Article Two. On Sodomy and Onanism.

Against the primary and essential end of marriage spouses can sin in two ways: a. by imperfect sodomy; b. by onanism.

71. On sodomy. Imperfect sodomy is committed when the man penetrates the preposterous vessel of the woman, whether he inseminates in it or outside it.

1. Sodomy committed between spouses is a grave sin, both because it is opposed to the natural end of the conjugal act and of virile semen, and because it is opposed to conjugal fidelity, which requires that spouses not use the body otherwise than in a mode apt for generation; nor can spouses remit this fidelity to one another.

Therefore if sodomitical intercourse occurs by mutual consent, it is a most grave sin on each side; if it occurs with the wife dissenting, certainly the man sins most gravely by a sin against nature; but it is asked whether the wife can ever permit this and cooperate with the sin of the man.

2. Positive cooperation with sodomy is never licit. Nevertheless, from a most grave cause a wife can licitly suffer the sodomitical intercourse of the man under this twofold condition: a. that she tries to impede this intercourse and permits it only then when she cannot impede it without danger of a most grave evil; b. that she does not consent to the venereal delectation then arising.

Note. In this matter one must altogether insist on the principle: apart from those things which are against the end of nature, there do not occur actions between spouses, however disordered and filthy they may be, which can certainly be accused of grave sin. Wherefore, sodomitical affection being excluded, this twofold action is not to be called gravely culpable: a. to begin intercourse in the preposterous vessel with the intention of consummating it in the natural vessel; b. to touch the preposterous vessel of the wife with the genitals, provided effusion of semen is guarded against.

72. On onanism. Onanism is called intercourse completed in such a way that generation cannot follow from the semen poured forth.

This can occur in two ways: a. if the man, after intercourse has been begun in the natural vessel, withdraws himself before insemination and pours forth semen outside the vessel; b. if by the help of an instrument he impedes the semen from reaching the vessel of the woman and scatters it.

a. Medical doctors by the name of onanism also designate the sin of softness or solitary pollution; but theologians distinguish the sin of pollution from the sin of onanism, and by the name of onanism signify only the effusion of semen outside the female vessel which is joined with intercourse. Sometimes onanism is also called Malthusianism from the Englishman Malthus, who sought means of impeding the excessive multiplication of human beings.

b. The sin of onanism received its name from Onan, who, as Sacred Scripture testifies, "entering to the wife of his brother, poured forth semen on the earth, lest children be born in the name of his brother."¹ The same sin had already been perpetrated before Onan by his brother Her.

c. The former mode of committing onanism was once the only one, wherefore by older authors onanism is customarily defined as: the breaking off of intercourse already begun, so that semen is poured forth outside the vessel and thus generation is impeded. But in recent times certain preservative or preventive means have been invented, by which it is brought about that semen does not reach the vessel of the woman, or, if it has reached it, that it is killed there.²

d. The reasons on account of which today spouses frequently come together in an onanistic manner are chiefly these: a. lest they generate children whom they either cannot or do not wish to nourish; b. lest, with the patrimony divided among many, the nobility of the family suffer detriment; c. for satisfying libido and at the same time for escaping the inconveniences of pregnancy, childbirth, and education.

¹ Gen. 38, 9.

² Cf. Seved Ribbing, Die sexuelle Hygiene (Leipzig: Hobbing, 1898), p. 102 f.; G. Adolf, Die Gefahren der kunstlichen Sterilitat (Leipzig: Kruger, 1899); Antonelli I, n. 458 ff.; Nardi, De Sanctitate matrimonii vindicata contra onanismum^3 (Rome: Desclee, 1907).

73. Its malice. 1. Onanism committed by mutual consent of spouses is a grave sin on each side, both because it is opposed to the primary end of marriage, and because it is opposed to conjugal fidelity, and finally because it is opposed not only to the health of the spouses but especially to the good of human society. Therefore in Sacred Scripture it is called a detestable thing,¹ and the Holy See declares it prohibited by natural law² and intrinsically evil.³ Where it is committed by the man alone without the consent of the wife, he certainly sins gravely, nor is the wife bound to render the debt to a man who completes intercourse onanistically: for she obligated herself only to the use of marriage which of itself is apt for generation. But it is asked whether the wife can permit this mode of coming together and cooperate with the sin of the man.

From onanism must be distinguished the interruption of intercourse which occurs from fortuitous necessity, e.g. to avoid scandal which a person unexpectedly arriving would suffer. But if, after intercourse has been interrupted, semen were poured forth, the effusion would be free from fault: for since intercourse is interrupted from another end, the effusion occurs beyond intention, and therefore must be equated with involuntary pollution.

2. To break off intercourse already begun before semen is poured forth, without proximate danger of pouring it forth outside the wife's vagina, a. is a grave sin if either party is unwilling, because it is against the right which the other party has to completed intercourse; b. is not a sin if both consent, provided there is a reasonable cause for acting in this way and danger of pouring forth semen is excluded, because intercourse of this kind is like an immodest touch, which is licit between spouses.

Today it not rarely occurs that men, from true or vain fear lest the wife will die if she conceives again, break off intercourse already begun before the effusion of semen. Although they must be exhorted to abstain from this kind of thing because of the danger of pollution, nevertheless, if they assert that pollution follows only rarely, this cannot be prohibited to them.

Note. a. The more this lamentable and detestable practice, such as the prohibition of offspring, gains strength even in Germany, not only in families of the rich but also in families of laborers and the poor, the more the necessity appears, both in the examination of betrothed persons and in the confessional, of openly declaring that the prohibition of offspring never in any case becomes licit, and that abstinence is the only licit means of preventing offspring. Nor should it be said that continence, especially for younger spouses, is morally impossible on account of proximate danger of sinning. For Christian spouses who must abstain from the use of marriage, not from egoistic motives but only from truly just causes, either for a time or perpetually, have in prayer and other exercises of piety the means of obtaining from God the gift of continence, who will not suffer anyone to be tempted beyond what he is able.⁴

b. In most cases the fault of frustrated generation is in the man, more rarely in the woman, except that women are more indulgent toward men abusing marriage and by their complaints about fear of illness and of death itself, about the inconveniences of pregnancy and education, and by their moroseness in rendering the debt, give the man an occasion of abusing marriage. Wherefore women must be treated in different ways according to the diversity of circumstances. Some must be taught concerning the obligation of obeying; innocent women must be consoled and taught how they ought to conduct themselves toward onanist husbands, lest they themselves also commit sin; the fainthearted must be lifted up and admonished to trust in God and not too readily to believe physicians exaggerating the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, and that they themselves can impede many sins of the husband and in this way contribute to his eternal salvation. But women who complain concerning the inconveniences and difficulties of pregnancy, childbirth, nourishment, and education should remember that these are consequences of original sin: I will multiply your toils and your conceptions; in pain you shall bring forth children,⁵ and therefore are to be borne in a spirit of humility and penance.

¹ Gen. 38, 9-10.

² Holy Office, 21 May 1851.

³ Holy Office, 19 Apr. 1853.

⁴ 1 Cor. 10, 13.

⁵ Gen. 3, 16.

74. On the cooperation of the wife with onanistic intercourse. 1. It is clear that formal cooperation, by which namely the wife consents to onanism, is gravely illicit. And indeed the wife sins gravely even then when, by her complaints concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning numerous offspring, etc., with foresight of the sin to be committed, she gives the husband an occasion for onanistic intercourse.

2. Material cooperation with the first mode of onanism is licit from a moderately grave cause.¹ It is not necessary that this cause be plainly grave, because the wife does not cooperate with a thing already evil from the beginning; nevertheless this is required, that she prudently admonish the husband to complete the act rightly: for from charity she is bound to impede the sin of the man. But she ought to admonish the husband cautiously and prudently, lest, if perhaps he were in good faith, afterward he sin formally. Nevertheless, she is not bound to admonish on each occasion if no fruit is hoped for; and if she cannot admonish without grave inconvenience, e.g. without fear of indignation, discord, adultery, etc., she can omit the admonition.

a. That the positive, material cooperation of the wife with the onanistic intercourse of the husband is not intrinsically evil and therefore is not illicit in itself is admitted by all today: for immediately she cooperates with licit intercourse and only mediately with the illicit effusion of semen. Nor is this cooperation argued to be illicit from the fact that cooperation with sodomitical intercourse is illicit. Certainly onanistic intercourse cannot be compared with sodomitical intercourse: for onanistic intercourse, licit at the beginning on each side, begins to become evil on the part of the man when the man withdraws himself, while the woman has herself merely passively. On the contrary, sodomitical intercourse at any instant is intrinsically evil on each side, and therefore is never licit on either side.

b. If women accuse themselves because they rejoiced about the onanistic practice of the husband, they must not immediately be accused of mortal sin: for often they rejoice not about sin but about an altogether licit thing, namely either about the pleasure of intercourse or about the effects of the sin, as about preservation from the troubles of pregnancy and childbirth.

c. But the wife can give consent to the pleasure arising from intercourse, because she herself, in rendering the debt to an onanist husband, does a licit thing. Sometimes, as experience testifies, offspring is conceived even from onanistic intercourse of the first mode. Now if it were probable that conception could follow even from onanistic intercourse, or at least if the wife judged it probable that she had received the semen, she would have the right of exciting herself to complete pleasure.

d. A sufficient cause which renders cooperation with the onanism of the man licit for the wife would be this: a. fear of inconvenience, as of quarrels, disputes, etc.; b. fear lest the husband commit adulteries; c. if otherwise she would have to abstain from the use of marriage for a long time with her own inconvenience; d. if she would be impeded from exercises of piety and from the use of the sacraments; e. if, with domestic peace disturbed, cohabitation would be rendered troublesome.

3. Material cooperation with the second mode of onanism can be permitted only from fear of a most grave evil, and consent to delectation must be excluded; for in this case the wife cooperates proximately with a thing wholly illicit, but in the former case she cooperates with an act which is licit apart from the pouring forth of semen. Therefore in the former case, in which intercourse is rightly begun, the wife can render the debt and have herself simply passively toward the breaking off of intercourse; but in the latter case it is not licit for her to have herself passively, but she is bound, by resisting positively according to her strength, to impede the act sinful in itself; and only from a most grave cause can she permit what she cannot impede.

a. The wife not only can, but also is bound to render intercourse to an onanist husband in the former case: for since the husband seeks a thing to which he has a right, the wife cannot deny it, although she knows that he will abuse it. Nevertheless, because the one rendering cooperates with the sin of the husband, she cannot render it without a just cause.²

b. From a moderately grave cause, the wife in the former case licitly seeks the debt from an onanist husband. For since the act which she seeks is not evil in itself and the husband, if he wishes, can furnish it without sin, nothing stands in the way of the petition except the precept by which from charity she is bound to impede the sin of the husband. But since charity does not obligate with grave inconvenience, she licitly seeks it whenever it is grave for her to lack the conjugal act.

¹ This is confirmed by several responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, the last of which is from 8 June 1842.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 947.

75. Means of avoiding onanism. a. The crime of onanism today spreads widely and is propagated more widely day by day especially for this reason, that spouses wish to enjoy the pleasure of marriage without undergoing the burden of nourishing numerous offspring. For avoiding onanism, wives especially must be admonished to induce husbands by blandishments, prayers, and exhortations either to complete the act rightly or to abstinence.

Motives by which spouses can be deterred from the crime of onanism: a. onanism is a cause of adulteries: for since spouses, especially women, are not satiated by imperfect acts of this kind, they seek illicit pleasures; b. it destroys conjugal peace and concord; c. it causes the joys of father and mother to withdraw from families, into whose place succeed remorse of conscience and fears lest God punish so horrible a crime and snatch away from the living the only offspring; d. onanism is the cause on account of which a family in which only one or another offspring is procreated soon perishes; e. finally, it brings pains of body and manifold detriment of health, especially in women.¹

b. Since no licit means of impeding generation exists, the confessor can advise spouses who wish to prevent further generation of offspring, cautiously and prudently however, that at the time at which conception more easily occurs, namely three or four days before and fifteen days after menstruation has begun, they should contain themselves, but at another time, at which conception rarely occurs, they may use marriage.

c. That this mode of acting is licit is clear not only from the nature of the matter, since nothing is done which is against the end of marriage, but is also established from the declaration of the Holy See.² But the reason on account of which this practice should be suggested only cautiously and prudently is twofold: both because it can give spouses an occasion at any time either of denying the debt or of committing onanism, and because this means is not certain: for experience establishes that conception sometimes has place even at this time.³

¹ Eschbach, p. 569 ff.; Stohr, Handbuch der Pastoralmedizin (Freiburg: Herder, 1900), p. 497 ff.

² The Sacred Penitentiary, 16 June 1880, responded: spouses using marriage in the aforesaid way are not to be disturbed, and the confessor can suggest, cautiously however, the opinion in question to those spouses whom he has tried in vain to lead away from the detestable crime of onanism by another reason.

³ Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^2, p. 70 f.; Capellmann, Die fakultative Sterilitat (Aachen: Barth, 1889).

76. As regards the manner of treating penitents given to onanism, from several responses of the Holy See¹ these things must be noted:

a. The confessor is bound prudently and discreetly to question penitents when a founded suspicion is present that they are altogether silent concerning onanism to which they are addicted. But he can question by inquiring whether there is something which troubles the conscience concerning the sanctity of marriage, the generation of offspring. But if the penitent denies it, for the most part he can abstain from further questioning.

In those regions in which the vice of onanism spreads widely, the confessor can almost always reasonably suppose that the penitent deliberately conceals that sin. Nevertheless, let him abstain from special questions: whether they have poured forth semen outside the vessel; whether they have impeded generation by withdrawing themselves, etc.

b. When the confessor, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, has known that the penitent is an onanist, of himself he is bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin, to reprove him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he sorrows concerning the past and has the resolution of no longer acting onanistically.

c. Nevertheless, if he discovers that the onanist penitent is in good faith, but that admonition will have no fruit, according to the general rule concerning admonishing those who sin in good faith, he can omit the admonition or speak in such a way that he does not disturb the good faith of the penitent.²

Although invincible ignorance enduring for a long time cannot be admitted as regards secondary precepts of the natural law, nevertheless if those precepts are joined with circumstances apparently excusing, especially in those who are untrained in moral matters, ignorance will have to be admitted, as if the husband knows that the wife cannot bear children without danger of life, or that he cannot nourish children.

¹ Holy Office, 21 May 1851; Penitentiary, 14 Dec. 1876; 10 Mar. 1886.

² Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri VI, n. 247; Genicot II, n. 551.

77. Artificial fecundation is called that by which virile semen is injected into the uterus of the woman apart from perfect intercourse. Now artificial fecundation must be said to be illicit.¹

a. Spallanzani, a priest of Modena and professor of physiology in the University of Pavia, was the first to teach that fecundation can be done in an artificial mode; he had introduced male semen into the female organs in animals with successful outcome. Physicians have tried the same thing and with the same outcome in human beings, and day by day they perfect it when spouses desire offspring, the wife indeed being capable of conception, but the husband incapable of rightly performing intercourse.

b. Since it is not licit for a woman to receive semen except that of her own husband, in the fecundation concerning whose liceity the question is asked, it is supposed that the semen of the proper husband is introduced into the uterus of the wife; this is customarily done in two ways.

a. The first mode consists in this, that the man has intercourse with his spouse, but when insemination is imminent withdraws himself and pours forth semen in some vessel, which afterward the physician gathers by the help of an instrument and injects into the uterus. This mode is illicit, because onanism or effusion of semen outside the female vessel has place.

b. The second mode consists in this, that the man, apart from intercourse, pours forth semen in some vessel, which afterward the physician gathers by the help of an instrument and introduces into the uterus of the wife. This mode is illicit, because fecundation is obtained only through an illicit means, namely through voluntary pollution.

c. Nevertheless the wife, for avoiding truly grave inconveniences, could admit artificial fecundation, because she herself does not cooperate actively in the evil action, but has herself merely passively and permissively in receiving the semen of her husband.

d. There is a twofold mode of fecundation which can be called artificial, but is licit. The first consists in this, that the man places an instrument in the female vessel, either so that the vagina may be dilated, or so that the uterus may be placed in its natural position; this being done, they have intercourse in the accustomed manner. This mode is licit, since nature is only assisted in performing intercourse. The other consists in this, that the man has intercourse in the usual manner and pours forth semen within the vagina, which afterward the physician draws by the help of an instrument and injects into the fundus of the uterus. This mode also is licit, because natural intercourse is had; this being posited, by the help of an instrument the defect of nature is supplied.

Whether by illicit artificial fecundation marriage is consummated if offspring follows from it, Sanchez affirms,² who judges that marriage is consummated whenever semen is received within the natural vessel of the woman, by whatever art this occurs. Gasparri denies it,³ and rightly indeed: for marriage is not consummated except by intercourse, to which marriage is ordered by nature; but this is intercourse which occurs with penetration of the female vessel and effusion of semen in the same. Wherefore marriage is not judged to be consummated even when the husband applies semen to the mouth of the vagina, although offspring is born from it.

¹ The Holy Office, to the question "Whether artificial fecundation of a woman can be employed," responded on 25 Mar. 1897: It is not licit. Cf. Eschbach, Disputationes physiol. theolog.^2, p. 70 ff.; Berardi, Praxis confessariorum^3, I, n. 1009 ff.; Antonelli I, n. 115 ff.

² L. 7, disp. 99, n. 37.

³ II, n. 1302.