. - But concerning venial things let him introduce no discussion of his own accord, because, since they are not necessarily to be subjected to the keys, there is no reason why investigations should be instituted in so slippery a matter. Nevertheless, when questioned, let him respond, so that he can thus provide for the peace of consciences.¹

2. The confessor ought sometimes to question concerning Onanism, namely when there is prudent fear that the penitent is guilty of this sin. The reason is that he is held, from the office of judge, to supply the defect of the penitent, as the common opinion teaches.² And hence it is why the S. C. INQUIS., on 21 May 1851, declared the opposite opinion, namely that spouses are never to be questioned concerning this matter, "false, too lax, and dangerous in practice." This declaration especially looks to those regions in which the devastating plague of onanism spreads widely; for many take an occasion for persevering in the worst practice from the fact that the confessor, when the circumstances suggest it, does not question. - At least generally, let him inquire whether there is anything concerning the sanctity of matrimony which gnaws at the conscience.³

But to the Question: Whether those confessors satisfy their duty who, when a penitent accuses the sin of onanism, "keep deep silence, and when the confession of sins has been finished, excite him to contrition with general words, and to him asserting that he detests every lethal sin, impart holy absolution" ... the S. PENITENTIARY, on 14 Dec. 1876, responded Negatively.⁴

It seems useful to add also the following document:

"Most Blessed Father - Bishop N. N., reverently presenting himself at the feet of Your Holiness, proposes to Your Beatitude certain doubts to be elucidated, which for a long time have brought grave anxiety of mind and conscience to pastors of souls and confessors.

"As is known to Your Holiness, the unspeakable crime of Onan is being spread more widely day by day in several regions of France, and it is driving deeper roots; so that hardly any Province remains immune from this pest, and the cultivators themselves of social science publicly complain concerning this deadly disease. Nearly everywhere families are seen to become rarer, not indeed from the infrequency of marriages, but from their voluntary infertility. The matter has now come to this, that whereas before many spouses wished to avoid only excessive offspring, now very many dare, by wicked counsel, to exclude every or almost every reception of children. Hence also, at least in great part, comes that lamentable diminution of ministers of the Church by which the dioceses labor more and more.

"Indeed, the deplorable calamity moves pastors of souls, which is derived into society itself from this depraved use of matrimony; but the most grave offense brought against God and the most present danger of souls moves them more sharply, and at the same time affects them with immense sadness. And this sadness of theirs is also increased from the fact that there is not one manner of acting among all confessors in caring for this wound; nor can the desired uniformity be hoped for from the Responses and Declarations of the Holy See which have thus far come forth.

"The knot of the difficulty turns on the necessity of questioning and admonishing penitents. - Indeed all confessors and writers of moral theology acknowledge the very great gravity of this sin; all likewise confess that the greatest prudence and modesty must be applied by the confessor in questioning, and that it is better that the material integrity of confession be deficient than that scandal should come to the penitent from an indiscreet question, or the honor of the sacred ministry be offended. But confessors disagree on this point: whether the questioning itself is necessary or not, even though expressed in chaste and modest words.

"For some confessors have persuaded themselves that among so many faithful who indulge the detestable practice of Onan, at least some are found who are in good faith. - Therefore, lest they disturb these rare penitents from good faith, they think it more advisable to question no one concerning this sin, unless perhaps the penitent himself begins to accuse himself, and the questioning only renders the confession easier. The same confessors judge that the penitent ought not to be admonished concerning the gravity of this sin, because perhaps he thinks the matter is not so grave. And in that opinion they are also confirmed by this reason, that most spouses, openly admonished concerning the malice of onanism, are foreseen to be about to desert the sacraments, and thus incur a greater danger of damnation.

"Other confessors think that silence is not licit for ministers of the divine law, to whom by office it belongs to teach the faithful their proper duties, when they see the precepts of nature itself generally violated. For then, to use the words of Benedict XIV in his Bull Apostolica Constitutio, 'the penitent either is ignorant of crimes which nevertheless he ought to know, or is placed in those circumstances which, if the confessor dissembles, confirm the sinner in a depraved work, not without the scandal of others; since someone thinks those things are licit for himself which he observes to be practiced with impunity by those who frequent the Sacraments of the Church.' - Hence the aforesaid confessors judge that a discreet question must be asked concerning Onanism as often as there is a founded suspicion that the penitent is addicted to this crime; they judge that the common good demands that a penitent who is only probably in good faith be admonished in open, but discreet, words; finally they judge that then only must one abstain from questioning and admonishing, unless the common good demands the contrary, when from the present circumstances of the matter it seems morally certain that the penitent is in good faith, and that the admonition will be fruitless.

"From the Responses hitherto given by the Holy See, various rules are indeed supplied, by which several doubts already pertaining to this matter are clear.

"Thus from the Response of the S. Penitentiary of 14 December 1876, given to the Rector of a Parish in the diocese of Angers, it is clear that it is not licit to favor the error of penitents, which by many is called good faith, nor to create such good faith.

"It is also clear that those confessors do not satisfy their duty who, when a penitent merely accuses Onanism, keep deep silence, and when the confession of sins has been finished, excite him to contrition with general words, and to him asserting that he detests every lethal sin, impart holy absolution."

"It is clear, moreover, that those confessors are free from every reprehension who, keeping themselves within the limits laid down by the Roman Ritual and approved authors, as regards questions sometimes to be asked of spouses concerning the use of matrimony, 'do not omit to reprehend any penitent whatever, whether of his own accord or from a question prudently asked, confessing onanism, not otherwise than concerning other grave sins, as much as his good seems to demand; nor do they absolve him, unless by sufficient signs he shows that he grieves concerning the past and has the purpose of no longer acting onanistically.'

"But since from the prior Responses of the Apostolic Holy See not all doubts concerning this matter are solved, and meanwhile action is taken diversely by different confessors with Onanists, not without grave detriment of souls and great sorrow of pastors; hence the aforesaid Orator reverently and confidently approaches Your Holiness, having the words of eternal life, earnestly beseeching that Your Beatitude deign kindly to give a Response to the following doubts, namely:

"I. When there is a founded suspicion that a penitent who is entirely silent concerning ONANISM is addicted to this crime, is it licit for the confessor to abstain from prudent and discreet QUESTIONING, because he foresees that several will be driven from good faith and many will desert the Sacraments? Or rather is the confessor not bound prudently and discreetly to question?

"II. Whether a confessor who, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that a penitent is an Onanist, is bound to ADMONISH him concerning the gravity of this sin, equally as concerning other mortal sins, and, as the Roman Ritual says, to reprehend him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him then only when it is established by sufficient signs that the same one grieves concerning the past and has the purpose of no longer acting onanistically?

"The Sacred Penitentiary, considering that the unspeakable vice of which there is question in the case has widely prevailed, judged that to the proposed doubts response must be made, as it responds:

"To I. Regularly, negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second.

"To II. Affirmatively, according to the doctrines of approved Authors.

"Given at Rome in the S. Penitentiary, on 10 March 1886.

"Card. Monaco, Major Penitentiary.

"Hip. Can. Palombi, Secretary of the S. P."