Article II. On The Obligation Of The Conjugal Act

694. Principle 1. Whenever either spouse reasonably and seriously requests the conjugal debt, the other is bound in justice to render it, and indeed under grave sin.

Explanation. St. Paul expressly says: "Let the husband render the debt to his wife; and the wife also in like manner to the husband."³⁹⁶ The reason for this obligation is the matrimonial contract, in which one spouse gives the other a right to the conjugal act. This right, however, induces an obligation of justice, and a grave one, since there is question of a matter of great moment. For all theologians teach that marital intercourse is a matter of great moment, since it is necessary for obtaining the primary end of matrimony. Hence a spouse sins gravely who obstinately denies the conjugal debt to the other spouse who seriously and reasonably requests it. Likewise, a spouse sins gravely who by fraud forestalls the other spouse so that the latter cannot request the debt; against such a spouse St. Paul argues: "Defraud not one another."³⁹⁷ Great harms are accustomed to arise from the unjust denial of the conjugal debt, namely, danger of incontinence in the other spouse, quarrels, diminution of love, divorce, and so forth. Hence women especially are to be admonished not to show themselves difficult and morose when husbands reasonably request from them intercourse or other things which are lawful to spouses; likewise, they are to be admonished to strive to please their husbands, according to that saying of the Apostle: "But she that is married [the woman] thinketh ... how she may please her husband."³⁹⁸

Smallness of matter. The obligation of rendering the debt, although of itself grave, nevertheless admits smallness of matter. Hence if a woman once or twice denies the conjugal debt to the husband, deferring it to another time more convenient for herself, it is not a mortal sin, at least if the husband is not in proximate danger of incontinence or great anger is not thereby kindled in him.

The principle thus explained must be restricted in three ways.

³⁹⁶ 1 Cor. 7:3.

³⁹⁷ 1 Cor. 7:5.

³⁹⁸ 1 Cor. 7:34.

695. Exceptions: 1. A spouse is not bound to render the debt to an adulterous spouse. This is evident from those things said above concerning divorce. For if it is lawful because of the adultery of the other spouse to effect divorce as regards dwelling, a fortiori it is lawful to deny the conjugal debt. But if the adultery committed has once been condoned, it is no longer lawful either to effect divorce or to deny the conjugal debt, as was already said above, n. 679.

2. The innocent spouse is not bound to render the conjugal debt to the other spouse if perpetual divorce has been duly pronounced by the sentence of a judge; on the contrary, just as the guilty party can be recalled to conjugal society, so also can that party be obliged to the conjugal debt. The sole exception is the case in which, with the explicit or implicit consent of the innocent party, the other party has emitted a vow of chastity or entered religion. For then every right to intercourse has been extinguished.

3. A spouse is not strictly bound to render the conjugal debt if the other spouse requests it either not seriously or not reasonably. If a spouse does not seriously request the debt, but rather expresses a desire or velleity, that spouse is not judged to urge his or her right; therefore neither is there a strict obligation of rendering the debt, nor does the other spouse sin by not acquiescing in the desire. Nevertheless, such a refusal is not to be employed often, unless the other spouse requests the debt unreasonably. For if the request is certainly unreasonable, the obligation of rendering the debt does not exist. Sometimes it happens, for example, in drunkenness, that the husband requests the debt from the wife altogether unreasonably, and indeed in an inhuman manner, intending nothing other than the truly bestial satisfaction of his own lust. Then the woman can certainly licitly deny the debt; for in the matrimonial contract she did not oblige herself to be a slave of lust, but a companion of life for the husband, and indeed one having the same rights concerning the use of matrimony as the husband has. For in other matters the wife ought to be subject to the husband, but in the use of matrimony she is altogether equal to the husband, as is evident from the text of St. Paul: "And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife."³⁹⁹ Therefore a woman who suffers grave extrinsic troubles from the conjugal act does not sin if she denies the debt once or twice, provided that she does not always refuse. For example, a woman does not sin by denying the debt to a husband requesting it every day, or while he is drunk, or during a grave illness, especially a contagious one (cf. above, n. 682), or during menstruation or cleansing. Theologians also commonly teach that a woman is not bound to render the debt if she has learned by experience that she cannot give birth without proximate danger of death. The reason is that the husband cannot demand from the wife something which she is unable to perform without proximate danger of death. The husband also requests the debt unreasonably if he wills to abuse matrimony through onanistic intercourse; for most certainly the woman could not oblige herself in the matrimonial contract to an abuse of matrimony, nor even to cooperating (although materially) in the sins of the husband. Whether, however, in this case the woman can render the debt by conducting herself passively will be said in the following article. - Intrinsic inconveniences necessarily connected with matrimony, however, according to that saying of the Apostle, "Nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh,"⁴⁰⁰ do not excuse from rendering the debt, because they could and ought to have been foreseen from the beginning of matrimony. Hence the following do not excuse: the ordinary burdens of pregnancy, childbirth, and education; nor even numerous offspring already had; nor even fear that the offspring may be born infirm, may die in childbirth, or that abortion may occur.⁴⁰¹

³⁹⁹ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 54, a. 5.

⁴⁰⁰ 1 Cor. 7:28.

⁴⁰¹ There are authors, for example, Noldin (De sexto praec., n. 92), who probably excuse a spouse from rendering the debt, with danger of incontinence excluded, if numerous offspring are already present and the spouses are so poor that they are unable to support further offspring. This opinion indeed seems to be admitted if, through the fault of either spouse, the offspring cannot be supported. For if a spouse does not furnish sufficient assistance for supporting the offspring already born, neither does that spouse have the right to generate new offspring. But if the poverty is inculpable, the spouses are to be exhorted to use matrimony moderately, committing themselves to divine Providence, which will certainly assist them.

696. Principle 2. No obligation of requesting the conjugal debt exists per se; per accidens, however, such an obligation sometimes arises from charity.

Explanation. Each spouse indeed has a strict right of requesting the debt, but is not bound to use such a right. For just as each person freely enters matrimony, so each freely requests the consummation of matrimony through carnal intercourse. Per accidens, however, an obligation of requesting the debt can be present if otherwise notable harm should arise for the other spouse. Thus, for example, a spouse is bound at least from charity to request the debt if he or she perceives that the other spouse is in danger of incontinence and does not request it because of modesty; or if the use of matrimony is necessary for fostering marital love.

697. Principle 3. By mutual free consent spouses can licitly abstain from the conjugal act either for a time or even perpetually.

Explanation. This third principle is a corollary of the second. For if neither spouse is bound to request the debt, both spouses can also by mutual and free consent abstain from requesting the debt. Such mutual consent existed in the most holy matrimony between the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph. Temporary abstinence is sometimes very useful for both the bodily and spiritual good of the spouses; but perpetual abstinence from conjugal intercourse is rarely expedient, because without this intimate conjunction of the spouses marital affection is accustomed to grow cold and grave dangers of infidelity are easily present. Therefore spouses capable of intercourse and of generating and educating offspring should not without a most special reason perpetually abstain from the use of matrimony. St. Paul also seems to intimate this, saying: "Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency."⁴⁰²

⁴⁰² 1 Cor. 7:5.