Article IV: Concerning Excess in the Use of Marriage

I. Excess in the use of marriage can be:

a. by reason of the end, as if it is done exclusively on account of pleasure;

b. by reason of an undue circumstance, for example position, if the act is done in a mode beside that which nature indicates;

c. especially by reason of a mode against nature, if it is done in such a way that generation itself is thereby impeded, for example in a sodomitical mode, in an unnatural vessel and undue organ, namely in the posterior vessel or in the mouth.

Now the mode of sinning by excess against nature very frequent in modern times is onanism.¹ It is copulation in the female canal sought in that mode by which generation is positively impeded and cannot follow from the effusion of semen; this can be done in various modes described above.² It is mortal sin, as directly contrary to the primary end of marriage and opposed to conjugal fidelity, a mere abuse of the genital organs against the order instituted by God, by which they pervert a most noble thing into the basest act of a passion of ignominy. For it lacks order to the natural end of semen and to the good of the species. Hence the malice is intrinsic to the act, to such an extent that no cause, however urgent, can render it honorable.

¹ That practice is often called neo-Malthusianism. For economic reasons Malthus (1798) had proposed the limitation of conception, but by licit means, namely by abstaining from the conjugal act. Now, however, neo-Malthusians promote illicit means.

² Question IV, article 4, nn. 1 and 2. Yet none is altogether certain. For the preservative garment, condom or pseudo-vagina, can be torn; the occlusive pessary can be badly adapted or, during copulation, moved from its place; simple withdrawal or washing of the female canal do not always impede some sperm from being ejaculated before withdrawal, or already passing into the uterus before washing; a chemical substance sprinkled through the whole female genital canal before copulation does not always have perfect efficacy.

This is the doctrine of the Church, which shines forth from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI and from the many and repeated declarations of the Holy Office (May 20, 1851; April 19, 1853; March 26, 1897; November 23, 1922) and of the Sacred Penitentiary (twelve times from November 15, 1816 to June 3, 1916), most recently from the encyclical Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI did not hesitate to declare that this is the very Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning and always: "Since therefore certain persons, manifestly departing from Christian doctrine handed down from the very beginning and never interrupted, have lately judged that another doctrine concerning this manner of acting should be solemnly preached, the Catholic Church, to whom God himself has committed the teaching and defense of integrity and honesty of morals, placed in the midst of this ruin of morals, in order to preserve the chastity of the nuptial covenant immune from this base stain, in sign of her divine legation, lifts up her voice aloud through our mouth and promulgates anew: any use whatever of marriage in the exercise of which, by the industry of men, it is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, infringes the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed such a thing are stained with the blot of grave fault." Here three things are affirmed: the use of marriage which by industry is deprived of its power of generating, 1. is against divine law; 2. is against the law of nature; and 3. is grave sin.

II. Hence concerning onanism the following conclusions are established:

1. The onanist man cannot be absolved unless he repents and resolves; likewise the woman formally cooperating or consenting, or who tries to expel semen by washings. Indeed, he who uses a preservative means is bound to destroy it as an occasion of sin before absolution; this per se and regularly must be urged by the confessor.

2. The wife does not sin if for a moderately grave cause she renders the debt to an onanist husband withdrawing himself before insemination, or even seeks it from him; but the cause is grave if otherwise she incurs grave evils, for example dissensions in marriage, blows, adultery of the husband, her own incontinence or long abstinence from the use of marriage,³ and so forth. The reason is that the action begins in the due mode, in such a way that of itself it is apt for generation; but if it is terminated unduly, the whole guilt stands on the part of the man, and on the part of the woman there is only material and mediate cooperation, which can be offered to the sin of another because of a grave motive. For this, says Pius XI, is to suffer sin rather than to perpetrate it. This is to be understood provided the wife does not consent to the mode itself of acting against nature, but detests it and bears herself merely passively toward it; otherwise there would be formal cooperation. Nevertheless she could actively cooperate, by exciting herself immediately before copulation and during it, and rejoice in pleasure, even perfect, as long as the action is done in the due mode; likewise she may rejoice in the good effect of such copulation, for example in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, although this is dangerous.⁴

³ Hence she can seek copulation from the man withdrawing himself, and only sometimes, namely once or another time, is she bound to abstain by reason of charity; not more often, because this would already be a grave inconvenience, while charity nevertheless does not oblige with grave inconvenience for avoiding merely passive scandal.

⁴ The same holds theoretically for the man, when before insemination the woman withdraws herself; but in practice ordinarily there is not a grave sufficient reason on the part of the man, because he can rather easily impede the withdrawal of the woman, even by physical force.

Yet even then, because of charity, the woman is bound to warn the man and show her own repugnance, and this not once or another time but often, not however inopportunely but opportunely. Indeed, if she can, she should deter the man from this crime by blandishments, prayers, and other testimonies of affection (Sacred Penitentiary, November 15, 1816), even by denial of the debt if she thus hopes to procure the amendment of the husband.

3. But the wife cannot render the debt to an onanist husband employing a preservative instrument, whether he himself puts on a covering or imposes an occlusive covering upon the wife, because it is immediate participation in an intrinsically evil action. For then there is not present copulation of itself apt for generation. Namely, such congress admitted on each side is vitiated from the beginning and intrinsically evil; whence cooperation, even merely passive, is altogether illicit. Therefore the wife is bound positively to resist according to her strength, for example by moving herself or by using her hands, and she cannot yield except to prevailing force, after the manner of an oppressed woman, in which case, from such a most grave cause, as to that which she cannot impede, she can bear herself merely permissively, provided she excludes every consent to pleasure (Sacred Penitentiary, April 16, 1853 and June 3, 1916; Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 84).

4. Likewise the wife would sin gravely if she induced the man to onanism either directly or indirectly, for example by producing insistent complaints concerning more numerous offspring, concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning the inconveniences of gestation, and so forth.

5. When the wife uses an occlusive pessary or other means impeding generation, the man must by marital authority prohibit it and remove her from these things; indeed, if it can be done, he must take away and destroy the means and instruments. But if nothing profits and grave inconveniences are to be feared, some judge that the man can even seek the debt and perfect copulation, provided he bears himself merely materially and passively as to the impediment of generation. Now:

a. It would certainly be illicit if the wife used a pseudo-vagina, because then from the beginning the act would be intrinsically evil.

b. On the contrary, it is probably licit if, with the husband contradicting, she uses anticonceptional powder or a medicine by which semen is killed, at least if it is done after the act, or if by washing of the female canal she tries to expel it; because then both the act and the genital organ of the woman remain substantially the same. For the act itself is done well and semen is deposited in the due vessel, but the vice is not from the mode of acting, but exists independently from the act and is posterior to it and is to be attributed to the wife alone.

c. But if she uses a sponge or occlusive pessary, whether the same reasoning is valid, we ourselves would not dare to decide, but let the wiser see.⁵ The matter is not so clear, whether in the case the copulation itself is vitiated from the beginning, although from the beginning and during copulation there is present an impediment to conception from occlusion of the uterus; because the mouth of the uterus is not an organ which, like the virile member, has a part in copulation, but copulation is perfected in the due mode if semen is deposited in the natural female genital canal. In the case this happens, although the action of nature to be continued after copulation is impeded, but by the woman. Hence in practice, until the Church pronounces, the husband will be able to be absolved, provided he is prepared to stand by the mandates of the Holy See.

⁵ Father Vermeersch in the first edition of his work affirmed this, but afterwards retracted himself (compare Periodica de re canonica, 1925, f. II; and Th. M., t. IV, 69). The act now seems to him evil from the beginning, because the female genital canal is already substantially vitiated: for this is essentially a canal leading to the uterus; but since in the case it is occluded, it also ceases to be a canal. Hence a woman who has a naturally occluded female genital canal is impotent. The argument, saving better judgment, does not seem certain. For natural occlusion is one thing, merely artificial occlusion another; an organ occluded by reason of its structure is one thing, an organ aptly constructed but occluded because of an accidental impediment placed upon it from outside, which leaves the female genital canal perfectly integral, is another. It is also useful to note that in this mode only the passage of semen into the uterus and thus to the ovum is impeded. Now if the uterus has been removed, or the oviduct interrupted, and passage to the ovum has already been made impossible, nevertheless the conjugal act remains licit; likewise during pregnancy, while passage into the uterus is impeded because it is closed.

Nor does it stand in the way: if it is illicit for the woman to cooperate with the man using a preservative instrument, by equal right it must be illicit for the man to cooperate with the woman who uses a similar instrument. For although the rights are equal, nevertheless the parts of the man and the woman in the conjugal act are not the same, but are greater in the man; and therefore the man will be able more easily to cooperate with the wife than she with the man.

III. Corollaries. 1. From the principles enunciated one can respond to the question whether the wife could cooperate in sodomitical copulation, which is also opposed to the natural end of copulation and to conjugal fidelity demanding that spouses use the body only in a mode apt for generation; for neither has right over the body of the other against nature. Now, one must respond as for artificial onanism: to such copulation, as intrinsically evil and vitiated from the beginning, it is never licit to cooperate positively or actively, nor even merely passively; but it is necessary that the wife try to impede the sodomitical concubitus of the man by resisting positively as much as she can, for example by movement and by hands, and if, unwilling, she nevertheless is compelled to yield to prevailing force, that she never consent to the venereal pleasure perhaps arising from it. For if to cooperate in artificial onanism is never licit, a fortiori this is valid concerning the sodomitical mode, which is more perverse (compare Sacred Penitentiary, April 3, 1916).

2. From onanism and sodomy improperly so called there must be distinguished the act by which spouses come together in the manner of animals, yet in such a way that copulation is done in the female genital canal. In this case some say that they came together backwards or from behind. Then the confessor must ask whether in this mode generation was possible; if they respond that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not against nature but only inordinate in position, beside nature; this sin does not exceed venial. Of his own accord the confessor should never have speech concerning the position to be had in copulation.

3. From onanism differs altogether the practice of having copulation only in the time of agenesis, during which time conception in no way or more rarely, namely, occurs; whence by this practice generation is made little probable. For such a manner of acting of itself is not sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and otherwise do nothing against the end of marriage in the time in which they come together (Sacred Penitentiary, June 16, 1889), provided this is done from a right intention or just motive and with due circumstances preserved. Nevertheless, the bishops of Belgium rightly warn: "lest, however, the time of agenesis be proposed to the spouses as if through it generation were certainly avoided."⁶

⁶ The time of agenesis was formerly established by the physician Capellmann and others thus: from ten or fourteen days after the beginning up to three or four days before the new menstruation; for they thought ovulation, and accordingly fertility, to coincide with menstruation, so that during the month the woman would be:

4. Nor must onanism be confused with the interruption of copulation. For this can be licit because of a grave reason, for example to avoid scandal when a person unexpectedly arrives, because of a spasm arisen in the calves, because of a sudden infirmity. Then copulation is broken off not now so that semen may be poured out externally, but for another end, whence the effusion of semen occurring beyond the intention is equated with involuntary pollution. If grave reason is lacking, this, speaking per se, is not mortal, provided the spouses consent in this and there is no danger of inseminating outside the vessel; for that intromission of the female vessel is then judged after the manner of an impudicious touch, which is permitted between spouses or at least is not mortal, with danger of pollution set aside. We have said:

a. if both consent, for if one withdraws without the consent of the other, he or she certainly sins gravely against the obligation of rendering the debt, as will be more evident from the following article;

b. speaking per se, for often it is mortal because the danger is frequently present from such withdrawal of pouring out semen, unless the spouses have experienced the opposite, in which case, nevertheless, ordinarily they cannot be excused from venial sin;

c. if there is no danger of pollution; whence the husband sins gravely who, without just cause, restrains insemination after the wife has experienced complete pleasure or is proximately prepared for it, because thus he is the cause that the action of the wife is deprived of its end and is mere pollution.

5. On the contrary, that cannot be admitted which some have said: that spouses who do not wish to multiply offspring can, for fostering mutual love, calming concupiscence, or compensating for the use of marriage, exercise the beginning of copulation, even through intromission into the female genital canal, in the manner of an imperfect act which they do not wish to bring to consummation; and indeed licitly, even if pollution arises from it not only rarely but even frequently, provided they do not consent to it.

Against this:

a. an imperfect touch, if the primary end, the generation of offspring, is positively excluded, is venial sin, even if there is no danger of pollution from it;

b. but if the act is prolonged for a long time or even frequently repeated, so that there is proximate danger of pollution, it will be gravely evil, because it is to place a cause per se and gravely influencing pollution. And if it were licit, spouses could practice material onanism with impunity; for such a practice is equivalent to onanism, from which it differs by explicit intention alone, since in the formal onanist pollution is voluntary in itself, but here only voluntary in a proximate cause. And therefore each is equally prohibited under grave sin.

6. Women sin gravely in intention who by an inefficacious reason, by a vain remedy, by restraining distillation, by rising to urinate, have wished to render copulation sterile. Nor can they obey a husband ordering such things unless first they have warned him concerning his error.

But if they voluntarily employ a means by which received semen is expelled or killed, they are guilty of an exterior gravely sinful act; hence women regularly ought not irrigate the female genital canal immediately, but only some hours after copulation.⁷

⁷ Father Vermeersch, who in the first edition of his work De Castitate, n. 264, more severely required six hours, recently judges more benignly and holds washing after an hour licit. For "in individual effusions, nemaspermata are contained in an immense number, which they estimate at 250,000,000 to 260,000,000. If the man has perfectly effected intromission into the female genital canal, already in the very act of copulation many nemaspermata enter the uterus. But their motion is such that they traverse a hundredth part of a meter in ten moments. The beginning of the female genital canal is distant from the mouth of the uterus by 2 1/2 to 3 centimeters; but 10 centimeters from the Fallopian tubes ... where fertilization usually occurs.... When all things proceed optimally, fertilization already has place after an hour and a half from copulation done" (Th. M., IV, n. 7). From this he concludes: "Washing of the female canal after an hour from copulation cannot in itself be called illicit, since then it no longer morally impedes generation," for "so many nemaspermata have been received in the uterus that such hope of fertilization has been made as morally no better can be expected" (ad n. 71).

Therefore under no pretext can it be done earlier: of cleanliness, or custom, or influx of blood with itching, or white flux, or inflammation of the female canal, or health; which causes, moreover, are not proportionate. Indeed generally washing of the female canal is rather harmful to health.⁸ Nevertheless washing immediately after copulation would be licit if it were a means here and now necessary for averting infection or a contagious disease, which certainly rarely occurs.

⁸ Thus Dr. Schockaert, "Les dangers de l'avortement et du neo-malthusianisme pour l'organe feminin," in Revue medicale de Louvain, 1932.

IV. Besides the inordination against nature intrinsic to onanism, several other evil consequences also are apt to follow from it, as Tanquerey notes (Supplement to the treatise on Marriage, n. 41-43):

"a. The spouses themselves often suffer many evils from it; for just as children are a common good and common bond by which spouses are joined more firmly and closely, so on the contrary those who lack offspring dissent much more easily and are separated from one another. Nor should it be said that to attain this end one or another child suffices; for the more numerous the offspring, the firmer the union of the spouses. Otherwise, not rarely are onanists punished by the premature death of one or another child whom they had begotten; hence often the parents of an only child are pressed by anxieties and fears lest perhaps this child be taken from the living and the family name be wiped out. Besides, marital copulation which, legitimately performed, is a remedy of concupiscence, does not calm it but inflames it when it is perfected onanistically; especially the woman is not completely delighted and does not rest unless the uterus is irrigated by virile semen tempering her ardor. Hence also physicians cry out with one voice that onanists are subject to many diseases, which arise especially from excitation of the nerves;⁹ for the commotion which concubitus causes is not calmed except by the natural effusion and reception of virile sperm.

⁹ Or even the woman from defective application of the various practices. Compare Eschbach, o. c., p. 573-574; Surbled, t. I, l. 2, ch. 11-12; Dr. Schockaert, in the cited article.

"b. The offspring also not rarely suffers some detriment from the onanism of parents, which the Council of Poitiers (1868) describes thus: it happens very often that that child is educated more indulgently, or at God's command briefly finishes life, or, having become worse with age, deprived of the sweet love and support of brothers and sisters, loving himself, not obeying parents, proud, ungrateful, without affection, afflicts his family with disgrace and grief.

"c. Nor does onanism harm society less. For if the chief strength and protection of society is situated in the number and virile education of citizens; now onanism, by impeding generation, diminishes the number of citizens, so that nations once flourishing gradually fail. Likewise it hinders the virile education of children: for where there is an only child, generally he is educated more indulgently, is devoted to pleasure rather than duty, and often becomes altogether useless to the fatherland."

V. Warning for confessors. Concerning onanism, the faithful are also to be questioned and warned in confession. Concerning this, see the Sacred Penitentiary, March 10, 1886; and the Instruction of the bishops of Belgium, 1909;¹⁰ and the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 84-86. Indeed the Supreme Pontiff himself in the encyclical Casti Connubii does not hesitate to write: "Therefore priests who give their labor to hearing confessions, and others who have care of souls, by our supreme authority and care for the salvation of all souls, we admonish, lest they allow the faithful committed to them to err concerning this most grave law of God, and much more, that they keep themselves immune from opinions of this kind and in no way connive at them. But if any confessor or pastor of souls, may God avert it, has either himself led the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least confirmed them in these either by approving or by deceitfully keeping silent, let him know that he will have to render a severe account to God the supreme judge concerning betrayal of his office, and let him judge that the words of Christ are said to him, Matt. XV, 14: They are blind, and leaders of the blind; but if the blind gives guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit."

¹⁰ As a commentary upon this instruction one can have the little work of the author A. Knoch, L'Onanisme conjugal et le tribunal de la Penitence, Liege, 1910. Besides, these can usefully be compared: Instructio pro confessariis de usu et abusu matrimonii, Eichstaett, Seminary 1931; Ami du Clerge, 1931; Creusen, "L'Onanisme conjugal," in N. R. Th., 1932.

For it concerns a most grave evil, spread everywhere and very harmful to the common good, concerning which good faith now can scarcely exist, whose practice among the good and pious will easily be harmful to others because of scandal, and which because of the silence of confessors will be judged able to be permitted or tolerated. With these things considered, the confessor:

1. Unless by positive judgment it appears that the penitent is immune from that vice, should regularly question unknown married persons at least by a general question: whether all things in marriage are rightly ordered, whether nothing concerning this troubles the conscience.

2. If an onanist is detected, he can never positively permit the vice, and regularly he must warn, not only if good faith is absent or there is probable hope of fruit, but also when these are lacking; indeed, the Sacred Penitentiary warns, March 10, 1886, "if he foresees that several are to be disturbed from good faith, and many will abandon the sacraments": both generally, because if confessors generally were silent, they would harm the common good, and in the particular case if it is feared that the silence of the confessor may be divulged, or the example be a scandal to the faithful. "For in this matter," says the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 85, "it is better to use severity than to indulge laxity."

3. Only extraordinarily, in a rare case, if these inconveniences and the danger of scandal and of excessive abuse are absent, he will be able to leave the penitent in good faith, which can more easily exist in the wife while she is in grave illness, or leaves the whole matter to the husband.

4. But if the spouse, considering the mode by which the vice is committed, can legitimately begin copulation well or admit it when begun, he will instruct that spouse concerning this faculty, so that he or she may henceforth avoid formal sins.

5. Let him also provide remedies against the vice:

a. let him show the gravity of the sin, which is directly opposed to the primary end of the conjugal act and of marriage, and the grave obligation of abandoning it;

b. let him explain the harmful effects in offspring born, and in the parents, who weaken the nervous system;

c. if the penitent objects the difficulty of feeding and educating more numerous offspring, let him excite confidence in the providence of God and explain that more numerous families generally are happier than others and emerge by the energy of their members, and by greater union and virile love;

d. if death from a new childbirth is feared, let him insinuate that the danger is easily exaggerated by some physicians, that no one can in this matter predict the event with certainty, that nature moreover brings help to the pregnant woman, and that the medical art has so advanced that the danger can rather be averted;

e. finally, in a discreet mode he can advise that they contain themselves or come together more rarely, or cautiously insinuate to them that there is a time less apt for fertilization.

6. Finally, to the relapsed without amendment absolution is regularly to be deferred, unless he brings extraordinary signs.

7. Moreover, in order that spouses may be able to exercise conjugal chastity, it is necessary that spouses, endowed with virtue, dominate passion and be apt to preserve continence for a time, as is sometimes necessary during pregnancy, or at the time of childbirth and purification, or because of disease or infirmity. But if they can do this, they will also be able rather easily to avoid onanism.

But it was found that menstruation does not coincide with ovulation, although it is a connected phenomenon, but has place between two ovulations. Thus Dr. Siegl established the woman to be fertile from day 5 to 20 from menstruation had, sterile from day 1 to 4, and from 21 to 28. Now, however, according to the most recent experiments of Doctor Knaus, the woman would be fertile from day 11 to 17 from menstruation had, sterile from day 1 to 10 and from day 18 to 28. According to Doctor Ogino the woman would be fertile from day 12 to 19 before the following menstruation, exceptionally to day 24, but sterile through 11 days before the following menstruation and through 9 days, exceptionally only through 4, after menstruation had. This can be proposed schematically thus:

Concerning these things it should be noted:

1. The computation is approximate, whence to avoid conception certainly, spouses would have to abstain from day 4 to day 19 or 20 after menstruation.

2. The experiments are not yet sufficiently certain, because: a. the time during which the ovum and sperm remain apt for fertilization is uncertain; for this seems to depend on the individual condition of the person, or even on the diverse medium in which the semen, for example, is preserved; b. the experiments are not sufficiently numerous for making certainty in every way; and c. several were done not in the human species but in animals, whence from them one can conclude only by analogy.

3. Early or later or supplementary ovulation is always possible, whence also in fact fertilizations have had place at other times.

4. Hence some say that, in this matter, no general law is given, but the matter depends on the diverse condition of the woman; others say that there is no time in which conception is not strictly possible.

From these things it is clear how cautiously the confessor must proceed in affirming or counseling in this matter; nor is this doctrine to be spread among the people, because it would harm the common good.

Especially: a. The practice of exercising copulation only in the time of agenesis, although of itself it is not illicit, nevertheless is ill-sounding and requires a reason rendering it honorable.

b. Therefore, in order that in a concrete case it be honorable, it is necessary that it be done from a good end, such as is not to avoid all offspring, or to indulge pleasure; otherwise it will be venial sin.

c. Even if a good end is present, it is further required that it be done in due circumstances, for example by mutual consent and without danger of incontinence; otherwise mortal sin would be present.

d. Hence such a practice is not to be publicly proposed, nor even privately positively advised, because this is apt to generate scandal, indeed to lead to onanism; for since there is the same effect of each practice, is there not danger that they do not sufficiently perceive the difference of each, and finally will use the unnatural mode, easier and more secure?

e. But sometimes the confessor can cautiously suggest that practice: thus if there is sufficient reason for avoiding every conception and the penitent cannot preserve continence, the confessor could say that in this case this is not evil; or if an inveterate onanist is incorrigible, to whom such a mode of acting could be proposed as a lesser evil.

This is a sufficiently common doctrine among moralists.

Yet this conclusion does not appear founded. Passing over even the fact that perhaps the computation was not adequately instituted, since on the one hand the number of nemaspermata and their speed seem to be exaggerated, for it does not agree with those things which are ordinarily handed down by cultivators of the sciences, and on the other hand the distance of the beginning of the female genital canal to the mouth of the uterus is diminished; besides, it is permitted to observe these things. From the optimal mode, in which sometimes exceptionally fertilization could occur, he concludes to that which can be licitly done generally. Then, from the fact that fertilization is not radically impeded, how can it be affirmed that there is a hope such that a better morally cannot be expected? This truly escapes us. Moreover, it is gravely illicit "to do anything positively by which conception is impeded or made less probable," as Father Vermeersch himself says; and accordingly also to lose part of the semen, unless per accidens and beyond the intention of the agent: "Thus a man cannot, content with partial insemination, withdraw himself and deliberately waste the remaining semen outside the vessel" (n. 57). Therefore, by parity, washing is gravely illicit, which directly expels part of the semen.