§ 3. On Time.

It is asked whether the conjugal act is licit first in sacred times, then in certain other times in which the conjugal act brings greater or lesser harm either to one spouse or to the conceived offspring. These times are: the time of menstruation, pregnancy, purification, lactation, and infirmity. Concerning these universally it must be said: if there underlies danger of grave harm in health or life, the conjugal act is gravely illicit; if the danger of harm is light, it is prohibited under light sin; but a just cause, especially if the harm which is feared is light, renders the use of marriage licit. But the cause is judged to be just if the inconvenience which arises from abstinence outweighs, or at least equals, the harm which is feared from use. Therefore if only light harm is feared, but abstinence would be long-lasting, intercourse must be said to be licit, both because to abstain for a long time is very burdensome for spouses, and because long-lasting abstinence brings danger of incontinence.

81. 1. In sacred time, i.e. on feast days, during Advent, Lent, and Holy Communion, the conjugal act is licit, because it is prohibited by no law. And although it is counseled that spouses abstain from asking the debt on days which are especially dedicated to doing penance, and especially on days of Holy Communion,¹ nevertheless if on the preceding night they have had intercourse honorably, they are not kept from Holy Communion. But if in completing the act they have sinned venially, reverence toward the most holy sacrament requires that on that day they abstain from Holy Communion, unless there is a particular reason for communicating on that very day.

a. There does not exist, nor has there ever existed, an ecclesiastical law which prohibited the use of marriage on sacred days; but the words of the holy Fathers and the ecclesiastical canons which seem to prohibit it must be understood not of a law obligating in conscience, but of counsel.²

b. The opinion of St. Alphonsus is stricter, n. 922, affirming that one commits venial sin who after intercourse had from pleasure approaches Holy Communion. For spouses who are moved to perform intercourse by no other cause than pleasure do not sin even venially, and therefore can approach Holy Communion without sin, n. 78. But Laymann wisely teaches that the wife must be admonished not to show herself difficult in rendering the debt, especially if she is accustomed to communicate frequently, e.g. on all feast days. Hence she can indeed ask her husband to be willing to abstain from the conjugal act on days of Holy Communion; but if the husband bears this with difficulty, she herself is obliged to render the debt.³

¹ Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 5.

² Ballerini-Palmieri VI, n. 366.

³ Cf. Laymann, Theologia moralis, l. 5, c. 6, n. 16.

82. 2. During the time of menstrual flow. One must distinguish between the menstrual flow or ordinary flow of blood, concerning which above, n. 41, and the extraordinary flow, which comes from illness and sometimes continues for a longer time, up to fifteen days.

a. Intercourse which is had during the time of extraordinary flow never fails to bring harm to the health of the woman; wherefore abstinence from the use of marriage through that time is advised. But intercourse cannot be called altogether illicit unless, according to the judgment of a physician, grave harm threatens the wife, because it is burdensome for the man to abstain from intercourse so long.

b. During the time of ordinary flow, intercourse indeed is not illicit; nevertheless, for a twofold reason abstinence from the use of marriage is to be advised, especially since it is only of a few days. First, on account of a peculiar indecency, not moral but physical; wherefore the man, even with natural and innate nausea, turns himself away from a woman who suffers menstrual flow, and in like manner the woman at that time experiences an innate aversion from every marital intercourse. Then, on account of the danger to health which threatens the wife, whose genital organs at that time are already irritated of themselves.¹ Nevertheless, since each of these reasons is not grave, intercourse during the time of menstrual flow must be called licit, provided there is a reasonable cause of coming together. What the older authors feared, namely that offspring conceived at this time would be born infirm or leprous, is empty.²

In the old law the use of marriage during the time of menstrual flow was prohibited by a particular precept;³ the older theologians also in the new law held the use of marriage at this time to be gravely illicit, especially on account of harm to future offspring: for they thought that offspring, if conceived at this time, would be infirm or monstrous. Others said that intercourse through that time was at least lightly illicit, because the woman is then unfit for generation. Since today it is established that these reasons do not stand, the opinion of the older authors in this matter must be omitted: for offspring can be conceived more easily at this time than at another, and of itself it is healthy and firm.

¹ Capellmann, Medicina past.^9, p. 152.

² Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^2, p. 64.

³ Lev. 15, 19-20; 18, 19.

83. 3. During the time of pregnancy, intercourse can be illicit because it induces danger of miscarriage, especially if it is completed often and impetuously. But since danger of miscarriage properly exists only in the first months of pregnancy, and gradually vanishes as the fetus matures, but the state of beginning pregnancy can scarcely be known, intercourse at this time will have to be called simply licit; nevertheless moderation in both the number and the manner of intercourse is to be commended to spouses who suspect pregnancy.

What some authors teach is difficult, namely that intercourse with a pregnant woman is not free from fault because the semen is frustrated: for marriage is ordered not only to generation, but also to other ends, and especially as a remedy for concupiscence.

84. 4. During the time of purification after childbirth, conception indeed does not occur, and therefore from this side harm does not threaten the woman; but from intercourse itself danger of illness threatens the woman, both because of the great weakness contracted from the pains of childbirth and because of the genital organs wholly altered after childbirth. The danger, which in the first days after childbirth is greater, gradually diminishes and lasts as long as the genital organs have not yet been restored to their prior state. After about two months have elapsed, returning menstruation indicates that the organs have been restored to their places and that a new conception can occur. Wherefore in the first days after childbirth intercourse is gravely illicit on account of the danger of harm, afterward lightly illicit.

Capellmann judges that the danger of grave harm after childbirth continues for two weeks, and of light harm for the following four weeks.¹ Men must be told that they should either restrain concupiscence arising at this time or take care to quiet it by other licit modes. Nevertheless, if a grave cause, especially danger of incontinence, makes intercourse honorable, it is excused from sin even at this time.

¹ Capellmann, l. c., p. 153.

85. 5. During the time of lactation, a new conception ordinarily is not to be feared; nevertheless, if it occurs, soon the milk is also diluted and diminished, and in a short time ceases altogether. Since intercourse had at this time does not bring another harm, it will have to be called licit: for the offspring can be nourished in another way, namely by artificial lactation; moreover spouses would have to abstain too long from the use of marriage, since lactation continues beyond a year, if intercourse were not conceded during this whole time.

86. 6. During the time of illness, the conjugal act of itself is illicit if it brings danger to life or health; but from a grave cause it is licit, namely if otherwise spouses would have to abstain for a long time with danger of incontinence, provided proximate danger of death is not induced. In particular, one must distinguish between contagious diseases, syphilis, phthisis, and non-contagious diseases. A physician must be consulted concerning the quality of the disease. Therefore:

a. If one party labors under syphilitic disease, the French disease of theologians, the use of marriage seems illicit on account of the horrible consequences which it brings both to the other party and to offspring. Moreover the danger of infection is certain; but if the disease is light, it can be removed within a short time.

In this assertion the more recent authors, Lehmkuhl, Ballerini-Palmieri, Marc, etc., agree, led by the reasons which are brought forward by physicians. These are unanimous in describing the most grave evils which arise from this disease for spouses and offspring and gradually affect innumerable families, indeed an entire nation.¹ St. Alphonsus, who does not absolutely forbid the use of marriage in this case, n. 909, perhaps can be reconciled with recent theologians. For diverse degrees of the French disease are distinguished; therefore it can happen that the more recent authors deny concerning the highest degree what St. Alphonsus concedes concerning the milder degree. Let others judge whether, speaking absolutely, the use of marriage can be conceded even in the highest degree of the French disease, because it does not induce proximate danger of death to be undergone within a short time.

b. For those laboring under phthisis, the use of marriage is not illicit, both because phthisical persons ordinarily experience vehement concupiscence, and because grave harm does not come from a moderate use of marriage.

a. Although phthisis of itself is a contagious disease, nevertheless from the use of marriage it must rather be called hereditary, because danger of infection through intercourse is scarcely ever induced. Offspring generated from phthisical parents is not born affected by phthisis, but afterward very easily contracts it on account of the very great disposition to this disease received by heredity from the parents.

b. Because more frequent intercourse can harm those laboring under this disease greatly, great moderation in this matter is to be commended to them.

c. The fact that phthisical offspring, or rather offspring disposed to phthisis, is born does not impede the use of marriage, both because it is not certain that offspring will be generated from this particular intercourse, and if it is generated, it is not certain that it will be generated infected, since hereditary disposition often proceeds by a leap; and finally because for offspring which is generated infirm, "it is better thus to exist than not to exist at all."²

c. If diseases are not contagious, intercourse is licit where the diseases are lighter and not greatly weakening, because they are not made worse by intercourse; but it is illicit where the diseases are greatly weakening and joined with fever or great pain: for these ordinarily become much worse through intercourse. To this genus of diseases must be numbered illnesses of the genitals in the woman, which are accustomed to be so increased through the use of marriage that afterward they are healed with difficulty.³

Women for whom, according to the judgment of a physician, the next childbirth will bring death, ordinarily are not to be obliged to abstain from the use of marriage, both because conception is uncertain, and because judgments of this kind by physicians, as experience testifies, are often false.

¹ Cf. Capellmann, l. c., p. 158; Olfers, l. c., p. 67; Antonelli I, c. II, n. 393 ff.

² Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis II, n. 418.

³ Cf. Capellmann, l. c., p. 161.