§ II. On Onanism in Particular

Onanism consists in this, that the man, after intercourse has been begun, withdraws himself before emission and pours out the semen outside, in order to impede generation. It takes its name from Onan, the second son of the patriarch Judah, who after his brother Her had died, according to custom, was compelled to take his widow Tamar, so that he might raise up seed for his brother. Moreover Onan, as is had in Gen. xxxviii, 9 and 10: "Entering to the wife of his brother, he poured out the seed upon the earth, lest children be born in the name of his brother. And therefore the Lord struck him, because he did a detestable thing."

I say. Voluntary onanism is always a mortal sin, as something grave against nature; and therefore it can never be licit for spouses. The reason is both because it is repugnant to the primary end of Marriage and of itself tends toward the extinction of society, and because it was strictly prohibited by the supreme Legislator and Author of nature, as is drawn from the text of Genesis just related. Besides, when there was a question concerning the theological note of this proposition: "For honorable reasons it is licit for spouses to use marriage in that mode in which Onan used it," response was made by the S. Penitentiary on the day 21 May 1851, that the said "proposition is scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of Marriage."

I said voluntary onanism; for a wife can be excused from sin if for a grave cause she renders the debt to an onanist husband, provided internally she does not consent to his sin, and externally shows her repugnance by serious admonitions or other signs of displeasure. The reason is that she is engaged in a licit thing and uses her right, of which she cannot be deprived on account of the malice of the man; nor does she properly cooperate with the sin of another, since she has herself only passively, and the intrinsically evil action consists only in the act of the man then withdrawing against the order of nature. This same thing was declared on the day 8 June 1842 by the S. Penitentiary in the following words:

"Since the whole disorder of the act proceeds from the malice of the man, who, instead of consummating, withdraws himself and pours out outside the vessel; therefore if the woman after due admonitions accomplishes nothing, and the man insists by threatening blows or death, she herself will be able, as approved theologians teach, simply to permit it without sin, and this from a grave cause which excuses her; since charity, by which she is bound to impede that, does not oblige with so great an inconvenience."

But in no way can a woman acquiesce to an onanist husband who would wish to use an instrument called "male protector," because intercourse of this kind would not only be completed, but also begun, against the law of nature. - Cf. Lehmkuhl, vol. 5, n. 858. To a man using such instruments the woman must oppose that resistance which a virgin opposes to an invader. It is most difficult in these frauds against nature to have or find good faith as companion of the act; for the matter is so alien to nature itself; surely the case will be rare in which bad faith is lacking.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The woman sins gravely who induces the man to abuse marriage, even indirectly or tacitly, for example, by complaining about the number of offspring, about the labors of childbirth or of the education of children, or by repeatedly saying that she will die in the next childbirth, etc.

2°. Likewise the woman sins gravely by internally consenting to the detestable action of the man, even if externally she shows repugnance. Yet if she admits an inefficacious complacency not concerning the evil work in itself, but only concerning the effect that follows, say concerning immunity from the inconveniences of gestation or from the dangers of childbirth, of itself she does not sin, although complacency of this kind sometimes does not lack danger. But one must altogether beware lest, by manifestation of it made to the man, she render him more spirited for sinning more freely and more often.

3°. The wife is bound, at least ordinarily, to warn the onanist man concerning the obligation of acting rightly, and, insofar as it is in her, to turn him away from the perverse manner of acting. Nor does it suffice that she has warned him once, but sometimes she must repeat the admonitions, unless she is certain that a new admonition will profit nothing. Nevertheless then also she must make her repugnance manifest in some way.

4°. It will also be the office of the wife to move the husband by blandishments, various signs of love, prayers, and exhortations to completing the act rightly or abstaining from it altogether, because experience establishes that very many onanist men, allured by their wives, have betaken themselves to a better fruit. Today especially wives can more easily induce onanist husbands to abstain, since this abstinence, as will be said at once, ought not to be long-lasting.

5°. Various means are nowadays applied for impeding the generation of offspring, such as an envelope into which the man emits semen, or a sponge, or an occlusive pessary, or washing, or infusion of a killing liquid, or any other method exercised either before the act, or in the act, or after the act toward that most evil end. All these put on the character and most grave malice of Onanism; for they are repugnant to the very primary end of marriage, and are against nature. Onanism or voluntary sterility thus induced is surely always grave sin: generally speaking, it has arisen from a materialistic and pagan conception of life; therefore the doctrine of the Christian faith must be opposed to it: our life is a way to the fatherland, and the time of probation must be passed in observing the very laws of God. The joys and burdens of Marriage must be borne holily, and confidence in Divine Providence must be increased. Numerousness of offspring is a sign of divine blessing; the curse of God is upon those violating his law. Let mothers trust in God, to whose glory new offspring is born. - Cf. Instruction des Eveques de Belgique sur l'Onanisme. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 41, p. 616.

Question 1. What must be said concerning those who, so that no offspring may be born to them, abstain from the use of marriage for some days in each month?

Resp. As regards the truth of the matter, it must be said that today it is admitted, but not without exceptions, and consequently not with absolute certitude, that the time apt for conception is that which immediately precedes or follows the menstrual flow, when, namely, it appears both that a mature ovum is present and that whatever is necessary for the formation and nutrition of the fetus has been prepared by nature. Wherefore physiologists say, and practice often confirms it, that ordinarily no offspring arises if spouses have intercourse only during those fourteen or fifteen days which are more distant from the menstrual flow.

But as regards liceity, it certainly does not appear why limited abstinence of this kind from marital intercourse is to be condemned. For if it is licit to abstain altogether, why will it not be licit to abstain for fifteen days in each month? - Nor should you say that the sin consists in the end which is intended, namely the lack of offspring; for it is answered that to wish to lack offspring is not evil in itself and of itself, but only then, when this desire is expressed by a positive manner of acting by which offspring is either impeded from being conceived, or once conceived is destroyed. Besides, concerning this question every doubt has been removed by a recent response of the S. Penitentiary, which has itself thus: "Spouses using marriage in the aforesaid mode are not to be disturbed, and a confessor can insinuate the opinion concerning which there is question, yet cautiously, to those spouses whom by another reason he has vainly attempted to lead away from the detestable crime of onanism." - Cf. Nouvelle Revue Theologique, vol. 13, pp. 458 and seq. - Baller. note (a), p. 917. - Capellmann, p. 89.

Question 2. Is a spouse bound to render the debt to a co-party who is infected with a horrible disease?

Resp. If he fears that grave harm will arise to himself from it, he is not bound; but if no harm or almost no harm will arise, of itself he is bound. The reason for the first: because the infected party does not have the right. For his power over the body of the other is not as to those things which are for the preservation of the individual, but as to those things which are ordained to the generative power. And therefore "the man is bound to render the debt to the wife in those things which pertain to the generation of offspring, with nevertheless first the safety of the person preserved." The reason for the second: because no cause excusing of itself appears. Nevertheless, although in the first case of great harm he is not bound to render, surely it would be licit to do this from conjugal love and it would often be an excellent work of charity. Indeed, even if "weak offspring is generated, it is better thus to be than not to be at all," as St. Thomas says, Supp. in Sum. Theol. Q. 64, a. 1, ad. 4. In this matter any prudent man will hand himself over to be healed by the hands of an honorable physician. Nor then is much to be feared for the offspring. For as Osler says, Practice of Medicine, p. 238: Happily it happens in by far the greater number of cases that, when the applied treatment has been perfected, the offspring comes forth immune. - Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., v. 45, p. 611. - Wernz, v. 4, n. 256.

Warning. Extremes are to be avoided concerning the mode in which a confessor ought to conduct himself toward spouses altogether silent concerning the use of marriage. For just as it would be erroneous to assert that the confessor must never interrogate concerning this matter, so also to assert that he must always do so. Wherefore if there is a serious foundation, which indeed ought to be clear from the circumstances, that the penitent indulges in onanism and nevertheless confesses nothing, interrogations should be made, but altogether prudently and cautiously. And since, among us, this plague does not have roots so deep and universal as elsewhere, perhaps it will be better to be deficient than to abound in making questions.

Behold the golden words of the Supreme Pontiff, certainly worthy to be weighed:

"To pervert, both privately and publicly, that conformation of morals which the Church brought forth and polished, and to call human society back, with every trace of Christian wisdom and honesty gradually deleted in it, to the miserable institutions of the pagans: this is what today they will, what too many strive for, and would that it were without effect. But domestic society is proposed to the principal darts of the wicked; since it contains the beginnings and as it were seeds of the common society of men, they see that that conversion which they strive for, or rather corruption of the human community, will necessarily follow if once they have corrupted domestic institutions. Therefore, by sanctioning the law concerning divorces, they tear away the stability of wedlock; by compelling youth to be instructed by public discipline, which for the most part is most alien to Religion, in a matter of the greatest weight, they cut away the sinews of paternal power; and, by proclaiming the shameful art of obtaining pleasure and defrauding nature, they impiously dry up the very fountain of the human race, and they defile the sanctity of the marriage-bed with most impure morals." - Letter of Benedict XV given to Rev. Fr. Matthew Crawley Boevey, 27 April 1915.