Article I. On The Liceity Of The Conjugal Act

690. Principle. The conjugal act is licit, and indeed meritorious, whenever it accords with the good of offspring and the good of fidelity.

The individual parts of this very fruitful principle are to be explained and demonstrated. Certain ancient heretics denied the liceity of the conjugal act (for example, Saturninus, Marcion, the Manichaeans, and the Encratites), but several texts of Sacred Scripture manifestly prove not only its liceity, but also its obligation. Thus St. Paul writes: "Let the husband render the debt to his wife; and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife."³⁸⁰ - In the Old Testament, after their creation, God commanded the first parents: "Increase and multiply."³⁸¹ But according to the present order of things, the conjugal act is the sole means of propagating the human race. Therefore, if God wills the propagation of the human race, He also wills the conjugal act, which consequently is licit in itself. Nor is it required that each and every conjugal act serve directly and immediately for the propagation of the human race; for the whole economy of human propagation greatly excels the propagation of brute animals. Indeed, animals of the female sex are not accustomed to have the instinct, or even the power, of generating except during a brief and determinate time of each year; among them conception is very often completed by a single intercourse; and after that intercourse has been effected, the animals abhor another carnal union. It is altogether otherwise in the human race. Human physiology demonstrates that human conception can occur at any time of the year and commonly is not completed except by repeated conjugal acts. These things clearly demonstrate that the Creator permits spouses carnal intercourse even if human conception cannot follow here and now, for example, during pregnancy. Moreover, the unions of animals are transient, mutable, promiscuous, and produce no spiritual good; on the contrary, the marital union of human beings is stable; there is no promiscuity; spouses are not separated except by death.

But the principal end both of the whole conjugal life in general and of the conjugal act in particular is the spiritual good of the spouses.

Since these things are so, a general rule can be established: The conjugal act is licit when it serves the spiritual good of the spouses, even though conception or generation is neither directly and immediately had nor even intended. Not only supernatural virtues, but also marital love and affection conduce to the spiritual good of the spouses. For if spouses are united by true and constant love, their whole life also becomes happy; each willingly bears the burdens of the other, and almost all the praises which St. Paul attributes to charity can be proclaimed of such marital love, when he says: "Charity is patient, is kind; charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely, is not puffed up, is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil ... beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."³⁸²

³⁸⁰ 1 Cor. 7:3 f.

³⁸¹ Gen. 1:28.

³⁸² 1 Cor. 13:4 ff.

691. Practical conclusions immediately follow from the rule established above:

1. The conjugal act is licit during the time of nursing, both because the danger of infecting the milk and thus harming the child already born is not present (according to the common opinion of modern physicians), and because no law prohibits it. During the time of nursing a new conception is rather rare; but if it nevertheless occurs, then the mother's milk is customarily much diminished, so that the child already born must be nourished in an artificial manner; this is indeed some inconvenience, since such artificial nourishment is not as good as mother's milk. Nevertheless, this inconvenience is not so great that spouses are bound to observe complete continence throughout the whole time of nursing.³⁸³

2. The conjugal act is licit during pregnancy, provided that no grave danger is thereby brought upon the conceived fetus or the mother. For although a new conception is then impossible, nevertheless intercourse can serve to foster honorable marital love and to allay the impulses of the flesh. For it would be a most grave burden if spouses were bound to observe continence throughout the whole time of pregnancy. Per accidens, intercourse had at this time can be illicit, namely, if grave danger of abortion or illness arises from it.³⁸⁴

3. The conjugal act is licit between sterile spouses; with a wife whose ovaries have been excised, or even whose uterus has been removed;³⁸⁵ with a husband who was castrated after matrimony.³⁸⁶ The reason is the same. Certainly, the proximate end of intercourse in all these cases not only is not attained, but is even impossible; nevertheless, because the carnal act is completed in the ordinary manner and is frustrated of its proximate end only because of a physical impediment which does not depend upon the will of the spouses, it is licit.

4. The conjugal act is licit on Sundays and feast days or on the day of Communion, if it is performed for a reasonable cause. Certainly, it is most fitting that spouses not come together on days of Communion and during the short interval between confession and Communion, especially if they do not approach the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist so often. For such abstinence, being so rare and of such brief duration, cannot be hard; and therefore let the wife ask the husband to be willing then to abstain from the conjugal act. Nevertheless, if the husband bears this with difficulty, let the woman acquiesce in the desire of the husband. Especially let pious women who are accustomed to approach the sacred Synaxis several times each week show themselves ready to please the husband, lest he become indignant at such frequent reception of the sacraments.

³⁸³ Cf. Scavini, Theol. mor. univ., IV, n. 573.

³⁸⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 924), who favors the opinion that intercourse with a pregnant woman cannot be excused from venial fault unless there is danger of incontinence or another honorable cause. This honorable cause, however, is easily present. Certain Holy Fathers spoke more severely about intercourse during pregnancy, for example, St. Augustine and St. Jerome. Cf. Eschbach, Disp. physiol.-theol., 2nd ed., 110.

³⁸⁵ Holy Office, February 3, 1887, and July 30, 1890. Cf. also Noldin, De sexto praec., n. 61.

³⁸⁶ Cf. Sanchez, De matrim. sacr., l. 7, disp. 102, n. 7.

692. 5. The conjugal act is illicit because of pleasure alone, such that pleasure is its sole and ultimate end. Hence Innocent XI condemned proposition 9: "The act of matrimony exercised because of pleasure alone is entirely free from every fault and venial defect."³⁸⁷ Ballerini,³⁸⁸ however, deservedly notes that the words "because of pleasure alone" are to be understood with the exclusion of another honorable end; for it is certainly lawful to seek ordered pleasure, since God Himself joined pleasure to the conjugal act so that this act, so necessary for the conservation of the human race, might be made more desirable; but it is not lawful to seek pleasure as one's proper end. The older authors disputed at length concerning the liceity of conjugal intercourse exercised because of pleasure alone, or for preserving one's own health, or for avoiding temptations of fornication. All these disputes are of little practical utility. For in practice spouses are not to be disturbed if they exercise the conjugal act in an ordinary and honorable manner without actually thinking about some particular end. The reason is that the conjugal act performed in a natural manner fosters marital love, while marital love redounds to the good of offspring; and all teach that the conjugal act is licit because of the good of offspring. St. Thomas also seems to be understood in this sense when he teaches: "In only two ways do spouses come together without any sin, namely, for the sake of procreating offspring and of rendering the debt; otherwise there is always at least venial sin there."³⁸⁹

6. The conjugal act is illicit if one's own health, or that of the other spouse or the offspring, is thereby gravely and proximately endangered. Therefore spouses are not permitted to come together, for example, if one of them suffers from a grave contagious disease and especially from venereal disease,³⁹⁰ or if danger of abortion threatens the conceived offspring from intercourse. Small injuries to health or light bodily inconveniences, however, neither render the conjugal act illicit nor dispense from rendering the conjugal debt. - Authors customarily ask here whether the conjugal act is licit during menstruation and puerperal cleansing, because in these circumstances intercourse not rarely becomes harmful. The only true response to this question is this: Particular cases are to be considered; if grave harm truly arises for certain spouses in these circumstances, either for themselves or for offspring to be born, intercourse is illicit; otherwise it is not.

During menstruation it certainly is not fitting to exercise intercourse, but the opinion of the ancient authors who thought that during menstruation none were conceived except "those damaged in their members, the blind, the lame, and lepers" is not true.³⁹¹ The ceremonial or judicial law of the Old Testament prohibited intercourse during menstruation under penalty of death,³⁹² but this law no longer binds. In the Old Testament this law was wise both for fostering chastity, for avoiding superstition, and for guarding against grave diseases which, because of special circumstances among the Jews of that time, could easily arise from such intercourse.³⁹³

Modern physicians are accustomed to judge more severely concerning intercourse had during puerperal cleansing. Thus, for example, Capellmann³⁹⁴ says: "I consider intercourse in the first two weeks after childbirth altogether prohibited, since it is most apt to bring the gravest harm upon the woman. Indeed, during the following four weeks I do not think it licit without doubt. But since the danger at this time is no longer so great, let theologians determine what causes suffice to compensate for this danger of grave harm which may be brought upon the woman."

7. The conjugal act is illicit when it is completed in an onanistic manner. This is evident, because it is directly contrary to the good of offspring, whose generation is impeded; it is also contrary to the good of fidelity, according to which one spouse gives the other a right over his or her body, but only in order to generation. The discussion will return to the onanism of spouses below, n. 699.

8. The conjugal act is illicit if it does not occur in a secret manner and place. The reason is that scandal and most grave temptations are then caused to others. Hence parents sin gravely who come together immodestly, so that the children can perceive something.

9. The conjugal act is illicit if during it a spouse thinks as though he or she were joined with another person. For such a thought is spiritual adultery. The Angelic Doctor³⁹⁵ writes aptly concerning this matter: "If pleasure is sought beyond the honorableness of matrimony, so that someone does not attend in the spouse to the fact that she is a spouse, but only that she is a woman, being prepared to do the same thing with her if she were not his spouse, it is a mortal sin; and therefore such a one is called a too ardent lover of his wife, because that ardor is carried outside the goods of matrimony."

³⁸⁷ Denz., n. 1159.

³⁸⁸ In the notes to Gury, II, 908.

³⁸⁹ Suppl., q. 49, a. 5. William Peraldus, O.P., a contemporary of St. Thomas, writes concerning this matter: "The [carnal] act can be exercised without any fault and even meritoriously in three cases: 1. when it is for the sake of receiving offspring and educating it for the worship of God.... 2. when the debt is rendered to one asking.... 3. when someone demands that act so that he may guard his spouse lest the spouse fall into the sin [of incontinence]" (Summa virtut. et vitior., I, De temperantia, c. 17, Venice ed. 1571, p. 569).

³⁹⁰ Cf. above, n. 692. What is taught "concerning the matrimony of lepers" (cc. 1, 2, X 4, 8) does not oppose this doctrine, because the ancients thought that proximate danger of contagion did not arise from intercourse with a leper. Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 64, a. 1, ad 4; Billuart, De matr., diss. 4, a. 4, § 1.

³⁹¹ Thus thought, for example, St. Jerome (In Is., c. 65).

³⁹² "He that shall copulate with a woman in her menstrual flow, and shall uncover her nakedness, and she shall open the fountain of her blood, both shall be put to death out of the midst of their people" (Lev. 20:18).

³⁹³ D. Haller explains well the reason for the Mosaic law (in Eschbach, Disp. physiol.-theol., 2nd ed., 106, disp. 1, c. 8, a. 1).

³⁹⁴ Pastoralmedizin, 18th ed., p. 316. The same physician says: "In my eyes, intercourse, at least in the first weeks, appears as true brutality toward the puerperal woman."

³⁹⁵ Suppl., q. 49, a. 6.

693. Corollary. On acts accessory to marital intercourse. Not only is the conjugal act itself licit, but so also are all accessory acts, whether mutual or solitary, which are either necessary or useful for completing the conjugal act. The reason is obvious; for if the end is licit, all honorable means not prohibited from another source are also licit, so that this end may be obtained. Certainly spouses are to be exhorted to exercise the conjugal act with great modesty, and especially the woman is with all her strength to take care for her modesty and honor; but a mortal sin is never committed by spouses in this matter unless there occurs either pollution of either party, foreseen and culpably willed, or at least the proximate danger of pollution. Absolutely all other lustful acts had between spouses are at most venial sins and often lack every fault. Hence the confessor acts badly if he torments spouses concerning this matter with inopportune questions and renders confession hateful to them. It is much better to leave spouses in good faith or to admonish them only generally to preserve modesty.