Chapter XIV. De Debito Conjugali

Let the words of St Paul serve us as a preface, who are about to treat this unseemly matter briefly: "Let the husband render the debt to his wife," says the Apostle, "and in like manner the wife also to the husband.

The woman 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. 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." Accordingly the use of marriage is not only lawful, but the debt must be rendered in justice, under grave obligation, to the other party asking seriously and reasonably. Although this is most certain, causes are nevertheless admitted which excuse from this obligation, so that there is no obligation of rendering the debt when it cannot be rendered without danger of life or of grave illness, or when it is not reasonably asked — as by one insane or drunk — or when it is asked too often, as several times in the same night. Even to one half drunk it seems lawful to refuse the debt, especially because of the danger of grave defects, both bodily and moral, in the offspring that might be conceived, unless quarrels, discord and incontinence on the part of the one asking are thereby feared. It has been said that in these circumstances there is no obligation of rendering the debt; indeed it would of itself be unlawful to render it with proximate danger to life or health. Nevertheless, if the disease were long-lasting and not tending proximately to death, such as syphilis, the healthy party is permitted to render the debt with danger of infection, in order to avoid incontinence or to foster conjugal love.

A greater difficulty arises when, in the judgment of a physician, the offspring to be conceived would be death to the mother. Such cases, however, are not easily to be admitted; and indeed physicians pronounce judgment about danger to life the more readily because they see that women are angling for it. Unless, therefore, the case be altogether special, a confessor will safely give this counsel to a woman alleging such a judgment of a physician: that she study to please her husband, and commit herself to God with great confidence.

Since married persons are bound to render the debt to one another, it is clear that they are as a rule bound also to live together, except when necessity does not allow it, or when by mutual consent it is otherwise arranged without danger of incontinence and without scandal. To married persons who are old or weak, and who often perform the act only imperfectly, the use of marriage is not to be denied, provided there is some hope that they can duly complete the act.

¹ 1 Cor. vii-3-5.

What is lawful and what is not lawful for married persons is contained in the following general rule: what is useful for performing the conjugal act is lawful; what is against the generation of offspring, or tends to impede it, is gravely unlawful; what is not against the generation of offspring, although it be beside it, is at least not gravely unlawful.

It is lawful for a married person to excite himself to intercourse by immodest touches and looks, and, after the husband has withdrawn, it is lawful for the wife to excite herself by touches to complete venereal pleasure. Sodomitical intercourse, and intercourse begun but broken off with emission of seed outside the woman’s vessel, is gravely unlawful. If, however, it is established by experience that the spouses can break off intercourse once begun without proximate danger of pollution, this does not seem to be mortal if both consent. A fortiori other shameful touches and looks allowed by the spouses without proximate danger of pollution do not seem to be mortal sins, and they are excused from all sin if they are done for a just cause, as to foster conjugal affection.

A husband who, in incomplete intercourse, voluntarily withdraws from his wife and sheds the seed outside the vessel commits a grave sin against nature and against the end of marriage. From the deed of Onan the sin is called onanism. It is established that it is a grave sin from Holy Scripture, from the fact that it frustrates the principal end of marriage, and tends to the ruin of the human race. It is established also from several replies of the Sacred Congregations. Morally it makes no difference by what means this sin of frustrated nature is committed — whether by some instrument, or by a sheath, or by washing the woman’s vessel after intercourse, or by the mere withdrawal of the husband before emission.

If such a thing is done by the mutual counsel and consent of the spouses, both sin gravely. If, however, the husband’s withdrawal displeases the wife, and she has vainly tried to induce him to complete the act rightly, she does not seem to be forbidden to render the debt to her husband when he asks it, or even to ask it herself for a grave cause. For she co-operates only materially with the husband’s sin, and such co-operation is lawful for a grave cause. And there is a grave cause both on the husband’s side, lest he be offended, and on the wife’s side, who is not to be deprived of her marital rights with danger of incontinence. It is lawful, therefore, for the woman, even though the husband act onanistically, to take venereal pleasure in the use of marriage; indeed it is lawful for her, after the husband has withdrawn, to excite herself by touches to complete satisfaction if she has not yet experienced it. Confessors ought not as a rule to question married people about the manner in which they exercise their marital rights. If, however, a spouse proposes doubts about the lawfulness of onanism, the confessor ought briefly to explain the Catholic doctrine to him. Indeed, if he has a well-founded suspicion that the spouses are acting onanistically, whether in good or in bad faith, he ought to warn them, since a grave sin is in question, very harmful to the spouses themselves and to human society. A spouse who will not acquiesce in the Catholic doctrine on this matter is of himself incapable of absolution.

¹ Gen. xxxviii 9.

Provided intercourse can be duly completed, no posture in performing it is gravely unlawful, and an unnatural posture is made honourable, so that it is not even venially unlawful, provided some just cause is present. By the old law approach to a wife was forbidden at the time of the menses and of purgation, and indeed a similar prohibition was in force in the ancient ecclesiastical law. It seems must be said that those laws were positive and no longer bind Christians. The opinions of the Doctors vary concerning the lawfulness of such approach. The reasons which many brought forward to show the unlawfulness of the act rested on fables; nevertheless physiological science confirms the opinion according to which, on account of the nervous state of the woman at the time of the menses and of purgation, a man must abstain at least under venial sin unless a just cause excuses him. The same seems to be said of the time of pregnancy; indeed, if intercourse involved proximate danger of abortion, one would then have to abstain under grave sin. Such danger, however, can scarcely be established, and hence the obligation of abstaining cannot be urged. The opinion of many seems probable, according to which immodest touches which a spouse performs upon himself in the absence of the other party are not mortal sins, provided there is no proximate danger of pollution. The married state itself, they say, makes such acts less unbecoming, so that what in the unmarried is grave is in the married only venial. Nor does morose delectation about intercourse had or to be had — excluding again proximate danger of pollution — seem to be forbidden to married persons under grave sin. Indeed a merely rational delectation about a lawful object,

such as intercourse is for married persons, would not be even venial; in practice, however, delectation about the conjugal act can scarcely be merely rational, inasmuch as it naturally excites the senses and the members. Hence morose delectation about intercourse had or to be had is as a rule forbidden, at least under venial sin, to married persons also. To have intercourse with one’s spouse with an adulterous mind, thinking of another person besides the spouse, is a grave sin by reason of the adulterous mind.