Article IV: On Excess in the Use of Marriage

S. Th., II-II, q. 154, a. 11-12.

954. Excess or abuse in the use of marriage can be:

a) by reason of the end, as if it is done exclusively for delight;

b) by reason of an undue circumstance, for example position, if the act is done in another mode besides that which nature indicates;

c) especially by reason of a mode contrary to 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 an undue organ, namely, in the posterior vessel or in the mouth.

Now the mode of sinning by excess contrary to nature which in present times is very frequent is Onanism, so called from the deed of Onan narrated in Gen. XXXVIII, 9.

1. That practice is often called Neo-Malthusianism. On account of 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.

It is vaginal copula sought in that mode by which generation is positively impeded and cannot follow from the effusion of seed; whether because the man withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina, or because he himself or the woman employs an instrument or other means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the uterus.

It can be done in various modes:

1° On the part of the man: a) if he begins copula in the vagina but withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina; b) if he clothes the virile member or only its glans with some thin covering or cloak (condom, capote anglaise) within which the seed is retained.

1. It is so called because it had Doctor Condom as inventor.

2° On the part of the woman: a) if, during copula, she uses an occlusive pessary (sterilet), i.e., a certain thing introduced into the deepest part of the vagina for closing the mouth of the uterus lest the seed pass into it, for example a metal clasp, sponge, cotton, linen threads, etc.; or a pseudo-vagina, i.e., a thin membrane disposed within the whole vagina, into which the seed is emitted; b) if, after copula has been completed, she makes a vaginal washing, by which, with the aid of a syringe or irrigator, the seed is expelled by water or an antiseptic substance; or if, immediately before or after copula, she performs an injection of a chemical substance (for example anticonceptional powder) or of an acid liquid, by which the seed is killed.

2. Nevertheless no mode is altogether certain. For the preservative covering (condom or pseudo-vagina) can be torn; the occlusive pessary can be badly adapted or, during copula, moved from its place; simple withdrawal or vaginal washing does not always prevent some sperm from being ejaculated before withdrawal or from already having passed into the uterus before washing; a chemical substance sprinkled through the whole vagina before copula does not always have perfect efficacy.

955. Principle. Onanism and every other mode of performing copula by which it is deprived of its natural order to generation is intrinsically against nature and therefore essentially and gravely evil. - This is certain from the constant and formal doctrine of Christian tradition and of the Church.

It is a mortal sin, as directly contrary to the primary end of matrimony and matrimonial copula, and opposed to conjugal fidelity, a mere abuse of the genital organs against the order instituted by God and nature, by which they pervert a most noble thing into the most base act of a passion of ignominy: for it lacks the due order to its natural end and to the good of the species. Hence malice is intrinsic to the act, so that it cannot be made honorable by any cause, however urgent.

It is proved:

1° By natural reason: to turn an act deliberately away from the end for which it is naturally destined is to act against nature and is intrinsically evil. But every conjugal act is naturally destined to the procreation of the human race. Therefore to turn it away from this end is against nature and intrinsically evil. And this gravely, because it is against the natural order of human nature itself and directly against the common good itself of the human race.

2° From the doctrine of the Church, which is clear from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI and from many and repeated declarations of the Holy Office (May 20, 1851; Apr. 19, 1853; Mar. 26, 1897; Nov. 23, 1922) and of the Sacred Penitentiary (twelve times from Nov. 15, 1816, to June 3, 1916), and most recently from the encyclical Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI did not hesitate to declare that such is the very Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning and always: "Since therefore certain ones, manifestly receding from the Christian doctrine handed down already from the beginning and never interrupted, have recently judged that another doctrine concerning this mode of acting must be solemnly preached, the Catholic Church, to which God himself has committed the teaching and defending of integrity and honesty of morals, placed in the midst of this ruin of morals, that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial covenant immune from this foul stain, in sign of her divine legation, lifts high her voice through our mouth and again promulgates: any use of matrimony whatsoever in the exercise of which, through the design of men, it is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, violates the law of God and of nature; and those who have committed any such thing are stained with the blemish of grave guilt." Here three things are affirmed: the use of matrimony which by design is deprived of its power of generating is 1) against divine law; 2) against the law of nature; and 3) a grave sin.

Hence concerning Onanism the following conclusions are established:

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

2° A wife does not sin if, for a moderately grave cause, she renders the debt to an onanistic man withdrawing himself before the sowing of seed, or even seeks it from him. But a grave cause, as is clear from the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, exists if otherwise she would incur grave evils, for example dissensions in marriage, blows, adultery of the husband, her own incontinence, or prolonged abstinence from the use of marriage, etc. The reason is that the action begins in the due mode, so that of itself it is apt for generation; but if it is unduly terminated, the whole guilt is held to be on the part of the man, and on the part of the woman there is only material and mediate cooperation, which on account of a grave motive can be furnished to the sin of another. For this is, as Pius XI says, to suffer sin rather than to commit it. This is to be understood provided the wife does not consent to that mode of acting against nature, but detests it and bears herself merely passively toward it; otherwise it would be formal cooperation. Nevertheless she could actively cooperate, immediately before copula and during it by exciting herself, and rejoice in the pleasure (even perfect pleasure), as long as the action is done in the due mode; likewise she may rejoice in the good effect of such copula, for example in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, although this is dangerous.

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

2. The same holds theoretically for a man, when before the sowing of seed the woman withdraws herself; but in practice there ordinarily 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.

But even then the woman is bound because of charity to warn the man and show her own repugnance, and this not once or another time only, but rather often; yet not inopportunely, but opportunely. Indeed, if she can, she must deter the man from this crime by endearments, prayers, and other testimonies of affection (S. Pen., Nov. 15, 1816), even by denial of the debt if she thus hopes to procure the amendment of the husband.

3° But a wife cannot voluntarily cooperate and render the debt to an onanistic man employing a preservative instrument, whether he himself puts on a covering or imposes an occlusive covering upon the wife, because this is immediate participation in an intrinsically evil action, and therefore truly is to commit sin; for then there is no copula of itself apt for generation. Such congress, namely, admitted on each side, is vitiated from the beginning and intrinsically evil; whence voluntary cooperation, even merely material and passive, is altogether illicit. And therefore the wife is bound to resist positively according to her powers (for example by moving herself or using her hands), and she cannot yield except to prevailing force, after the likeness 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 delight (S. Pen., Apr. 19, 1853, and June 3, 1916; Prov. Counc. of Mechlin, n. 84).

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

5° When a wife uses an occlusive pessary or other means impeding generation, the husband ought by marital authority to prohibit it and remove her from those things; indeed, if it can be done, to take away and destroy the means and instruments. But if nothing is accomplished and grave inconveniences are to be feared, certain authors judge that the husband can even seek the debt and complete copula, provided he bears himself merely materially and passively as regards the impediment of generation. Now:

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

b) On the contrary, it is probably licit if, with the man contradicting her, she uses anticonceptional powder or a medicine by which the seed is killed, at least if it is done after the act, or if by vaginal washing 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 the seed 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 the wife uses a sponge or an occlusive pessary, whether the same reason holds, we ourselves would not dare to settle, but let wiser men see to it. The matter is not so clear, whether in the case the copula itself is vitiated from the beginning, although from the beginning and during copula there is present an impediment of conception from the closing of the uterus; because the mouth of the uterus is not an organ which, like the penis, has a part in copula, but the latter is completed in the due mode if the seed is deposited in the natural vagina. This happens in the case, although the action of nature, to be continued after copula, is impeded, but by the woman. Hence in practice, until the Church pronounces, the husband can be absolved, provided he is prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See.

Nor is it an objection: if it is illicit for the woman to cooperate with a man using a preservative instrument, by equal right it must also be illicit for the man to cooperate with a woman who uses a similar instrument. For it can be doubted whether the instrument, as regards copula, is altogether similar. And although the rights are equal, nevertheless the parts of the man and of the woman in the conjugal act are not the same, but greater parts belong to the man; and therefore the man will be able to cooperate with the sin of the wife more easily than she with the sin of the man.

1. Fr. Vermeersch affirmed this in the first edition of his work De Castitate, but afterward retracted himself (cf. Periodica de re canonica, 1925, fasc. II, and Th. M., vol. IV, 69). The act now seems to him evil from the beginning, because the vagina is already substantially vitiated: for this is essentially a canal leading to the uterus; but since in the case it is closed, it also ceases to be a canal. Hence a woman who has a naturally closed vagina is impotent. - The argument, saving a better judgment, does not seem certain. For natural closing is one thing, merely artificial closing another; an organ closed because of its structure is one thing, an organ suitably constructed but closed on account of an accidental impediment placed from without is another, which leaves the vagina perfectly whole. It is also helpful to note that by this mode only the passage of the seed into the uterus and thus to the ovum is impeded. Now if the uterus has been removed or the oviduct interrupted, and the passage to the ovule has already been made impossible, the conjugal act nevertheless remains licit; likewise, during pregnancy, when passage into the uterus is impeded because it is closed.

956. Corollaries. - 1. From the principles stated, response can be made to the question: whether a wife can cooperate with sodomitical copula? This also is opposed to the natural end of copula and to conjugal fidelity, which requires that spouses not use the body except in a mode apt for generation; for neither has a right over the body of the other against nature. Now, one must answer as for artificial onanism: with such copula, as being intrinsically evil and vitiated from the beginning, it is never licit to cooperate positively or actively, nor even to cooperate merely passively; but the wife must try, by resisting positively as much as she can (for example by movement and with her hands), to impede the sodomitical intercourse of the man; and if unwillingly nevertheless she is compelled to yield to prevailing force, she must never consent to venereal delight perhaps arising from it. For if it is never licit for her to cooperate with artificial onanism, a fortiori this holds concerning the sodomitical mode, which is more perverse (cf. S. Pen., Apr. 3, 1916).

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

3. From onanism there differs altogether the practice of having copula only in the time of agenesis, during which time conception in no way or more rarely occurs; whence by this practice generation becomes little probable. For such a manner of acting is not of itself sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and besides they do nothing against the end of matrimony at the time when they come together (S. Pen., June 16, 1880), provided this is done from a right intention or a just motive and with the due circumstances observed. Nevertheless the bishops of Belgium deservedly warn: "that the time of agenesis should not, however, be proposed to spouses themselves as if by it generation would certainly be avoided."

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

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

Concerning these things it must be noted:

1° The computation is approximate, whence, in order certainly to avoid conception, 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 fecundation is uncertain; b) the experiments are not numerous enough for producing 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, later, or supplementary ovulation is always possible; whence also in fact fecundations have taken place at other times.

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

From these things it is clear how cautiously the confessor ought to 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.

Specifically:

a) The practice of exercising copula only in the time of agenesis, although of itself it is not illicit, nevertheless has an evil sound, and requires an honorable reason.

b) Therefore, that in a concrete case it be honorable, it is necessary that it be done from a good end; such an end is not to avoid all offspring, or to indulge pleasure, or to lead a luxurious or more comfortable worldly life; otherwise it will be a 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 there would be mortal sin.

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

e) But sometimes the confessor can cautiously suggest that practice: thus, if there is a sufficient reason for avoiding every conception and the penitent cannot preserve continence, the confessor could say that in this case it 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 doctrine sufficiently common among moralists.

4. Nor must onanism be confused with the interruption of copula. For this can be licit on account of a grave reason, for example to avoid scandal when a person unexpectedly comes upon them, on account of a spasm arising in the calves, or on account of a sickness that has arisen: then copula is interrupted, not now so that the seed may be poured forth outside, but for another end; whence the effusion of seed occurring apart from the intention is equated with involuntary pollution. If a grave reason is lacking, this, speaking per se, is not mortal, provided the spouses consent in this and there is no danger of sowing seed outside the vessel; for that penetration of the female vessel is then reputed after the manner of an impudent touch, which is permitted between spouses or at least is not mortal, excluding the danger of pollution.

We said:

a) if both consent, for if one withdraws without the consent of the other, he certainly sins gravely against the obligation of rendering the debt, as will be clearer from the following article;

b) speaking per se, for often it is mortal because frequently there is danger from such withdrawal of pouring forth the seed, unless the spouses have experienced the contrary, in which case, nevertheless, ordinarily they cannot be excused from venial sin;

c) if there is no danger of pollution; whence a husband sins gravely who, without a just cause, restrains the sowing of seed after the wife has experienced complete delight 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. Women who by an inefficacious means (a vain remedy, restraining distillation, rising to urinate) have wished to render copula sterile sin gravely in intention. Nor can they obey a husband commanding such things for this end unless they have first warned him of his error.

But if they voluntarily employ a means by which the seed received is expelled or killed, they are guilty of an external act gravely sinful; hence women regularly ought not to irrigate the vagina immediately, but only some hours (2 or 3) after copula.

1. Cf. on this matter our little work De Castitate et Luxuria, 4th ed., pp. 119-120, in the note.

Therefore under no pretext can it be done sooner, whether of cleanliness, or custom, or flow of blood with itching, or white flux, or vaginal inflammation, or health; for these causes, moreover, are not proportionate; indeed generally vaginal washing rather is harmful to health. Nevertheless washing immediately after copula would be licit if it were a means here and now necessary for averting infection or contagious disease, which indeed rarely happens.

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

957. Observation. - Besides the disorder against nature intrinsic to Onanism, several other evils have also been born from it as consequences, as Tanquerey notes (Suppl. ad tr. de Matr., n. 41-43):

"a) The spouses themselves often suffer many evils from it; for just as children are a common good and a common bond by which spouses are joined more firmly and more closely, so, on the contrary, those who lack offspring much more easily disagree and are separated from one another. Nor let it be said that for attaining this end one or another child suffices; for the more numerous the offspring, the firmer the union of spouses. Besides, not rarely are onanists punished by the premature death of one or another child whom they have begotten; hence often the parents of an only child are pressed by anxieties and fears, lest perhaps he be snatched from the living and the name of the family be blotted out. - Moreover marital copula, which, legitimately performed, is a remedy of concupiscence, does not calm but inflames it when it is performed onanistically; especially the woman is not completely delighted, nor does she rest except when the uterus is irrigated by virile seed tempering its ardor. - Hence also physicians cry out with one voice that onanists are liable to many diseases, which arise especially from excitation of the nerves; for the commotion which intercourse causes is not calmed except by the natural effusion and reception of virile sperm.

b) Offspring also not rarely suffer some detriment from the onanism of parents, which the Council of Poitiers (1868) describes thus: it happens very often that that child is brought up more indulgently, or, God commanding, briefly ends his life, or, having become worse with age, deprived of the sweet love and protection of brothers and sisters, loving himself, not obeying his parents, proud, ungrateful, without affection, afflicts his family with disgrace and grief.

c) Nor does onanism harm society less. For the chief strength and protection of society is placed in the number and manly education of citizens; but onanism, by impeding generation, diminishes the number of citizens, so that nations once flourishing gradually fail; it likewise stands in the way of the manly education of children: for where there is an only son, he is generally brought up more indulgently, is given over to pleasure rather than to duty, and often becomes altogether useless to the fatherland."

1. Cf. on this matter our little work De Castitate et Luxuria, 4th ed., pp. 119-120, in the note.

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

3. Or also the woman, from the defective application of various practices or from chemical means. Concerning this again Dr. Schockaert in the said article.

958. Warning for confessors. - Concerning Onanism the faithful are also to be questioned and warned in confession. On this matter see S. Pen., Mar. 10, 1886; and the instruction of the bishops of Belgium, 1909; and the Prov. Council of Mechlin, n. 84-86. Indeed, the Supreme Pontiff himself in the encyclical Casti Connubii does not hesitate to write: "Therefore priests who devote themselves to hearing confessions, and others who have the care of souls, by our supreme authority and care for the salvation of all souls, we admonish not to allow the faithful committed to them to err concerning this most grave law of God, and much more, that they keep themselves immune from false opinions of this kind, and not connive in them in any way. But if any confessor or pastor of souls, which God avert, should himself lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least should confirm them in them either by approving or by deceitful silence, let him know that he will render a severe account to God the supreme judge for the betrayal of his office, and let him think that the words of Christ are said to himself, Mt. XV, 14: They are blind, and leaders of the blind; and if the blind man gives leadership to the blind, both fall into the pit."

For it is a matter of a most grave evil, spread everywhere and very harmful to the common good, concerning which good faith now can scarcely exist; its practice among good and pious persons will easily be harmful to others by reason of scandal, and because of the silence of confessors it will be thought that it can be permitted or tolerated.

1. Of this instruction the little work of the author A. Knoch, L'Onanisme conjugal et le tribunal de la Penitence, can be had as in the manner of a commentary. Besides, these can usefully be consulted: Instructio pro confessariis de usu et abusu matrimonii, Eichstaett, Seminary, 1931; - Ami du Clerge, 1931; - Creusen, L'Onanisme conjugal, in N. R. Th., 1932.

These things considered, the confessor:

1° Unless by a positive judgment it appears that the penitent is immune from that vice, regularly should question unknown spouses at least by a general but clear question: whether all things in matrimony are rightly disposed, whether they do not impede the work of nature, whether nothing concerning this disturbs the conscience.

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

3° Only extraordinarily, in a rare case, if those inconveniences and the danger of scandal and of too great abuse are absent, he will be able to leave the penitent in good faith; and this good faith can more easily exist in the wife, when she is in grave sickness or leaves the whole matter to the husband.

4° But if, considering the mode in which the vice is committed, the spouse can legitimately begin copula well or admit it once begun, let him instruct that spouse concerning this faculty, so that henceforth formal sins may be avoided by that person.

5° He should also furnish 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 matrimony, and the grave obligation of abandoning it;

b) let him explain the harmful effects in offspring born, and in parents, who weaken the nervous system, or from instruments badly applied or from chemical washings;

c) if the penitent objects the difficulty of feeding and educating more numerous offspring, let him arouse confidence in the providence of God, and explain that more numerous families generally are happier than others, and that the energy of the members emerges with greater union and manly love;

d) if death from a new childbirth is feared, let him suggest that the danger is easily exaggerated by some physicians, that no one in this matter can foretell the event as certain, that nature, moreover, brings assistance to a pregnant woman, and that medical art has so progressed that the danger rather can be averted;

e) finally, in a discreet mode he can advise them to contain themselves or to come together more rarely, or sometimes cautiously suggest to them that there is a time less apt for fecundation, in the way explained above, n. 956, 3.

6° Finally, for a recidivist without any amendment, absolution regularly should be deferred, unless he brings extraordinary signs.