Article V: Concerning the Conjugal Debt and Concerning Defect in the Use of Marriage

I. The conjugal act can also be obligatory; for copulation can be exacted from justice by either spouse, because each has power over the body of the partner (I Cor. VII, 2-3), and indeed from a bilateral onerous contract, so that per se and generally the partner is bound to render it; wherefore it is usually called the conjugal debt. Hence spouses can also sin by defect (can. 1111).

A. There is per se no obligation of seeking, because no one is bound to use his own right; per accidens, an obligation from charity and piety can exist, for example if a spouse judges, especially the man, that the partner placed in danger of incontinence does not dare to seek, or if the use of marriage appears necessary for fostering love or averting dissensions.

B. There exists a per se grave obligation of rendering from justice whenever one party reasonably, seriously, and legitimately seeks, whether expressly or tacitly, because in the matrimonial contract they mutually handed over their bodies for conjugal use; but to deny this of itself brings grave trouble to the other. Per accidens, however, it will be light, as if the debt is rarely denied, for example once in a month to one seeking rather often; if it is deferred for a brief time, for example from day to night, from night to morning; if the other seeks mildly, not urgently, and easily acquiesces to the one denying; provided that in these circumstances danger of incontinence or of another grave inconvenience is absent.

II. The obligation of rendering ceases in one when the right of seeking ceases in the other:

a. If the one seeking has admitted formal, certain, consummated adultery, sodomy properly so called, or bestiality; for fidelity is broken for the one breaking fidelity. Make exception if the other has sinned similarly, or was an accomplice of the sin, or, knowing and willing, condoned the sin (can. 1129).

b. If the person wholly lacks the use of reason or is in a state of perfect drunkenness, as long as the state lasts; for he who lacks the use of reason does not seek in a reasonable and human mode.¹

¹ There can also be danger for offspring to be conceived from copulation instituted after much intoxicating drinking, namely lest the offspring be born foolish, or deaf-mute, or liable to drunkenness.

c. If copulation is the cause of grave extrinsic danger or inconvenience, either for the one rendering, or for the one seeking, or for offspring already conceived;² nevertheless, when sufficient reason accedes, for example dissensions or incontinence of oneself or the partner to be avoided, someone could from charity render to the partner and expose himself or herself to proper danger, unless, however, death threatened from copulation.³

² In particular there is grave inconvenience of denying: a. if the wife labors under incipient cancer of the uterus, so that after coitus she is subjected to copious emission of blood; b. if she undergoes coitus with very acute pain which is repeated in individual copulations; c. if she herself is gravely ill or if the partner labors under a contagious disease, such as leprosy or venereal disease, which either brings danger of swift infection, or moves insuperable horror; d. if either labors under organic defect of the heart, for then coitus not only harms greatly but can even produce sudden death; e. if the wife knows by experience or by the judgment of a physician that she undergoes grave danger of death in childbirth. Hence Father Vermeersch says, n. 225: "If a physician declares a new conception will certainly be fatal to the wife, the wife must decline copulation. But if death does not threaten in this way, the wife can bring herself into danger because of a grave cause. For since conception itself is doubtful, the danger does not seem to have arisen nor to be proximate. But concerning these things it is necessary to approach a physician both skilled and fearing God. For there are not lacking those who, because of slight indications, inconsiderately prohibit persons little continent from the honorable use of marriage. Wherefore Genicot judges that such danger from future childbirth very rarely is established, because of which there would be a grave obligation of abstaining from the use of marriage." Compare Dr. Ausems, Het herhaalde moederschap.

³ That this is according to the mind of Saint Thomas is clear from his response ad 4, a. 1, q. 64 in the Supplement.

d. If the partner seeks immoderately, for example several times, three or four times, in the same night.⁴

⁴ Men, and much less wives, are not accustomed to exceed the mode in seeking the debt except in the first months after contracting marriage; during which time the moral difficulty also will be slight, either because the man more rarely intends to press strict right, or because he will willingly agree to the wife modestly asking off. Genicot, Th. M., II, n. 554.

e. If the partner seeks in a mode illicit not only on the part of the agent but on the part of the act itself, for example that it be done onanistically, sodomitically, with scandal of others, and so forth.

But a graver harm is required for denying the debt absolutely than for deferring or restricting the rendering of the same. Thus weakness of the wife or great fatigue, which does not suffice for denying copulation absolutely, can be a reason for delay of rendering or for denying it as frequently as is sought by the man. Hence:

1. Wives sin gravely who in rendering the debt show themselves difficult and lingering, with danger of incontinence or adultery in the man or with the intention of deterring him from petition; likewise if they concede the debt only when compelled, if they harshly and insultingly reproach the man for his petitions, indeed if they obstinately deny, even for one time, while he seriously and urgently seeks.

2. Men also sin gravely who, whether from avarice for avoiding offspring or from malevolence, rarely know their wives.

3. Spouses are bound to a common bed (can. 1128) because of the obligation of rendering; therefore per se it is illicit for one, without the consent of the other or with danger of incontinence, to be absent for a longer time, for this is equivalent to denial of the debt. Per accidens it is licit because of grave causes, for example a notable good of the republic or of the family.

4. Hence he is unjust who illicitly separates himself or seeks civil divorce.

5. It is illicit for spouses to render themselves incapable of copulation or generation by excessive labors, vigils, austerities, or a fortiori by pollutions, adulteries, or other illicit acts. Hence husbands are guilty of grave and special injustice who, with the wife unwilling, have admitted vasectomy or castration for this reason, that they may not be able to generate, or so weaken the body that they render themselves almost unequal to the conjugal act, or exercise neo-Malthusian arts. Likewise, on the contrary, wives who, without the husband's knowledge or with him unwilling, not from necessity of present infection but to obtain sterility or to avoid future pregnancy even dangerous, procure for themselves excision of the ovaries or interruption of the oviduct, or place an occlusive pessary at the mouth of the uterus, or use other neo-Malthusian means; likewise physicians who by their art exercise the aforesaid excisions or operations or cooperate with them in some way.

6. Spouses are not excused from the obligation of rendering because of inconveniences inherent to marriage, for example more numerous offspring, inconveniences of gestation, ordinary difficulties of childbirth, grave and unusual but brief pains, light pains although long-lasting, and so forth; because these burdens are attached to marriage and they undertook them by entering marriage.

7. Nevertheless the wife seems to be excused from rendering the debt if the man by his own fault leaves the wife in utmost want, or does not wish to feed the offspring, or has no care of the family.

III. Observations. 1. Ordinarily the confessor is not bound, nor does it befit him, to question wives, except in the most modest mode he can, whether they have rendered the debt, for example whether they obey the man in matters which pertain to marriage, or whether anything troubles the conscience concerning marriage; concerning the rest let him be silent unless he has been asked. Usually in this matter wives little fearing God are to be questioned, especially when they confess that they have been angry with their husbands. But this questioning is ordinarily to be omitted with wives of timorous conscience.⁵

⁵ Aertnijs, Th. Mor., II, n. 515, from Saint Alphonsus, Praxis conf., n. 41 and 35.

2. When asked, the confessor can propose to married persons who are pressed by anxiety concerning the baser things which they do between themselves the threefold rule indicated above (article III, n. I, A, B, C.); let him generally abstain from further questions concerning the nature of the deed; besides, let individual persons be instructed: a. the husband, that he not seek the debt at those times in which copulation can be gravely harmful to the wife, for example in the time of purification or of grave disease; b. the wife, that she is bound under grave sin to obey the man in rendering the debt, unless she is excused from a just cause, for example because of infirmity.

3. Let the confessor order a girl asking what is licit or prescribed for her in a marriage soon to be contracted to ask her mother or another female blood relative in whom she can trust; but if she has no woman of this kind at hand, let him teach in the more honorable mode and briefly. To send her simply to the husband, that she conform herself to all his desires, today generally does not seem expedient, since so many men now seek means against nature, unless in the case in which the honesty of the husband is beyond every exception.

4. Let the confessor beware lest he ask spouses untimely or excessive questions concerning the various modes of coeundi, as these not only are useless but can also generate scandal. Wherefore if the penitent introduces a prudent suspicion, it will be enough for the confessor to inquire whether something against nature or voluntary pollution was present; concerning the rest let him not speak unless asked.

5. In marriage, that things may proceed in a happier mode, let spouses attend that in the use of marriage they consult the satisfaction of the other rather than their own. Especially:

a. let the man: 1. begin to approach the wife not in a fierce but in a gentle mode; 2. use his right discreetly; and thus 3. foster and increase the affection of love in the wife;

b. similarly, let the wife provide to the husband: 1. easiness by which she is prepared in rendering the debt so that she may please the man; likewise 2. cleanliness; and 3. order and neatness of the home.

6. A twofold danger occurs to matrimonial chastity from a twofold vicious inclination: namely to adultery, and to onanism.

A. To impede the first, occasions come to be avoided. Therefore let not the husband be so imprudent that he fosters frequent society or friendship of the wife with other men; likewise the wife: 1. let her not introduce another younger woman to the husband or keep her at home, for example a sister or beautiful maidservant; 2. let her not permit to the husband separate theatrical or worldly frequentations; 3. let her not herself have a separate bed.

B. To avoid onanism it is necessary to repress the imagination together with egoism. Especially let spouses:

1. in true humility, content with their modest condition, not be tormented by desire of a higher one;

2. prefer to the accumulation of riches or idleness the labor of feeding numerous children;

3. in the spirit of Christian abnegation be willing to be deprived of various pleasures for the good instruction of offspring.

By these things, under the influence of divine charity, their union in procreating children for the kingdom of God will be fruitful, and thus a great sacrament in Christ and in the Church.