Article One. On the Liceity Itself.

65. Whether it is licit. The conjugal act in itself is licit and honorable: for it is a means ordained by God for propagating the human race; wherefore, if the right end is not excluded, it is not only licit, but, with the things to be supposed having been supposed, also meritorious. Moreover, in Sacred Scripture the conjugal act is directly commanded to the first parents in those words: increase and multiply;¹ but it cannot be said without blasphemy that God commands anything which is not licit and honorable. Finally Christ raised the matrimonial contract, by which spouses mutually confer on one another the right to conjugal acts, to the dignity of a sacrament; but only a contract by which those contracting obligate themselves to a licit and honorable thing could be raised to so great a dignity. Therefore St. Paul praises marriage and commands the conjugal act to spouses.²

¹ Gen. 1, 28; 1 Cor. 7, 3.

² Heb. 13, 4; 1 Cor. 7, 3.

66. The conjugal act is licit even in those circumstances in which generation of offspring cannot be obtained, provided it can be performed in a natural way. For by marriage legitimately contracted spouses have the right to the conjugal act as long as at least one of the essential ends of marriage can be obtained through that act; but since each is an essential end of marriage, both the generation of offspring and the quieting of concupiscence, although offspring cannot be generated, the conjugal act is not without its proper end, which is the quieting of concupiscence.

a. Old persons and sterile persons licitly have intercourse, even if generation of offspring from it is impossible, provided they are capable of natural intercourse, at least in an imperfect mode.

b. Intercourse is licit during pregnancy, even if at that time conception cannot occur, unless intercourse is prohibited on account of another cause.

c. A husband whose two testicles have been amputated on account of illness licitly has intercourse; likewise a wife whose ovaries have been extirpated or whose uterus even has been cut out.

Therefore through impotence supervening upon a valid marriage, spouses do not lose the right to the use of marriage: namely, removal of the testicles and excision of the ovaries or uterus are causes of impotence arising after marriage. There are authors who say that spouses in this case lose the right to the use of marriage and cannot licitly exercise anything except imperfect acts. Nevertheless they admonish that, since spouses upon whom impotence supervenes ordinarily use marriage in good faith, they are to be left in good faith.¹ But the opinion of those who say that intercourse in the case of supervening impotence is licit seems altogether probable. Generation indeed in this case is impossible, but after marriage has been entered it is not necessary that its primary end be able to be obtained, provided one of the essential ends is obtained. Moreover the right to intercourse acquired by a valid marriage is not taken away through that which happens accidentally; but it is accidental that a spouse, after entering a valid marriage, becomes impotent from illness or misfortune.

¹ Cf. Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis II, n. 426 ff.

67. How it must be completed. The conjugal act ought to be completed in such a way that the essential end of marriage, which is the generation of offspring, as regards the act itself, can be obtained in a natural way. It is not necessary that this end actually be obtained; but this is altogether required, that from the side of the act it can at least be obtained. For virile semen is not supplied by nature for any other end except that it serve for generating offspring by natural intercourse.

Therefore spouses sin gravely if they do anything by which generation is impeded, or if they come together in such a way that generation is either impossible or at least improbable: for they act against nature and the primary end of marriage.

a. If the man, after insemination has been completed, withdraws himself without awaiting the insemination of the woman, he does not sin, because nothing is done by which generation is impeded, since the insemination of the woman is not necessary; moreover a reason for acting in this way is easily present.

b. If the man withdraws himself before insemination, when the wife has already inseminated or is in proximate danger of inseminating, he does not sin, provided the danger of pouring forth semen is excluded and a reason for acting in this way is present: for since the insemination of the woman is not necessary for generation, nothing is done in this way by which generation is impeded.

c. If the wife restrains insemination when the man has already inseminated, the omission itself of insemination is not a sin, because it cannot impede generation. But the intention on account of which insemination is restrained can be gravely sinful, namely if it is done to impede generation.

a. Sometimes women, while they exercise the conjugal act, turn the mind to other things or procure sensible pain for themselves, lest they be aroused to insemination. If they do this to impede generation, they sin gravely from this depraved intention. But if they know that the insemination of the woman is not required for generation and therefore that conception cannot be impeded by this manner of acting, they certainly do not sin gravely; whether they sin lightly depends on the end on account of which they do these things.

b. Although the so-called insemination of the woman is not necessary for conception of offspring, nevertheless, according to the very probable hypothesis which physiologists now establish, the hope of future conception increases where the woman not only is herself aroused even to the effusion of humor, but moreover her insemination occurs at the same moment of time at which the man pours forth semen.¹

¹ Stohr-Kannamuller, Handbuch der Pastoralmedicin^4 (Freiburg: Herder, 1900), p. 467 f.

68. Conditions required for generation. For obtaining generation by natural intercourse, two things are required on the part of the act:

1. That the man penetrate the vessel of the woman with the genital member and pour forth semen there.

a. From recent physiology it is established that generation can occur, provided the virile semen is poured forth at the mouth of the womanly organ. Therefore, if the conjugal act cannot be had in another and more perfect mode, it is licit to exercise it in this way: for in order that the conjugal act can be exercised licitly in this case, nothing else is required except that the essential end of marriage, which is the generation of offspring, can be obtained, even if part of the semen is frustrated. But if the more perfect mode is possible, it is not licit to exercise the conjugal act in this imperfect mode, because this would be the same as morally impeding generation: for by this mode of coming together generation follows very rarely and only accidentally.

a. The conjugal act which is completed in such a way that the man only penetrates part of the vagina of the wife and there pours forth semen is not illicit of itself, unless it is done from the depraved intention of impeding generation, because in this way conception is indeed rendered more difficult, but not impossible nor improbable. But spouses are not bound to choose the more certain mode by which offspring may be conceived. Nevertheless, if without another cause they come together in this way only for rendering conception more difficult, they sin venially, because there is some disorder in rendering conception more difficult without cause.

b. Although spouses can omit the mode of coming together which leads to easier and more certain conception, provided the act remains truly apt for effecting conception, nevertheless it is not licit for them directly to posit a positive action by which conception is impeded, even only probably. Therefore it is illicit to introduce into the vagina of the woman not only means by which the semen is killed, but also means, a certain kind of fat or butter, by which the semen is not destroyed, yet conception is rendered less probable.

b. Spouses who on account of old age or another indisposition for the most part pour forth semen outside the vessel can licitly exercise the conjugal act, provided there is a probable hope of pouring forth semen within the vessel: for as long as a probable hope of generation is present, spouses have the right to intercourse; but if the semen in fact is poured forth, this occurs accidentally.¹

But if spouses, from supervening impotence, whether on the part of the man or on the part of the woman, cannot complete the conjugal act in such a way that the semen is at least in some measure received within the female vessel, intercourse is rendered illicit.

c. Spouses who exercise the conjugal act but both restrain insemination, i.e. break off intercourse before insemination, do not sin, the danger of pouring forth semen outside the vessel being excluded, if they do this by mutual consent and a sufficient cause is present for acting in this way, e.g. lest insemination harm health, or lest poor spouses be burdened by new offspring. The conjugal act in this case has the nature of an immodest touch, which in married persons, the danger of pollution being excluded, is not gravely illicit; and if it is done from a just cause, e.g. for quieting concupiscence, it is free from fault. But if one withdraws without the consent of the other, he sins gravely, because he injures the other's right in a grave matter; for the other has a right to completed intercourse. Nevertheless the hypothesis, namely that proximate danger of pollution is not induced by an act of this kind, will very rarely have place.

d. If the man withdraws himself and restrains insemination when the wife has already poured forth humor or is so aroused that she cannot impede the effusion, he does not commit mortal sin, and from a reasonable cause this manner of acting is excused: for since the insemination of the woman is not necessary for generation, its frustration is not grave.

The opinion of many authors, whom St. Alphonsus followed, l. 6, n. 91, 8, namely that by this action a grave sin is committed, rests on a false supposition, namely that the semen of the woman, necessary for generation, is frustrated. These authors indeed concede that that frustration is not so intrinsically evil that it cannot be excused for any reason; but they require a most grave cause, e.g. danger of death or scandal, in order that it be licit. But in truth Capellmann,² whom Berardi³ rightly follows, does not require so grave a cause; they think, for example, that the sense of great pain by which either party is affected suffices for the man to withdraw himself, whether because the wife has already poured forth humor or because he exposes himself to grave danger of pollution: for to permit the frustration of virile semen, and a fortiori of female humor, so grave a reason is not required.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 954.

² Medicina pastor.^9 (Aachen: Barth, 1893), p. 146.

³ Praxis confessar.^3, I, n. 993.

69. 2. That the woman retain the received semen.

a. The wife does not sin who immediately after intercourse rises, walks, works, or urinates: for since the vaginal walls immediately cohere with one another and close the vagina, so that the received semen ordinarily is not emitted, by that manner of acting nothing is done by which generation is impeded. Nevertheless, if this were done with the intention of expelling the semen and impeding generation, this depraved intention would be a mortal sin.

b. Every action by which a woman tries to expel the received semen for impeding generation, as to wash out the vagina with an irrigator, is a grave sin: for although the action which she uses may be insufficient for producing that effect, at least from the depraved intention she commits a grave sin. Neither the annoyances, however great, which perhaps women experience unless they cast out the semen by washing out the vagina, nor the miscarriages which they are accustomed to suffer, excuse this manner of acting: for if they do not wish to preserve the received semen, they ought to abstain from intercourse.

Vaginal washings rarely impede generation, even if they are done soon after intercourse; but there is absolutely no danger of losing the semen if they are done some hours after intercourse.

c. Just as a woman is bound to preserve the received semen, so also she is bound to avoid impeding its ascent into the uterus. Therefore it is in no way licit, by applying medicine before intercourse, to close the mouth of the uterus, by which the ascent of the semen is impeded and the fecundation of the ovule is rendered impossible: for every action which tends to this, that generation be impeded, is illicit.

Nevertheless, it is licit for a woman who was compelled by force or deceit to have intercourse to expel the received semen immediately after intercourse, before conception has occurred, by washing or another means: for the semen then has itself in the manner of an unjust aggressor, whom it is licit to repel.¹

d. If intercourse is completed in the natural and fitting mode, but the woman cannot retain the received semen on account of indisposition of the organs, intercourse is licit, because the ejection of the semen occurs accidentally.

¹ Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 849; Genicot, Theol. mor. I, n. 378.

70. On things licit in the conjugal act. In the use of marriage, acts of imperfect lust, whether mutual or solitary, which are either necessary or useful for completing the conjugal act, are licit for spouses: for to him to whom the end is permitted, the means are also permitted; and to him to whom the consummated act is permitted, acts which by nature itself are destined as a disposition and preparation for it are also permitted.

a. Hence when the intention of completing intercourse is present, sights, touches, etc., which excite toward intercourse, whether they are performed before intercourse or in intercourse itself, are licit for spouses. But spouses ought to take care that pollution not follow by lingering too long in acts of this kind; nevertheless, if it should sometimes follow beyond intention, it would be free from fault.

b. If intercourse on the part of the man has already been consummated and he withdraws before the woman has completed the act, she herself can complete the act by touches or in another way and procure full pleasure for herself.

a. For although this completion by the woman is not necessary for generation according to recent physiologists, nevertheless it cannot be denied that the insemination of the woman contributes something to the conception and formation of the fetus; and this natural destination of female insemination suffices for it to be licit for the woman to complete the act. Moreover, no reason appears why the woman cannot from her own part complete an act which she began by her own right and licitly. Finally, since from the institution of marriage she has a right to taking full pleasure from intercourse, she can procure it for herself from intercourse licit in every respect. Therefore for a wife who cannot inseminate either during or after intercourse, it is licit even immediately before intercourse to obtain for herself complete delectation, pollution or insemination, since delectation belongs to the complete conjugal act.

b. Capellmann judges that this completion is licit for the woman even when the conjugal act is not completed because of the fault of the man, who withdraws before insemination,¹ and Berardi agrees with him, because an act legitimately begun can be brought through to the due end.² But one must plainly agree with Lehmkuhl, who, n. 858, pronounces this illicit: for since insemination on the part of the man has not occurred, insemination on the part of the woman has the nature of mere pollution, since it can contribute in no way either to completing the conjugal act or to assisting conception.

c. But it is not licit for the man by touches to excite himself to insemination if the woman, after her insemination has been completed, withdraws without awaiting the insemination of the man: for this emission of semen would not be the completion of the act of generation, but voluntary pollution and frustration of semen.

¹ Cf. Capellmann, Medicina pastor.^9, p. 143 f.

² Cf. Praxis confess.^3, I, n. 993.